Times Journalist Anthony Browne and social policy think-tank Civitas has published a book which highlights the inexorable growth of political correctness within Britain and its institutions. This it states is leading to a malaise that is closing down legitimate debate and restricting its ability to tackle issues and problems that are faced. The BBC news story is printed below, although it does fail to mention the corporation, which Mr Browne has identified as being one of the institutions responsible.

‘PC Thinking Is Harming Society:
Britain's institutions are infected with political correctness which is damaging society, according to a book published by a right wing think-tank.
Civitas says political correctness has allowed the creation of "Muslim ghettos" which produce suicide bombers.
PC thinking now dominates schools, councils and the media, Anthony Browne says in The Retreat of Reason.
But Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said even the term ghetto was inflammatory.
Mr Browne, a journalist for the Times, said he had been motivated to write the report by the media's coverage of rises in the number of people with HIV.
He said the rise in new infections since 1997 was down to increasing levels of HIV infected migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, but that political correctness had stopped the government tailoring public health policy to this.
The author said PC views labelled some groups as victims, and banned dissent.

"By closing down debates, it restricts the ability of society to tackle the problems that face it," Mr Browne said.
Giving one example, he told BBC News that the issues behind the Bradford riots, where most of the rioters were Asian, had not been tackled because of political correctness.
"It creates an atmosphere where it's almost impossible to actually say, look there are real issues going on here, there are real tensions going on here...
"You have ghettoisation of the mind where people don't start trusting each other, where they don't know about the wider community, where actually their opportunities are damaged because they don't know about wider mainstream British society."
But Mr Bunglawala said he objected to the use of the word ghetto.
"The very use of the word ghetto is deeply unfortunate. There's a historical pattern, when large scale immigration occurs people will tend to flock together...
"You still have Jewish areas, you wouldn't describe them as ghettos, and you know the term itself is very inflammatory."

'Moral cowardice':
Mr Browne said "soft totalitarianism" had led to "moral cowardice" and "intellectual dishonesty".
Political correctness once prevented overt discrimination but now "causes more harm than good", he said.
It caused censorship as some views were being suppressed simply because they caused offence or aroused emotions such as hatred, he said.
He said it had affected crime, education and community relations.

Terror impact:
"The most overt racism, sexism and homophobia in Britain is now among the weakest groups, in ethnic minority communities, because their views are rarely challenged, as challenging them equates to oppressing them," Mr Browne added.
Mr Browne said terrorism and the economic rise of India and China could see the end of political correctness.
As Western democracies felt more vulnerable, their inhabitants would be "more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation", he said.
"The West will no longer feel inclined to indulge in self-loathing, but will seek to reaffirm its sense of identity."’

I was debating posting a link to this earlier today..... :)

Whilst acknowledging that Civitas is a right of centre think tank, this is a very interesting report! Certainly good to see someone put the facts in to what is often regarded to a debate about 'perceptions'.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
I was debating posting a link to this earlier today..... :)

Whilst acknowledging that Civitas is a right of centre think tank, this is a very interesting report! Certainly good to see someone put the facts in to what is often regarded to a debate about 'perceptions'.

Joe

Great minds and all that Joe!:)

I was careful to include the Right Wing think tank bit but I think it true to say that despite that, the reality is fairly close to it and certainly not what some of our current political masters (or some of our fellow forummers)would have us believe.

I have been reading this report this morning and I too intended posting a link. The whole report can be downloaded.
It is definitely worth reading in full.

I am a great admirer of Browne's writing in the Times. His articles are never less than stimulating and thought-provoking.

I would recommend the Civitas report, in partiular, to the many posters on here who appear to think that political correctness is an urban myth, inspired by ludicrous folk tales about the banning of Christmas trees and the like. Browne argues that it is a very real phenomenon and one which is having both a malign and insidious influence on public policy at various levels. In particular, it is stifling public debate about important issues and is also inhibiting the presentation of important evidence about the causes of various social problems.

Here is the report in full:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47.pdf

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I would recommend the Civitas report, in partiular, to the many posters on here who appear to think that political correctness is an urban myth, inspired by ludicrous folk tales about the banning of Christmas trees and the like. Browne argues that it is a very real phenomenon and one which is having both a malign and insidious influence on public policy at various levels. In particular, it is stifling public debate about important issues and is also inhibiting the presentation of important evidence about the causes of various social problems.

Yes the phrase 'urban myth' with regard to the issue of Christmas was a popular 'put down' weeks ago particularly by a certain forum moderator. Perhaps this person ought to take issue with the current and former Archbishops of Canterbury, both hardly known for their extremist views, who saw fit to go to press themselves over the 'de-christianisation' of Christmas by PC bureaucrats. SEE HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4540538.stm) ;)

I think there's too much hot air on both sides really. Political correctness is a vague term but I don't think its really responsible for all the things this guys says it is.

For example, I think the problems behind the Bradford riots are largely a lack of investment in the area - creating large groups of unemployed white and asian males with nothing better to do than create turf wars. Where political correctness comes in is not allowing people to say that it was because 'we're letting in too many uncivilised ****' or whatever.

And I don't think many would deny the existence of pervasive political correctness - most of the urban myth outcries are not to say that PC doesn't exist, but to highlight articles in the tabloid press designed purely to sell papers - that are patently false!

While some people are too quick to deny the existence of people who will not allow a bad word to be said about ethnic minorities, others are too quick to deny the existence of a large group of white brits who would gladly shoot all dark skinned people if given half the chance. So yeah, too much denial all round really.

Political correctness has produced muslim ghettos which has produced suicide bombers?

I don't know...I'd think a more in-depth analysis would be required!

My personal oppinion is that Political Correctness is one of the most insidious ideas ever to make it into the political areana. However my take on it may be slightly different to many peoples - what I predominantly object to is the use of PC terminology to try and eradicate the differences between people. In my oppinion this is both insulting (everyone is different and should have the right to free expression) and dangerous (how can you be tolerent of anothers views if their views and differences have been verbally smoothed over so they all look the same?)

I do however have the hope that the majority of people recognise that the extreme PC folk (along with any other extreme of bigotry and PC is very much a form of bigotry) are a minority just an extremely narrow minded and vocal one!

the reason it's denounced on the forum is that everytime the right wing gets going anyone who disagrees is called pc.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Political correctness has produced muslim ghettos which has produced suicide bombers?

I don't know...I'd think a more in-depth analysis would be required!

I listened to an interview on the radio this morning and it did seem that this report was being a little ermmmm simplistic!!! Political Correctness is (IMNVHO) a bad thing - but blaming all the ills of society and the world on it is maybe missing many many levels of complexity..

Originally posted by Cyclone
the reason it's denounced on the forum is that everytime the right wing gets going anyone who disagrees is called pc.

One could equaly well say that everytime the left wing gets going anyone who disagrees is called a fascist / racist / whatever! As with most things the truth lies between the two extremes not at them!

I always laugh when some idiot on TV describes a Chairwoman as the "Chair" of some committee or other.


What have I, a bloke, been sitting on all my life.
:confused:

ps my wife...oops sorry...my partner would say it's her for most of it:)

kathy,

I recommend that you read the report in full and reflect on what Browne is really saying before responding with a knee jerk put down based on a misleading caricature (which does a disservice both to Browne and perhaps more importantly to your own ability to be challenged by arguments and evidence which are at variance with your own prejudices. Perhaps the start of a new year and the appearance of this report might be a good opportunity for you to start thinking outside of the pc box.

Originally posted by evildrneil
One could equaly well say that everytime the left wing gets going anyone who disagrees is called a fascist / racist / whatever! As with most things the truth lies between the two extremes not at them!

that doesn't alter the fact that there is little to no pc'ism on these boards and thus the general feeling that it doesn't exist. Certainly most of the reports in the tabloid press are nonesense.
Does this report give good examples of specific instances of PC'ism or just attribute over broad social problems to it?

Originally posted by evildrneil
My personal oppinion is that Political Correctness is one of the most insidious ideas ever to make it into the political areana. However my take on it may be slightly different to many peoples - what I predominantly object to is the use of PC terminology to try and eradicate the differences between people. In my oppinion this is both insulting (everyone is different and should have the right to free expression) and dangerous (how can you be tolerent of anothers views if their views and differences have been verbally smoothed over so they all look the same?)

I do however have the hope that the majority of people recognise that the extreme PC folk (along with any other extreme of bigotry and PC is very much a form of bigotry) are a minority just an extremely narrow minded and vocal one!

Neil, you are quite right about 'pc ness' being a form of bigotry and I would be the first to agree that it is by no means the only one. If I understand Browne correctly, what he is saying is that it has now become the dominant ideology in many advanced Western societies, with malign consequences. Thus it has not only pervaded our political language, but more importantly our perspectives on political and social affairs, to such a degree that it is not only stifling debate but is also preventing us from addressing the real causes of some major socio economic problems, and indeed is exacerbating these problems.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
kathy,

I recommend that you read the report in full and reflect on what Browne is really saying before responding with a knee jerk put down based on a miselading caricature (which does a disservice both to Browne and perhaps more importantly to your own ability to be challenged by arguments and evidence which are at variance with your own prejudices. Perhaps the start of a new year and the appearance of this report might be a good opportunity for you to start thinking outside of the pc box.

Sorry :confused:

Maybe the new year could be a time for you to think about not being so patronising.

whoosh.....
:D

Anyone who thinks about thier PC too long is an idiot and ought to get a life. I much prefer my toaster!;)

Originally posted by Cyclone
that doesn't alter the fact that there is little to no pc'ism on these boards and thus the general feeling that it doesn't exist. Certainly most of the reports in the tabloid press are nonesense.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. I don't think there are many 'rabidly PC' individuals on this forum however I have lost count of the number of threads where a piece of tabloid dross has been reported along with something like 'England going PC mad'. Even when it's pointed out that the vast majority of these 'articles' are completely false or at least wild misrepresentations it doesn't stop the flurry people railing against 'this PC insanity'. It appears to me that far from there being a general feeling that PCism doesnt exist many are completely convinced as to the existance of a shadowy PC brigade and far to willing to swallow any lines fed to them and blame them on encroaching PCism!

If you actually read my post it doesn't deny the pervasiveness of political correctness and that its a problem. In fact it derides people who do this. I just think some people put too much emphasis on political correctness as the root of all problems.

I've thought for ages now that in this country we're 'PC'ing ourselves to death'. Thank goodness someone has finally had the good sense and courage to say this in public, and risk all sorts of ridiculous labelling from the PC crowd.

The reason why extremist parties like the BNP get listened to at all is because people with common sense and reasonable views know they will get labelled 'racist' or whatever, simply for wanting to talk about immigration or another politically-incorrect subject, so they normally steer well clear. This results in the agenda being set by extremist views, while the vast majority of people who hold moderate views, have no voice.

This stifling of debate cannot be healthy in a democracy, surely? If something cannot be discussed genuinely and openly, it will go underground and fester - all food and drink to the extremists.

I take the point made earlier about self-loathing in western democracies, especially prevalent in Britain, it seems. This country has contributed a very great deal to the world in many areas of life, and I simply do not understand this attitude. I strongly feel that the guilty consciences (because they've had a cossetted, pampered, financially comfortable upbringing?) of the pc brigade have seriously damaged, and are continuing to damage, this country and the people in it.

We have no more to be ashamed of in this country than any other country, and have more reason to be proud of it than most.

It's about time the likes of Civitas spoke out and tried to get some sense of perspective in public life.

I'll now sit back and await the squawks of protest.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by kathythebean
Sorry :confused:

Maybe the new year could be a time for you to think about not being so patronising. I agree with you ther Kathy - well said. That man is such a bell end that it hurts! How's that for PC you cheese monkey!:cool:

The overall message of this is quite accurate.

Debate has becomes impossible! Look on this forum at any race/immigrant threads. People are either overtly aggressive or so scared of being thought of as a racist that a normal debate about serious issues becomes impossible!!
It always falls into the same pattern of left slagging right and vice versa. Im not saying i havent done this before but i have realised it gets the topic nowhere and usually the thread closed!

It would be interesting to debate Darnall. I have inside information about the politics and goings on and it is disgracefull. Yet if i was to mention anything i would instantly be classed as rasist!

It seems you cannot question anything other than the actions of the white population and to do so makes you evil. I have suffered a lot of racism from Asian and Black groups but it seems ok because im white!

Something has to change to allow a sensible discussion to take place.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm not sure I would agree with that. I don't think there are many 'rabidly PC' individuals on this forum however I have lost count of the number of threads where a piece of tabloid dross has been reported along with something like 'England going PC mad'. Even when it's pointed out that the vast majority of these 'articles' are completely false or at least wild misrepresentations it doesn't stop the flurry people railing against 'this PC insanity'. It appears to me that far from there being a general feeling that PCism doesnt exist many are completely convinced as to the existance of a shadowy PC brigade and far to willing to swallow any lines fed to them and blame them on encroaching PCism!

you're completely correct.
But those people are not the ones themselves who would (in another thread) be accused of pc'ism.

So you get the gullible, who'll believe whatever the sun tells them, who are convinced that the country has gone PC mad and that christmas just past was actually banned. And on the other hand you get the lefties, likely to be accused of pc'ism whenever they try to counter a racist comment or assumption who don't really think that it exists because they see no evidence for it...

maybe.

SP - who exactly are the pc brigade? And can you give an example of some pc'isms?

Yeah, let's have a debate about how 'debate has become impossible'. What could possibly go wrong?:D

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I have been reading this report this morning and I too intended posting a link. The whole report can be downloaded.
It is definitely worth reading in full.

I am a great admirer of Browne's writing in the Times. His articles are never less than stimulating and thought-provoking.

I would recommend the Civitas report, in partiular, to the many posters on here who appear to think that political correctness is an urban myth, inspired by ludicrous folk tales about the banning of Christmas trees and the like. Browne argues that it is a very real phenomenon and one which is having both a malign and insidious influence on public policy at various levels. In particular, it is stifling public debate about important issues and is also inhibiting the presentation of important evidence about the causes of various social problems.

Here is the report in full:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47.pdf

The reason that some people (myself included) think that political correctness is an urban myth is because of their utter contempt for tabloid newspapers. When something like "political correctness" is latched onto so strongly by scumbag publications such as the S*n and the Daily Mail, it instantly has no credibility. These papers shamelessly lie, exaggerate, manipulate and scaremonger for a living. If anybody is "stifling public debate about important issues", it's them.

As for "a malign and insiduous influence on public policy", the right-wing tabloids (especially the S*n and Mail) have far greater influence on government policy and general social attitudes than anything the "PC brigade" can do.

It's a crying shame that Brass Eye isn't still running. Chris Morris could do a great show on this. :(

To echo Daley, the claim that the press has become insidously PC is just laughable. If you avoid the guardian and the independent, pretty easy really, I don't see where else the PC brigade have their claws in - obviously not in the Times!

Originally posted by miniminch
Yeah, let's have a debate about how 'debate has become impossible'. What could possibly go wrong?:D

Unfortunately, sensible and rational debate on a range of issues HAS become virtually impossible in this country :( We can't even debate certain subjects on SF without them always descending into name-calling and personal abuse, so they are pulled/closed. If that's not stifling debate, I don't know what is.

StarSparkle :(

Originally posted by Cyclone
that doesn't alter the fact that there is little to no pc'ism on these boards and thus the general feeling that it doesn't exist. Certainly most of the reports in the tabloid press are nonesense.
Does this report give good examples of specific instances of PC'ism or just attribute over broad social problems to it?

He gives many examples, as you you will know when you read it. He also takes the trouble to define what he means by it (which many authors do not) and his definition is certainly not restricted to the stories in the tabloid press. Indeed, he was stimulated to write this report because of his own experience of a story being covered up by the BBC (and the government) because the facts did not fit in with prevailing pc orthodoxies.

As for there being no 'pc ism' on these boards, well I beg to disagree. An ideological orthodoxy can become so pervasive that it shapes our ways of looking at the world, as well as our articulation of our thoughts, in ways which we may not be aware of. It is an orthodoxy which can manifest itself in unspoken rules of social conduct and discourse and in our ways of thinking and speaking. To put it more baldly, there can be taboo thoughts as well as taboo words. I would agree that only a small number of posters on SF are pc fanatics, but I think that pc ideology has become so pervasive that it does serve as an important influence upon, even determinant of, the nature of political, social and economic discussions on here. Every age has its orthodoxies and its heresies. Those who challenge pc orthodoxies are the new heretics - and I am pleased to note that there are some excellent posters on here who would qualify for this title, so its by no means all doom and gloom..

I think you're too pessimistic about the demise of rational debate SS. Was there ever an age when everyone could talk about everything with no problems or arguments? Isn't that where the old dinner table rule 'no religion or politics' comes from?

Originally posted by kathythebean
I think you're too pessimistic about the demise of rational debate SS. Was there ever an age when everyone could talk about everything with no problems or arguments? Isn't that where the old dinner table rule 'no religion or politics' comes from?

This isn't a dinner table, though.

The PC issue isn't one of politeness - on occasion it's an issue of modifying the truth to reflect whow some people in society would LIKE the situation to be, not how it actually is.

That's a big difference.

BTW - I'm posting here as a user, not a Moderator, and won't be moderating this thread at all.

Joe

I'm interested, LordChaverly, as to what you mean by me being in the pc box. Tell me what it is about me that makes you think I'm in this 'box'? I'd also like to know whether you see yourself as being free from any ideological constraints whatsoever? and if not, whats your ideological orthodoxy and how do you challenge it?

Originally posted by JoeP
This isn't a dinner table, though.

The PC issue isn't one of politeness - on occasion it's an issue of modifying the truth to reflect whow some people in society would LIKE the situation to be, not how it actually is.

That's a big difference.

BTW - I'm posting here as a user, not a Moderator, and won't be moderating this thread at all.

Joe

The dinner table analogy was more to do with debates about politics and religion ALWAYS descending into arguments and bitterness - I don't think this is a new phenomenon.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Unfortunately, sensible and rational debate on a range of issues HAS become virtually impossible in this country :( We can't even debate certain subjects on SF without them always descending into name-calling and personal abuse, so they are pulled/closed. If that's not stifling debate, I don't know what is.

This is true - but I think blaming that on PCism is a little simplistic. Threads that get closed/removed are typically done so because a small kernel of individuals from two opposing extremes are completely incapable of recognising that anyones else may have a different (let alone opposing) point of view and hence are incapable of forming a reasoned and rational debate for their own point of view and resort to name calling and abuse. This isn't neccesariy PCism (but can be) but simply that bane of thought and rational debate narrow minded ignorance and bigotry!

Originally posted by evildrneil
This is true - but I think blaming that on PCism is a little simplistic. Threads that get closed/removed are typically done so because a small kernel of individuals from two opposing extremes are completely incapable of recognising that anyones else may have a different (let alone opposing) point of view and hence are incapable of forming a reasoned and rational debate for their own point of view and resort to name calling and abuse. This isn't neccesariy PCism (but can be) but simply that bane of thought and rational debate narrow minded ignorance and bigotry!

Ack thats what I was trying to say!

Originally posted by Cyclone
the reason it's denounced on the forum is that everytime the right wing gets going anyone who disagrees is called pc.

I've managed to be accused of being PC and a BNP apollogist in the same day, I'm a bit confused :)

Originally posted by evildrneil
This is true - but I think blaming that on PCism is a little simplistic. Threads that get closed/removed are typically done so because a small kernel of individuals from two opposing extremes are completely incapable of recognising that anyones else may have a different (let alone opposing) point of view and hence are incapable of forming a reasoned and rational debate for their own point of view and resort to name calling and abuse. This isn't neccesariy PCism (but can be) but simply that bane of thought and rational debate narrow minded ignorance and bigotry!

well said.

Originally posted by kathythebean
I'm interested, LordChaverly, as to what you mean by me being in the pc box. Tell me what it is about me that makes you think I'm in this 'box'?

Well kathy, I do have some thoughts on this, but in view of your previous post I prefer to keep them to myself on the grounds that I might 'patronise' you. :)

Originally posted by kathythebean
I think you're too pessimistic about the demise of rational debate SS. Was there ever an age when everyone could talk about everything with no problems or arguments? Isn't that where the old dinner table rule 'no religion or politics' comes from?

That's how I see it, Kathythebean - and I'd venture to say how a lot of people see it. I honestly think people are fed up to the back teeth with all this political correctness - and are getting to the stage where they're unwilling to put up with it anymore. You can only push people so far, before they react.

Unfortunately, it's gone well beyond the level of dinner party debates. The people who govern the country are steeped in PC'ness and demonise anyone who would speak up against it. These people aren't idle chatterers round the dinner table - these people run our lives, our children's lives.

The 'chattering classes' of Islington are in no danger from the results of PC'ness - they're all nice and safe in their big houses with lots of money to shield them from the privations of life. They soothe their consciences at the expense of the rest of us.

StarSparkle

PS Please have the good manners not to call me SS - I've asked people not to do this on a number of occasions - I find it offensive. Thank you

Originally posted by kathythebean
The dinner table analogy was more to do with debates about politics and religion ALWAYS descending into arguments and bitterness - I don't think this is a new phenomenon.

Kathy,

I'm very aware of that - and politics and religion debates needn't decline in to name calling.

That seems to happen when the debating skills of the participants are lacking, I'm afraid.

And whether people like it or not, there are certain subjects on which debate is currently stifled in the UK and sometiems on this Forum by people yelling 'racist', 'fascist', or 'PC' at each other.

Bigotry isn't reserved for the right or left - it's an equally distributed problem.

Joe

which debates have been stifled by pcness then on the forum?

I can think of several long threads on immigration, the bnp, racism, the death penalty etc...

If they were stifled would they be >100 pages long?

The only way this thread can end is by somebody starting a new thread about a contentious issue. Maybe with the help of the mods pruning crap and banning anybody who just flames we could have a sensible discussion.

Originally posted by nick2
I've managed to be accused of being PC and a BNP apollogist in the same day, I'm a bit confused :)

You've probably got the ballance about right then ;)

Originally posted by Cyclone
which debates have been stifled by pcness then on the forum?

I can think of several long threads on immigration, the bnp, racism, the death penalty etc...

If they were stifled would they be >100 pages long?

How many of those 100 pages are actually spent by people yelling at each other raher than debating the issues?

After some recent experiences, I can safely say that many of these discussions descend in to name calling, racist abuse or calls for 'no platform' for certain viewpoints rather than actually debating the issues.

Quantity of posts does not equate to quality of discourse.

Joe

it's certainly not stifled though. I wasn't trying to claim that it was all highbrow discussion, just that some form of discussion does go on.
There is rather a lot of pettiness, but between all that there are generally a few people trying to actually discuss the issue, looking at the argumetns and postulations being put forward and trying to counter or reinforce them.

Originally posted by Preacher Man
The only way this thread can end is by somebody starting a new thread about a contentious issue. Maybe with the help of the mods pruning crap and banning anybody who just flames we could have a sensible discussion.

Why?

This is a perfectly good topic for debate - is debate and discourse threatened by the frequent distortion of fact to suit a desired world view?

Because that is what is happening with many issues.

Joe

can anyone truly claim to distort fact in order to support their particular world view. I doubt it's possible to be that objective.

Originally posted by Cyclone
which debates have been stifled by pcness then on the forum?

I can think of several long threads on immigration, the bnp, racism, the death penalty etc...

If they were stifled would they be >100 pages long?

Any thread you care to name that in any way deals with immigration, for example.

Many of these threads have been downright pulled, others have been closed because the mods were having to spend a huge amount of time policing them, and the rest will have been subject to 'pruning' of the more offensive posts. I believe this 'pruning' has come in more recently, as the complaints about the stifling of free speech on the forum have risen.

Extremists from both sides are guilty of this. Both sides indulge in personal abuse and name calling of a most unpleasant nature. Both sides make a farce out of debate on immigration. It's almost like both sides have a vested interest in preventing reasonable, mature debate on the issue, so they both behave appallingly in order to get certain threads pulled. That way, moderate, sensible people are denied the chance to fully discuss these issues.

Don't think it's not noticed :nono:

StarSparkle

a quick search for immigration shows an 81 page thread and a 51 page thread amongst others.

You may have a point though, because both have been locked.

I don't think you can put the locking down to pc'ism though, more likely it can be put down to people who can't actually hold a debate, which may or may not include people from all political leanings and indeed people who think they are moderates.

Why not start an immigration thread again, as you seem to think you are a moderate you can start of it off in the right vein.

ps - pruning has always been around and is (i believe) a mods preferred option, it just takes longer and sometimes they don't feel that it's worth it (which I think is a shame).

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's certainly not stifled though. I wasn't trying to claim that it was all highbrow discussion, just that some form of discussion does go on.
There is rather a lot of pettiness, but between all that there are generally a few people trying to actually discuss the issue, looking at the argumetns and postulations being put forward and trying to counter or reinforce them.

Quite so. Amid the dross there are some interesting and thoughtful posts on these issues. I think it would help if posters ignored the morons and name callers (who have nothing to say, and who are incapable of making a useful contribution) and concentrated instead on the issues being addressed.

Whist I agree that in some instances PC is taken too far (and sometimes to ridiculous extremes), I do find the motive for these kind of think tank reports quite disturbing. Apparently the report dismisses unequal pay of men and women, not as sex discrimination but because women make different choices and more often decide to give up work and raise children than men do.

Well excuse me, what sort of ‘choice’ do women have in the matter – if we want children we have to physically give birth to them, which at least means a little time off work to recover. And why is it that the woman is more likely to give up work than men? I’m sure financial conerns are the main priority for most couples, and for most couples the male partner gets paid more than the female partner, so usually it makes more sense for the woman to stop working – so for many people the fact that women are paid less results in the decision for them giving up work, not the other way around as this idiot seems to be suggesting! And what about women who don’t have children but still get paid less? How does he explain that exactly?

playing devils advocate for one minute, he probably justifies it with the argument that they might in the future choose to have children.
Is he actually saying then that it's politically correct to say that women deserve equal pay for equal work?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Quite so. Amid the dross there are some interesting and thoughtful posts on these issues. I think it would help if posters ignored the morons and name callers (who have nothing to say, and who are incapable of making a useful contribution) and concentrated instead on the issues being addressed.

often though the two are mixed within one post. Possibly some sort of point (not always a good one, but a point nonetheless) and then a bit of mindless drivel and insults. It's difficult to reply to the point whilst ignoring the personal jibes.

Originally posted by Cyclone
playing devils advocate for one minute, he probably justifies it with the argument that they might in the future choose to have children.
Is he actually saying then that it's politically correct to say that women deserve equal pay for equal work?

No, he's not saying this at all. He was commenting on recent statistics about absolute pay differentials between men and women. In other words, if all men's pay were to be added up and then compared with the pay for women, then it is undoubtedly true that in absolute terms men are 'earning' more than women. But what he is saying is that this can be due to many factors other than discrimination in the work place, such as the demands of child rearing, career duration and even of personal preference. No reasonable person would say that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an example of 'political correctness'.

Originally posted by banesmabes
Whist I agree that in some instances PC is taken too far (and sometimes to ridiculous extremes), I do find the motive for these kind of think tank reports quite disturbing. Apparently the report dismisses unequal pay of men and women, not as sex discrimination but because women make different choices and more often decide to give up work and raise children than men do.

Well excuse me, what sort of ‘choice’ do women have in the matter – if we want children we have to physically give birth to them, which at least means a little time off work to recover. And why is it that the woman is more likely to give up work than men? I’m sure financial conerns are the main priority for most couples, and for most couples the male partner gets paid more than the female partner, so usually it makes more sense for the woman to stop working – so for many people the fact that women are paid less results in the decision for them giving up work, not the other way around as this idiot seems to be suggesting! And what about women who don’t have children but still get paid less? How does he explain that exactly?

The principle of equal pay for equal work is enshrined in EU law and therefore in UK law. As far as I am aware, it is now illegal for employers to do otherwise than to offer the same rates of pay for equal work. I don't think Browne is questioning this and he certainly does not cite it as an example of political correctness. What he does criticise is positive discrimination in the workplace (of the kind a Labour Cabinet minister, Patricia Hewitt was recently caught red-handed at when she over-ruled an appointments panel which had unanimously chosen a male candidate and appointed a less qualified female instead).

Originally posted by Cyclone
playing devils advocate for one minute, he probably justifies it with the argument that they might in the future choose to have children.
Is he actually saying then that it's politically correct to say that women deserve equal pay for equal work?

In reading the section of the report focusing on this topic the author unequivocally states that equal pay for equal work is the only way to go, it is what is fair, and what is sensible in a modern economy. So far so good. However he seems to just sweep addressing sex discrimination away completely by arguing that differences in pay would still exist even if sex discrimination were erradicated. He argues then men should get paid more because, on average, they work more hours, and more years than women. He also suggests that low pay is almost a choice some women take because they prefer to do more socially rewarding work.

He fails to question why these more socially rewarding jobs are lower paid in the first place, or to question that the amount of experience someone has doesn’t necessarily mean that they are better at a job than someone else with less experience (I see this in my job every day, where we have some people plodding along in the same jobs in a mediocre way for years, but then you get someone new in who makes them look like amatuers within a few months!).

To me he is saying that we shouldn’t even try to tackle sex discrimination because the differences in pay are justified, while he completely misunderstands that his justifications for women getting lower pay are a result of sex discrimination anyway (e.g. lower pay for what are traditionally female roles – i.e. what the author refers to as more socially rewarding roles), or are a misunderstanding (or simplification at best) on what makes someone a good employee deserving of greater pay (the good old idea that the longer you are around the better you do the job, or the more suited for a promotion).

I promise i'll read this report at some point.

It sounds like he was trying to be fairly realistic actually though.

It probably is that case that differences in pay would still exist. If it's true that men simply work longer hours and for more years (given that on average men and women get better at a job at the same rate) on average then a man would get paid more. Any sensible organisation will link promotion and pay to performance not to time served, and that would apply equally to men and women.

Regarding the socially rewarding jobs... I'm not sure. There are still historical imbalances that were due to discrimination, just look at the NHS for example where they are still struggling to get over years of discrimination in pay against nurses.

The pay seems to be less for jobs that people may actually want to do (in most cases 'socially rewarding' roles) because the employer doesn't have to offer the high levels of pay they may want to for jobs that people may otherwise not want to do. It happens not only in 'socially rewarding' but also in roles such as rsearch which are pretty critical to the economy but are comparatively poorly paid because many people actively want to do the job hence the financial package attached doesn't have to be as convincing.

And I think what he is actually saying is that the differences in pay between men and women are more to do with lifestyle choices and hours / years worked than sexism - but that sexism is the PC response and so the one that is pushed...

Originally posted by Cyclone
can anyone truly claim to distort fact in order to support their particular world view. I doubt it's possible to be that objective.

I'm obfuscating.

I meant that some people lie.

Which is what seems to have happened with some of the case studies in the document mentioned at the start of the thread. The published stories reported in the document manipulate the information and facts available to give a 'PC' version of reality.

The authors of the 'PC' versions of stories selectively use the facts - emphasise some, discount others, apply 'spin'. Generally not giving a fair hearing to the parts of the story that don't support their viewpoint.

Joe

But Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said even the term ghetto was inflammatory.

Perhaps Mr Bunglawala finds the term ghetto inflamatory because of it's Jewish connection? or is that racist? or is he racist? or not pc? or whatever?
If anyone's interested the original ghetto was a Venitian foundry area that became an enclave for the Jewish community originally forced but later voluntarily, it wasn't until some 700 years later it became associated with high density, poor quality housing where ethnic groups congregated

Originally posted by Cyclone


I don't think you can put the locking down to pc'ism though, more likely it can be put down to people who can't actually hold a debate, which may or may not include people from all political leanings and indeed people who think they are moderates.


I didn't actually say that it was caused by 'PC' - it's just that there are certain topics which are difficult to debate without name calling, and I did suggest that it was poor debating skills as well as bigotry on both sides.

As for pruning - yes, I like to do it, but there are times when after pruning stuff out the same people come back and post the same material again - quite frequently, it often seems that there are deliberate attempts by some users to get threads on some 'contentious' topics deleted altogether. But that's another topic.

Joe

Originally posted by Cyclone
I promise i'll read this report at some point.

It sounds like he was trying to be fairly realistic actually though.

It probably is that case that differences in pay would still exist. If it's true that men simply work longer hours and for more years (given that on average men and women get better at a job at the same rate) on average then a man would get paid more. Any sensible organisation will link promotion and pay to performance not to time served, and that would apply equally to men and women.

Regarding the socially rewarding jobs... I'm not sure. There are still historical imbalances that were due to discrimination, just look at the NHS for example where they are still struggling to get over years of discrimination in pay against nurses.


Unfortunately there are still many organisation (including most, if not all public sector organisations) who simply reward length of service and give automatic pay rises after certain periods of time. These are only withheld in very serious circumstances, e.g. if the person has been subject to disciplinary proceedings and as part of the punishment the pay rise is to be withheld. Having worked in local government (and recruited within it) I can honestly say that the culture of giving someone a promotion because they have been around for a long time, regardless of their performance in their current job (as long as it was average or better) and regardless of their performance at interview, is still alive and well.

I am not sure that the length of time worked would have such an effect on differences in pay as this man seems to be advocating. I don’t think most part-time workers lose out on the gaining experience front as much as those who take breaks from work completely. Part-time work is still regular work, and still provides regular, ongoing opportunities to develop competencies. Employers are also obliged to provide the same access to training and development to part-time employees. So this shouldn’t create too much of a disparity between men and women.

Career breaks are more of an issue – however I think the big problem here with equal pay, is that women are being under-utilised when returning to work. Often their skills are ignored because employers cannot get past the “she’s not worked for the last 2 years” part of her CV. So women usually go into much lower paid work than they are capable of. It’s not even a case of “she’s got no experience in the last two years” as “she’s not worked for so long she must have forgotten all the skills she gained before the break” – women are often treated at this stage of their careers as if they are starting out again and have no relevent skills or experience.

It would be interesting to see how much the pay gap could be narrowed if women were employed in positions that they were better suited and qualified for, rather than being written off by employers. Yes, a pay gap may still exist because they have had less chance to develop competencies that lead to higher pay, but I am sure it would be a much smaller gap than we have now.

The imbalance in pay for socially rewarding jobs (like nursing) when compared with other traditionally male occupations of a similar difficulty and value, is one of the main reasons why there is this pay gap between men and women. Generally, two people working in the same job will be on the same pay (or the same scale) whether they are male or female – it is the disparity of pay across very different jobs that have the same value where the problems arise.

What I don’t like about what the author says on this issue is that he seems to be suggesting we shouldn’t bother to even try to do anything about it.

Originally posted by JoeP
it often seems that there are deliberate attempts by some users to get threads on some 'contentious' topics deleted altogether. But that's another topic.

Joe

An example is that amusing episode of a day or two ago when someone masquerading as a new member claimed to be shocked by what he had read on a thread and said that he would not be visiting here again. He was exposed as someone with another name on here and was promptly and in my view deservedly banned.

so are we being pc if we say that nursing is probably the worst example of women being paid less than equally skilled men (in different fields) in the country?

Hasn't one of the trusts had to settle recently out of court with a nurse who took them to court because a plumber (or electrician or something similar) got paid more by the trust than a skilled nurse (grade E I think)?

If that's PC then i guess i'm guilty.

Do male nurses get paid more than female nurses then ?

Originally posted by nick2
Do male nurses get paid more than female nurses then ?

No. Hence why I specifically made a comparison to an equally skilled and valuable job, but one which is predominintly male.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
An example is that amusing episode of a day or two ago when someone masquerading as a new member claimed to be shocked by what he had read on a thread and said that he would not be visiting here again. He was exposed as someone with another name on here and was promptly and in my view deservedly banned.

So was his new account banned, his old account banned or both banned?

Has he re-registered since?

Anthony Browne's claims that political correctness has created Muslim ghettoes and has prevented the issues behind the Bradford riots being tackled are untrue and I say that as someone who lived in Bradford before the riots, who left before the riots and, from what I witnessed in the years that I was there, is absolutely sure what "the issues behind the Bradford riots" were.

When I lived in Bradford there were three so-called "Asian" areas: Manningham, Bowling and the West End. All three areas were just outside the city centre and were mostly made up of streets of terraced houses built in the 19th Century to house people who worked in the nearby mills. When those areas were built the houses were occupied by white people but since the 1960's those areas have become more racially mixed. Did this happen because of political correctness? No. Even if the local council had wanted to change the racial composition of those areas for a political reason it could do little because the mills that were short of skilled labour and the houses that the newly arrived workers from the Asian subcontinent moved into were privately owned. So where did all the white people go and why?

Most of the white people moved to villages or new council estates further out of the city. Why? In some cases people will have moved because many of the houses they moved into were bigger and newer than the houses they were leaving (although not in all cases because some people moved into bungalows or flats). However, in some cases people will have moved because they didn't want to live near P***s, they didn't want their children to play in the street with or go to school with P***s and they didn't want their children to go out with P***s. When white people started leaving those areas the people who moved into the houses they didn't want were mainly Asian (but not exclusively) and the process which is known as "white flight" continued. White flight isn't a product of political correctness: it's a product of racism in white people.

The white racists in Bradford didn't stop being racists when all the white people who wanted to leave the inner cities had done so. They prevented Asian people settling in the villages and council estates because when a few tried to move to those places they and their homes were attacked and they fled back to the inner cities. They tried to claim that Asian areas received favourable treatment when compared to white areas which were in greater need of resources (and if you knew any of Bradford's spectacularly rough council estates you could see why those areas were in need of resources - they were being systematically ransacked and vandalised by some of the residents, either to make money to buy drugs or just for a laugh). And they kept on trying to incite racial hatred, abusing and assaulting Asian people and spreading rumours about Asian customs (such as the claim that Muslims were exempted from paying income tax because of their religion). The white racists in Bradford who wanted to incite racial hatred got some help from outside the city too, including help from elements in the local media and from groups on the far-right.

Eventually some young Asian lads decided that they weren't going to suffer racist abuse in silence like their parents and grandparents did and decided to dish out some racist abuse of their own. It was wrong and it only made matters worse but anyone who spent a significant amount of time in Bradford before the riots should have seen it coming. How can immigrants fully integrate into a society in which they are frequently told that they are not welcome and are routinely abused?

[i]

Eventually some young Asian lads decided that they weren't going to suffer racist abuse in silence like their parents and grandparents did and decided to dish out some racist abuse of their own. It was wrong and it only made matters worse but anyone who spent a significant amount of time in Bradford before the riots should have seen it coming. How can immigrants fully integrate into a society in which they are frequently told that they are not welcome and are routinely abused? [/B] they could make a start by not taking the law into their own hands and rioting,the shops they looted im sure were not all racist owned, the cars they burnt out,how did they define that they belonged to racists ? their parents have integrated,and many hold top places in the community,they got there by hard work,not by throwing petrol bombs at the police and ambulance crews

but its equally true to say that once an area has a 'riot' they then seem to get millions thrown at them to improve it. Not saying its right but its what happens. Perhaps the money should be invested before the carnage and then the need to 'rebel' wouldn't be so great..

Originally posted by Cyclone
so are we being pc if we say that nursing is probably the worst example of women being paid less than equally skilled men (in different fields) in the country?

Hasn't one of the trusts had to settle recently out of court with a nurse who took them to court because a plumber (or electrician or something similar) got paid more by the trust than a skilled nurse (grade E I think)?

If that's PC then i guess i'm guilty.

This is where I feel he is a little vague at best, and completely contradictory at worst. He says in one breath that work of equal value deserves equal pay. But he later says that blaming sex discrimination for disparities in pay is the knee-jerk reaction of the politically correct, and detracts attention from the "real" causes which are men and women's different roles in life and different choices/priorities. He argues that these causes would still be present if there were no sex discrimination.

He then uses the example of women being more attracted to socially rewarding work to explain why women are paid less than men, without seeming to realise that the reason these jobs are paid less in the first place is because they were traditionally done by women and hence were seen as less important than traditionally male roles and hence were paid less. He doesn't seem to think that it is even an issue that socially rewarding jobs attract lower pay, and the report suggests that if women choose these kinds of jobs then they can't really be surprised that they are then paid less than men.

The lack of questioning by the author about why socially rewarding roles attract lower pay, and ommission of any acknowledgement that there is even a problem, seems to contradict what he says earlier about jobs of equal value deserving equal pay.

Originally posted by Internetowl
So was his new account banned, his old account banned or both banned?

Has he re-registered since?

I believe they were both banned - I have no idea if he has re-registered.

Originally posted by evildrneil
The pay seems to be less for jobs that people may actually want to do (in most cases 'socially rewarding' roles) because the employer doesn't have to offer the high levels of pay they may want to for jobs that people may otherwise not want to do. It happens not only in 'socially rewarding' but also in roles such as rsearch which are pretty critical to the economy but are comparatively poorly paid because many people actively want to do the job hence the financial package attached doesn't have to be as convincing.



Market forces can and do play a role in job salaries, however this is only part of the equation, and has only a limited impact on 'socially rewarding' roles, when compared to other roles. For instance I recruit for care workers. Across the industry the pay is low, there are a huge number of vacancies and a general lack of interest among job seekers. 'Socially rewarding' roles are often the most difficult roles to recruit to, because most people will not consider doing them. These roles are also more likely to be within the public/not-for-profit sector and hence there is a limit on how much (if any) extra money can be set aside for increasing salaries and therefore attracting more people.

Excellent thread. I' glad you mention the right of centre nature of the people who published the report.

I would go further than that though. The times is a newspaper with a tireless right wing agenda
I worked as a reporter in Belfast in the 1980s, and it was wiedely believed by journalists there, that at least two of the Times staff were MI5 plants and thge times frequently published their stories, always without named sources, and always convenient to the wishes of the alliance which then existed between the Unionist establishment and the far right of the conservative party.

While not calling into question the credentials of the authors of the report in any way, I'm merely saying that any paper which only ever reports the facts - and sometimes fiction - which supports it's agenda,has lost it's credibility.

Admitedly, I haven't read the report, but what are you going to do about such a vague notion as political correctness.

Maybe something could be done about the excesses if PC hadn't been used as a tool to bash people with legitamate political aspirations for so long.

The first thing which will have to be done is seperate what is real polical correctness from what is just a glibly used term to discredit anyone with left of centre views.

Good luck.

Originally posted by donkey
.

Admitedly, I haven't read the report, but what are you going to do about such a vague notion as political correctness.



But Browne is careful to define his usage of the term. If you read the report he acknowledges that it has been used in various ways and therefore is careful to explain what he means by it (his usage is only tangentially related to the archetypal banning of Christmas trees and the like).

pc its all cobblers !!!! its common sense we want

You know I woke up this morning thinking that I was the tolerant one for not judging people on the basis of their sec, religion, creed or colour, but I know better now.

But I know better now, and actually its people like me that are to blame for all the hatred in the world today.

I am so glad that this extreme right wing propoganda was brought to my attention.

Yo be fair, this may not be the way the actual report was written and it may well be reasonable, but this was the way in which it was presented on the news programme I heard it on.

Originally posted by Yodameister
You know I woke up this morning thinking that I was the tolerant one for not judging people on the basis of their sec, religion, creed or colour, but I know better now.

But I know better now, and actually its people like me that are to blame for all the hatred in the world today.

I am so glad that this extreme right wing propoganda was brought to my attention.

Yo be fair, this may not be the way the actual report was written and it may well be reasonable, but this was the way in which it was presented on the news programme I heard it on.

Yoda,

There is a very long tradition of leftist intolerance (Orwell experienced this and wrote about it for example in 'Homage to Catalonia'). In the 1960s, it even had a slogan, invented by the academic charlatan and pied piper Herbert Marcuse which went something like 'tolerance for the left, intolerance of the right' (and by the right, he was not talking about the far right). This principle of selective tolerance unfortunately still has an appeal to certain groups.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Yoda,

There is a very long tradition of leftist intolerance (Orwell experienced this and wrote about it for example in 'Homage to Catalonia'). In the 1960s, it even had a slogan, invented by the academic charlatan and pied piper Herbert Marcuse which went something like 'tolerance for the left, intolerance of the right' (and by the right, he was not talking about the far right). This principle of selective tolerance unfortunately still has an appeal to certain groups.

'Selective tolerance' - you've hit the nail right on the head there, LordChaverly.

"You are at liberty to say anything you like, as long as it agrees with what I want you to say" seems to be the real agenda of the so-called 'liberals' who espouse political correctness. They are so convinced of their own self-righteousness, however, they seem unable to understand that others may have an equally valid viewpoint.

They are as potentially totalitarian and as intolerant of opposing views as any other extremists - perhaps even more so, as they seem convinced their path is the only truly moral one.

StarSparkle

Some examples of political Correctness here (http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/politicalcorrectness.htm)

- amongst which I notice "Some shopping precincts throughout the UK banned the Salvation Army and other Christian groups from singing carols to shoppers in case they offended other religions."

I did post here on the absence of the Sally Anns in Fargate this Christmas, but the thread was rather truculently dumped by Mod Max :hihi: :hihi:

Anyway Sheffield CC wouldn't be that stupid, - would they ?

Edit: and another interesting viewpoint here (http://www.brugesgroup.com/news.live?article=8963&keyword=10)

Originally posted by Greybeard

I did post here on the absence of the Sally Anns in Fargate this Christmas, but the thread was rather truculently dumped by Mod Max :hihi: :hihi:

You don't mean this one do you?

A very undumped post by Greybeard (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=799870&highlight=fargate#post799870)

I won't hold my breath for an apology.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Yoda,

There is a very long tradition of leftist intolerance (Orwell experienced this and wrote about it for example in 'Homage to Catalonia'). In the 1960s, it even had a slogan, invented by the academic charlatan and pied piper Herbert Marcuse which went something like 'tolerance for the left, intolerance of the right' (and by the right, he was not talking about the far right). This principle of selective tolerance unfortunately still has an appeal to certain groups.

I did not say that intolerance is the sole property of the right.

Some people are intolerant. Some people are right wing. The people who wrote this report are in my opinion both.

There is nothing inherently wrong about having right wing views, or left wing views. Members of both wings are capable of having opinions that I find offensive.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Some examples of political Correctness here (http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/politicalcorrectness.htm)

I thought that we had been through most of those 'examples' and decided that they were misleading cobblers? :confused:

Originally posted by Yodameister

Some people are intolerant. Some people are right wing. The people who wrote this report are in my opinion both.



Right of centre, yes.

Intolerant? For wishing to be able to discuss topics more widely with fewer pre-packaged preconceptions?

I'm intrigued as to how you can come to that conclusion.

Surely there is greater tolerance in discussing a wide range of views on a particular topic than only allowing debate to range around an arena of discourse defined by whether something is viewed as 'heresy' by some group or another?

To control thought is the true aim of all totalitarians. To go back to Orwell, the true horror of 1984 wasn't the Thought Police; it was the possibility of a language (Newspeak) that would prevent the formation of heretical or 'criminal' ideas. If 'PC' restricts what can be debated, then it's a step in that direction.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Right of centre, yes.

Intolerant? For wishing to be able to discuss topics more widely with fewer pre-packaged preconceptions?

I'm intrigued as to how you can come to that conclusion.


Joe, as I said in my original post, I was talking about how this paper was presented on the news programme that I heard it on.

I agree such issues whould be talked about openly. What I do not agree is that anyone is stopping anyone talking about them.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Joe, as I said in my original post, I was talking about how this paper was presented on the news programme that I heard it on.

I agree such issues whould be talked about openly. What I do not agree is that anyone is stopping anyone talking about them.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree on whether anyone is stopped talking about things.

I believe from the report mentioned that there are 'roadblocks' in place that make discussion of some topics difficult. There are certain topics on this Forum where I think VERY carefully about what I type. Not because I'm trying to avoid being wilfully offensive, but because I am concerned that unless I do take care with what I write someone will accuse me of some '-ism' or '-phobia' that is the last thing on my mind.

Joe

Originally posted by max
You don't mean this one do you?

A very undumped post by Greybeard (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=799870&highlight=fargate#post799870)

I won't hold my breath for an apology.

None forthcoming, - I didn't claim that you deleted it, you dumped it it in the "I'm Really Bored" section and in a pretty ill-mannered fashion to boot.

But I had to smile at the "unterführer" bit :P

Whilst on one hand I recognise we live in a multi-cultural society and we have to accept the views and cultures and a variety of differences.... we do. That is what makes us culturally different. We as people should endeavor to look at the virtues that have made us a truly strong and incredible nation.... and one of those virtues has been freedom of speech.

We are a very desirable Country for people to live in who are attracted by our liberal and accepting society.

Only a day ago I was called a racist because I posted a thread on immigration and the UK.... I felt intimidated to answer back.... after all, what was my defence.... I am not racist but one poster pointed out that I must be just by denying it.... others tore the letter apart.... this is debate, yes! but just because I start a debate on immigration doesn't automatically make me a racist and I am entitled to sympathise with another persons point of view.

Only recently here a local Library has taken away all Christian paraphernalia and banned the local Bible meets but instead allowed the Muslim mothers group to still attend.... the Muslims are outraged as they fear a backlash and have no problem with a Christian identity.... they understand we live in a multi cultural society.... most ethnic races simply want to get on with life but the die hard idiots of pc ruin it for everyone.

Look at the Metropolitan Police force.... their policy of discrimination against white applicants in favour of ethnic ones.... and fast tracking for ethnic recruits.... it is not a lie, it is fact. Is this not pc going mad? People should be promoted on their merit not their skin colour as this makes a mockery out of pc itself.... it is damaging us all in one way or another.

At the end of the day we should harness the quality of immigrants and give them aspiration not an excuse to be excluded by society because we think we are trying to protect them..... That is exactly what the pc brigade is doing. It is having the opposite affect.

We are supposed to enjoy freedom of speech in the UK.

Is it time for the politically correct people to keep quiet on important issues and let the nation make their own minds up once the facts have been presented?

This is in response to the story of the book by Anthony Browne, "The Retreat of Reason" which has been in the news today.

Just curious.

What do the good people of Sheffield think?

See here for what the good ppl of Sheffield think:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80867

Is it time for the politically correct people to keep quiet on important issues and let the nation make their own minds up once the facts have been presented

Thank you for your input. I will keep keep quiet from now on.

I don't know whether this website/organisation has been mentioned:

http://www.capc.co.uk/

Mod note: Miniminch & LordChaverly, pack it in please. If you want to call each other names then please do it by PM - it's free and we don't have to listen to you.

I would say that "'PC' thinking" is probably one of the lesser kinds of threatening "'types' of thinking" on the market today.

That is not to say it isn't damaging - although most of the damage is done by dividing people over whether it is a threat or not- but as long as we have forum Stakhanovites like Chaverly to alert us to the rising tide of "'PC' Thinking" and how to fight this insidious enemy, we may sleep safely in our beds.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and in many cases of 'political correctness gone mad' (however you define it) it's the good intentions that are at the root of it.

Never mind though. It's a diverting Aunt Sally for a bit.

Although it is gradually becoming politically correct to be "against political correctness".

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Although it is gradually becoming politically correct to be "against political correctness".

Hehe, I've been quietly musing that very idea for a while now.

I wonder if when the cry of 'political correctness gone mad' goes up it's merely unintended vernacular for 'I'm a lazy thinker'.

Originally posted by JoeP
Certainly good to see someone put the facts in to what is often regarded to a debate about 'perceptions'.

Joe

Like everybody else, Browne is putting his own personal spin on things - see the quote below - a direct lift from the Times article.

"This moral dilemma was illustrated by the Government’s announcement of the review of its out-of-control disability benefits system. Like all decent people, I want to support the genuinely disabled, but you don’t do that by creating a vast victim class of disabled people, and giving them a financial reward — all you do is encourage people on the margins to persuade a doctor to classify themselves as disabled, rather than encourage them to confront real problems, such as the lack of training."

So the inference is that disability benefits system is out of control because of the actions of the present government - when anyone working in the arena knows that governments for the last 20 years have been using incapacity / disability benefits (or turning a convenient blind eye to their use) in order to keep unemployment figures down.

Absolutely nothing to do with political correctness, everything to do with political expediency.

The Triumph of the East
By Anthony Browne
The Guardian | January 27, 2005

'Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all'.

This is just one of the enlightening pieces I found when I searched the web for some of this great thinker's work.

Almost everything I found by him related to the dangers of Islam and immigration.

Mr Browne says that people who raise these issues will invariably be labled facists by the pc people. It doesn't stop him though.

So, serious journalist raising pertinent points, or laughable obsessive who's carved himself a nice niche uncovering 'evidence' of the overthrow of British culture by immigrants and their pc brigade henchmen/wimmin.

Sorry StarSparkle, I've never heard you ask people not to call you SS otherwise I wouldn't have done it.

I would agree the guy has written on emotively other topics and we've already agreed on the fact he's right wing.

What he's written on other topics doesn't necessarily affect what he's written here, donkey, unless it's an attempt to change the subject and get the old hobby-horse of Islamic Fundamentalism raised in to this thread, so people can really have a good shout and get the thread locked? ;)

And looking at what happens on SF when issues like that ARE discussed, he's possibly not far wrong in some of his conclusions.

However, elsewhere this morning on the Forum there is a wonderful example of official PC with regard to a Job Centre advert.

Longcol - good point about expedience and correctness - I'd actually argue that the PC arguments are used as a wall of lies and half-truths to protect political expediency. You simply make it impolitic for anyone to debate thos area where policy has been expedient.

Joe

Originally posted by Tony
Hehe, I've been quietly musing that very idea for a while now.

I wonder if when the cry of 'political correctness gone mad' goes up it's merely unintended vernacular for 'I'm a lazy thinker'.

That's rather unfair, Tony.

I'd say that some of the posters on this thread, and I'd include myself in the description, are hardly lazy thinkers.

We tend to put arguments together - not exactly laziness.

The whole problem with PC I have is that it restricts arguments by restricting what it is politic to discuss. PC has entered in to the language as a shorthand, and in some ways that's unfortunate, but as the alternative would be to write 'that's a lie' on numerous occasions, and it's been in the language for a couple of decades now, I think the use is valid.

Certainly on SF, on occasion, anyway. :)

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
What he's written on other topics doesn't necessarily affect what he's written here, donkey, unless it's an attempt to change the subject and get the old hobby-horse of Islamic Fundamentalism raised in to this thread, so people can really have a good shout and get the thread locked? ;)

I agree with donkey. Browne sounds like a male Melanie Phillips. I was very interested to read the following in the Civitas report:

This transfer of allegiances was confirmed by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which commissioned a report on anti-Semitism in Europe, and then suppressed it when the authors concluded that the main cause of rising anti-Semitism in Europe is Muslim youths, not skinheads and neo-fascists. The EMCR told the authors, who were Jewish, that the report would undermine their work helping Muslims, who are the most discriminated-against religious group in Europe, and told them to rewrite it to portray the main perpetrators as white racists. When the authors protested that was contrary to the evidence, the EMCR rewrote the report itself, and published it with a summary and conclusion that was at total odds with the evidence actually contained within it. At the press conference, the EMCR repeatedly stated that white skinheads were to blame, despite the evidence inside the report and the views of the researchers. The Independent newspaper followed the politically correct line with an article headlined: White men blamed as attacks on Jews rise. In stark contrast, the Telegraph ran a less politically correct but more factually correct article, with the headline: EU ‘covered up’ attacks on Jews by young Muslims.

The writer neglects to mention the National Front in France took between 15% and 20% of the vote in the elections a few years ago. Somehow, I doubt young Muslims would be voting for Le Pen, or daubing swastikas on Jewish gravestones :|

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I would say that "'PC' thinking" is probably one of the lesser kinds of threatening "'types' of thinking" on the market today.

That is not to say it isn't damaging - although most of the damage is done by dividing people over whether it is a threat or not- but as long as we have forum Stakhanovites like Chaverly to alert us to the rising tide of "'PC' Thinking" and how to fight this insidious enemy, we may sleep safely in our beds.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and in many cases of 'political correctness gone mad' (however you define it) it's the good intentions that are at the root of it.

Never mind though. It's a diverting Aunt Sally for a bit.

Although it is gradually becoming politically correct to be "against political correctness".

A 'forum Stakhanovite'? That's a bit rich coming from someone with 5747 posts!

Its interesting that you mention Stakhanov in this context. It was de rigeur in the Soviet Union to accept at face value the Stakhanov's remarkable record of achievements with regard to coal hewing. At the time it was an example of Soviet ideological orthodoxy, or to put it in our terms of regime political correctness. Many people at the time were, as we have subsequently learned, were very skeptical about these supposed achievements - indeed, they have subsequently been proven to be a pack of lies. However, to question them at the time would have undoubtedly landed the doubter in jail. The whole episode, of which there were many in the Soviet Union, is reminiscent of the story of the King and his magic suit of clothes - except that in this case the little boy would undoubtedly have ended up in jail. Well, anyone in our society who challenges pc conventional wisdoms will not thank goodness be thrown in jail, but he or she is likely to experience considerable hostility (including on this forum) for daring to challenge the veracity of the embedded political orthodoxies of the day - even more so if you go further and attempt to rouse the pc lazy thinkers from the stupor of smug self- satisfaction in which their minds are so cosily enwrapped - with no light from an unconventional thought to stir them from their torpor.

You are quite right about the hostility towards the term 'political correctness'. Indeed, the term is of course now pejorative. To accuse someone of political correctness is likely to have the effect of goading them into paroxyisms of rage. I think it is unfortunate that we do not have a better term to describe the phenomenon, so that we do not get side tracked into discussions about the banning of Christmas trees and the like. As Browne argues in his article, the phenomenon has had very serious consequences for public policy in a number of crucial areas and therefore should not be dismissed so flippantly as being largely benign or superficial. It is neither.

Originally posted by JoeP
That's rather unfair, Tony.

I'd say that some of the posters on this thread, and I'd include myself in the description, are hardly lazy thinkers.

We tend to put arguments together - not exactly laziness.

The whole problem with PC I have is that it restricts arguments by restricting what it is politic to discuss. PC has entered in to the language as a shorthand, and in some ways that's unfortunate, but as the alternative would be to write 'that's a lie' on numerous occasions, and it's been in the language for a couple of decades now, I think the use is valid.

Certainly on SF, on occasion, anyway. :)

Joe I'm certainly not tarring everyone with the same brush Joe, merely proposing a thought that has amused me for a while. My brevity may appear to oversimplify what I said.

LordChaverley put it rather more eloquantly.
.
Originally posted by LordChaverly
You are quite right about the hostility towards the term 'political correctness'. Indeed, the term is of course now pejorative. To accuse someone of political correctness is likely to have the effect of goading them into paroxyisms of rage. I think it is unfortunate that we do not have a better term to describe the phenomenon, so that we do not get side tracked into discussions about the banning of Christmas trees and the like. As Browne argues in his article, the phenomenon has had very serious consequences for public policy in a number of crucial areas and therefore should not be dismissed so flippantly as being largely benign or superficial. It is neither.

It would appear that the "proverbial" has hit the fan this morning

Here (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article336405.ece)

Originally posted by Abdul
I agree with donkey. Browne sounds like a male Melanie Phillips. I was very interested to read the following in the Civitas report:

This transfer of allegiances was confirmed by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which commissioned a report on anti-Semitism in Europe, and then suppressed it when the authors concluded that the main cause of rising anti-Semitism in Europe is Muslim youths, not skinheads and neo-fascists. The EMCR told the authors, who were Jewish, that the report would undermine their work helping Muslims, who are the most discriminated-against religious group in Europe, and told them to rewrite it to portray the main perpetrators as white racists. When the authors protested that was contrary to the evidence, the EMCR rewrote the report itself, and published it with a summary and conclusion that was at total odds with the evidence actually contained within it. At the press conference, the EMCR repeatedly stated that white skinheads were to blame, despite the evidence inside the report and the views of the researchers. The Independent newspaper followed the politically correct line with an article headlined: White men blamed as attacks on Jews rise. In stark contrast, the Telegraph ran a less politically correct but more factually correct article, with the headline: EU ‘covered up’ attacks on Jews by young Muslims.

The writer neglects to mention the National Front in France took between 15% and 20% of the vote in the elections a few years ago. Somehow, I doubt young Muslims would be voting for Le Pen, or daubing swastikas on Jewish gravestones :|

Not sure where you're coming from here.

What was being hidden by the EMCR is that a particular group was ALSO committing crimes. It doesn't matter whether the French National Front got 20% of the vote - that's an irrelevancy with respect to teh argument.

The argument is that a PC approach hid the facts to give a more acceptable story.

That is what I have been arguing about through this thread.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Not sure where you're coming from here.

What was being hidden by the EMCR is that a particular group was ALSO committing crimes. It doesn't matter whether the French National Front got 20% of the vote - that's an irrelevancy with respect to teh argument.

The argument is that a PC approach hid the facts to give a more acceptable story.

That is what I have been arguing about through this thread.

Joe
I think that PC thinking is less often to blame for behaviour like this - the usual culprit is vested interest.

"Vested Interest Thinking" is a much greater threat.

For example - The current US administration on 'vetting' Scientists to serve as expert advisors to the Government.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think that PC thinking is less often to blame for behaviour like this - the usual culprit is vested interest.

"Vested Interest Thinking" is a much greater threat.

For example - The current US administration on 'vetting' Scientists to serve as expert advisors to the Government.

Again - wouldn't argue with that at all.

And it's not just the US Government - it's any authority body with a particular interest in maintaining the status quo.

But again, this appears to be a fine example of what I described as Political Correctness. I see no reason why the EMCR couldn't tell the full truth - it's just that they chose to tell a truth more palatable to their world view. By telling a partial truth they WEAKEN their case - anyone wishing for full information will think twice about taking on board anything they say.

Vested interest politics and PC are equally objectionable to me; it's just that PC seems more acceptable to some.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Again - wouldn't argue with that at all.

And it's not just the US Government - it's any authority body with a particular interest in maintaining the status quo.

But again, this appears to be a fine example of what I described as Political Correctness. I see no reason why the EMCR couldn't tell the full truth - it's just that they chose to tell a truth more palatable to their world view. By telling a partial truth they WEAKEN their case - anyone wishing for full information will think twice about taking on board anything they say.

Vested interest politics and PC are equally objectionable to me; it's just that PC seems more acceptable to some.

Joe

But which do you think is the most damaging, or in the words of the OP, which is the most threatening to Britain?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
But which do you think is the most damaging, or in the words of the OP, which is the most threatening to Britain?

The most insidious is PC.

People look for and see vested interests - this is why we have such things as registers of member's interests in Parliament, etc. This is why Insider Trading is an offence. This is why local councillors and public sector officers are restricted in gifts, etc. that they can take without it being made public.

Of course, this doesn't encompass all the vested interests that make an impact on us in our day to day life.

But this thread, Phan, is about Political Correctness. I view freedom of speech and expression in the UK to be threatened by Political Corrcetness. I also regard vested interests as another source of concern. One can harbour concerns about both - it isn't an either or question, Phan.

And as the thread is about PC, I'll continue THAT debate, thank you!

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
The most insidious is PC.

People look for and see vested interests - this is why we have such things as registers of member's interests in Parliament, etc. This is why Insider Trading is an offence. This is why local councillors and public sector officers are restricted in gifts, etc. that they can take without it being made public.

Of course, this doesn't encompass all the vested interests that make an impact on us in our day to day life.

But this thread, Phan, is about Political Correctness. I view freedom of speech and expression in the UK to be threatened by Political Corrcetness. I also regard vested interests as another source of concern. One can harbour concerns about both - it isn't an either or question, Phan.

And as the thread is about PC, I'll continue THAT debate, thank you!

Joe
er, ok.

So what is the mechanism by which 'PC' threatens Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The way I see it, 'PC' works by stimulating self censorship. People only have themselves to blame if they find themselves not speaking their mind.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er, ok.

So what is the mechanism by which 'PC' threatens Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The way I see it, 'PC' works by stimulating self censorship. People only have themselves to blame if they find themselves not speaking their mind.

PC threatens society because it stifles free speech.... it puts labels on people like "racist" all because some people speak out against something.... it is a tool initially meant to stop the "racist" but now you can be labelled a "racist" for simply speaking "out of turn".... don't you get it yet?

Originally posted by Jake01
PC threatens society because it stifles free speech.... it puts labels on people like "racist" all because some people speak out against something.... it is a tool initially meant to stop the "racist" but now you can be labelled a "racist" for simply speaking "out of turn".... don't you get it yet?

It might be helpful if you gave an example, Jake01.

Originally posted by Tony
Hehe, I've been quietly musing that very idea for a while now.

I wonder if when the cry of 'political correctness gone mad' goes up it's merely unintended vernacular for 'I'm a lazy thinker'.

Precisely the opposite, I'd say.

Certainly I believe that part of political correctness is an attempt to STOP people thinking for themselves.

I have always thought for myself and used my own conscience as my guide, and I will continue to do so.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by TeaFan
It might be helpful if you gave an example, Jake01.

If you read my previous post you will see that because I raised a debate about immigration and the UK a few days ago.... certain people labelled me a "racist." This is clearly stifling debate by intimidation as I was not playing by the pc rules.... see no evil.... hear no evil.... talk on sensitive topics is evil.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er, ok.

So what is the mechanism by which 'PC' threatens Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The way I see it, 'PC' works by stimulating self censorship. People only have themselves to blame if they find themselves not speaking their mind.

The stimulation of self censorship is very much how it does work and you are right that people only have themselves to blame if they deny themselves freedom of speech. However the insidious side of things is that in a form of intellectual bullying the purveyors of PC are gradually seeking to change the mindset of present and future generations, rendering anybody wishing to speak out liable to be seen as heretics and anti-social.

We only have to look at the birthplace of PC, the US and more specifically California, to see how they seek stifle debate and alter what are facts.

An example of this that springs to mind was a documentary, I believe about five years ago, by our Channel 4 regarding the African Slave Trade and its history. Channel 4 had a production agreement to start the project with an American TV company but had to pull out of it when the Americans objected to the inclusion of a historical fact. The fact was that certain black Africans and Arab traders had been complicit with the white slave traders and had actively supported the trade. This fact was deemed to be unpalatable to black American sensitivities and forced Channel 4 to seek other partners who were committed to presenting a true and accurate account of the trade.

There are other examples I am sure but America for me is a shining example of how to distort and stifle the truth and by re-writing historical fact as one instance, how to influence future generations.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er, ok.

So what is the mechanism by which 'PC' threatens Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The way I see it, 'PC' works by stimulating self censorship. People only have themselves to blame if they find themselves not speaking their mind.

Yeah right, Phan :rolleyes:

You've surely seen for yourself how people get set upon for speaking their minds on this very Forum. Just mention the word 'Immigration' and the taunts of racist and racism are the knee-jerk reaction. People are bullied into shutting up by the threat of pesonal abuse.

And the SF is a very civilised Forum.

People's careers are stopped in their tracks by such accusations out there in the real world.

Political correctness is a muzzle refusing people in this country the opportunity to discuss very real issues that concern thir lives and their future. Not to allow such discussion is censorship, pure and simple.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by TeaFan
It might be helpful if you gave an example, Jake01.

Apart from numerous other threads on this very Forum, which feature the odd bit of name calling in this vein, there are numerous documented instances on this very thread where such 'PC' attitudes lead to a distortion of the truth - see my comment about the EMCR above, or teh thread earlier today about the Job Centre objecting to someone requesting that an applicant for a job, that would involve talking to customers, speaks English.

Joe

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Political correctness is a muzzle refusing people in this country the opportunity to discuss very real issues that concern thir lives and their future. Not to allow such discussion is censorship, pure and simple.



Well said Star. I just pity the poor sod who tries to bully me into silence though :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er, ok.

So what is the mechanism by which 'PC' threatens Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The way I see it, 'PC' works by stimulating self censorship. People only have themselves to blame if they find themselves not speaking their mind.

Hmmm.......

Civilised people will occasionally self-censor in the interests of civilised behaviour in a public Forum. By expressing opinions they may cause a ruckus that just defeats teh whole object of civilised debate.

However, as has been pointed out it's more likely that the intellectual bullying exhibited by purveyors of PC puts a lot of people off stating views that they may legally and justifiably wish to express.

If, for example, you work for a public sector body and express certain views you may find those views showing up on your record. So, you self-censor yourself to avoid your career taking a detour down the crappy path.

Joe

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Yeah right, Phan :rolleyes:

Just mention the word 'Immigration' and the taunts of racist and racism are the knee-jerk reaction.

StarSparkle

But that's not actually true is it? There is a thread ongoing at the moment about immigration, and no-one has called anyone a racist.

I'm not saying that people are never unjustly accused of racism - sometimes people assume racism when it's not there, and this then has the effect of making it harder to spot real racists.

I'm all for facts and truth, as far as these things exist. So let's make sure we're all accurate, except when we're being obviously humourous or just flippant (in a nice way).

One of the difficulties is that overt racism has been forced underground - I think it's great that black people no longer have to put up with people inciting hatred against them, but the flipside is that people now purvey their racism much more insidiously, and one spin-off from that is that some people get labelled racist who aren't (and doubtless also some who actually are). Someone said a while ago that Britain was "noticeably less racist". I disagree, I think it's less noticeably racist.

Originally posted by Jake01
If you read my previous post you will see that because I raised a debate about immigration and the UK a few days ago.... certain people labelled me a "racist." This is clearly stifling debate by intimidation as I was not playing by the pc rules.... see no evil.... hear no evil.... talk on sensitive topics is evil.

you didn't raise a debate, you raised flame bate.
I presume it's me you're saying accused you of being racist. What I actually said was that anyone who said "I'm not racist...but" generally is. And I still think that's true.
StarSparkle - maybe you should take a look at the current immigration thread, the debate seems to be alive and well.

Originally posted by TeaFan
But that's not actually true is it? There is a thread ongoing at the moment about immigration, and no-one has called anyone a racist.

I'm not saying that people are never unjustly accused of racism - sometimes people assume racism when it's not there, and this then has the effect of making it harder to spot real racists.

I'm all for facts and truth, as far as these things exist. So let's make sure we're all accurate, except when we're being obviously humourous or just flippant (in a nice way).

One of the difficulties is that overt racism has been forced underground - I think it's great that black people no longer have to put up with people inciting hatred against them, but the flipside is that people now purvey their racism much more insidiously, and one spin-off from that is that some people get labelled racist who aren't (and doubtless also some who actually are). Someone said a while ago that Britain was "noticeably less racist". I disagree, I think it's less noticeably racist.

Teafan,

Just look at some of the other threads on that topic. The new Immigration thread is a prime example of how things should be - but it emerged from a series of VERY poorly debated threads that descended in to name calling, accusations that SF was racist for allowing such debate, etc.

However, back to the issue. As I said above, it was quite clear that some organisations are being cavalier with the truth when it suits their viewpoint. And that is what this whole debate is about.

Joe

Originally posted by Cyclone
you didn't raise a debate, you raised flame bate.
I presume it's me you're saying accused you of being racist. What I actually said was that anyone who said "I'm not racist...but" generally is. And I still think that's true.
StarSparkle - maybe you should take a look at the current immigration thread, the debate seems to be alive and well.

I'm not moderating this thread but it would be nice to stick to topic.

I have been known to say 'I'm not racist...but...', myself. The usual reason is that I feel that if I don't prefix with that little bit of justification then my arguments won't be heard through. Again, the PC censorship kicks in. :)

And if someone raises flame bait, best approach is surely to ignore it?

I've already commented upon the Immigration thread - it's a pleasant novelty which I hope bodes well for the future.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Teafan,

Just look at some of the other threads on that topic. The new Immigration thread is a prime example of how things should be - but it emerged from a series of VERY poorly debated threads that descended in to name calling, accusations that SF was racist for allowing such debate, etc.

However, back to the issue. As I said above, it was quite clear that some organisations are being cavalier with the truth when it suits their viewpoint. And that is what this whole debate is about.

Joe

What I said wasn't true was "just mention immigration and you get accused of being a racist" (paraphrase). I am aware of the other threads. The new immigration thread is to be welcomed, and I can't help thinking that the lack of political organisations taking part in it is helpful;)

Re: PC, whatever that means these days. I think there is a tension at work. The report on anti-semitism, and the facts around HIV in Britain mentioned in Browne's report are good examples of "PC" stifling debate. But I also suspect that some of the desire to stifle is rooted in fear of what the counter-force would do with the facts. Certainly with the issue of HIV and immigration from Africa, certain newspapers are very capable of "African migrants bringing HIV to UK!", swamping our NHS etc. headlines and articles which play very fast and loose with facts. If the more fictional tabloids could calm down a bit, we might have a climate where the "PC" brigade felt a bit keener to be more honest.

Originally posted by JoeP
Hmmm.......

Civilised people will occasionally self-censor in the interests of civilised behaviour in a public Forum. By expressing opinions they may cause a ruckus that just defeats teh whole object of civilised debate.

Most people constantly self-censor and self-police. It's one of the reasons we can exist in a relatively liberal society without a lot of legal restrictions on what we can say and do.

Since virtually every forum member who has professed a strong aversion to it has also declared themselves immune to it, we are some way from being overthrown by the revolution of PC dictators.

As for supressing your opinions and behaviour at work being 'risky', that all rather depends on where you work and the circumstances of your work. And what sort of opinions would you express in the public sector that would make it onto your 'permanent record'? Jibes about non-whites, Jibes about women, Jibes about Irishmen? Or something more subtle?

To read the posts on here, it is unclear what PC actually is - I for one am not at all sure. Some posts make Political Correctness sound as if it is some memetic agency with an octopoid hold on the minds of men. Other posts characterize it as an entity or institution like legislature or judiciary.

Would anyone care to clarify what actually constitutes 'Political Correctness' other than the literal meaning of being correct, politically speaking?? Who is responsible for it? How does it spread/insinuate itself?

Originally posted by Cyclone
you didn't raise a debate, you raised flame bate.
I presume it's me you're saying accused you of being racist. What I actually said was that anyone who said "I'm not racist...but" generally is. And I still think that's true.
StarSparkle - maybe you should take a look at the current immigration thread, the debate seems to be alive and well.

I raised a discussion.... and the fact that I had to say I am not a racist says it all really.... whilst I really don't hate anyone from a different race or culture the pc in me had to make the statement because I knew I would be accused of being "racist" at some point.... the easy option would have been not to have debated it at all.... but once again pc kicked in and the thread was closed.

Originally posted by TeaFan
What I said wasn't true was "just mention immigration and you get accused of being a racist" (paraphrase). I am aware of the other threads. The new immigration thread is to be welcomed, and I can't help thinking that the lack of political organisations taking part in it is helpful;)

Re: PC, whatever that means these days. I think there is a tension at work. The report on anti-semitism, and the facts around HIV in Britain mentioned in Browne's report are good examples of "PC" stifling debate. But I also suspect that some of the desire to stifle is rooted in fear of what the counter-force would do with the facts. Certainly with the issue of HIV and immigration from Africa, certain newspapers are very capable of "African migrants bringing HIV to UK!", swamping our NHS etc. headlines and articles which play very fast and loose with facts. If the more fictional tabloids could calm down a bit, we might have a climate where the "PC" brigade felt a bit keener to be more honest.

It is quite possible that the people not involved in that thread keeps it 'sane'. Soem of the worst name calling, though, has traditionally come from people not in a political party bu apparently determiend to stifle debate.

Anyway....which came first in the PC debate is hard to determine. But if the HIV / migrants business is true, and there is an attempt to disguise it by blaming teenage sexual activity, then it is wrong and a lie. It is equally fast and loose with the facts.

It's patronising in the extreme to believe that no one in the country except for a suitably chosen intellectual elite is capable of taking on board the truth.

Joe

Originally posted by Jake01
I raised a discussion.... and the fact that I had to say I am not a racist says it all really.... whilst I really don't hate anyone from a different race or culture the pc in me had to make the statement because I knew I would be accused of being "racist" at some point.... the easy option would have been not to have debated it at all.... but once again pc kicked in and the thread was closed.

This is one of the things that annoys me about the anti-pc brigade, their readiness to blame everything with which they disagree on someone elses pc-ness.

The real reason for the thread's closure was:

Mod. Note

As we don't seem to be able to keep to the topic or stop yelling at each other, I'm closing this thread for a while.

I may re-open it later.

Thanks,

Joe


And as the current thread proves, Joe is not the most pc person on this forum.

Originally posted by Cyclone
StarSparkle - maybe you should take a look at the current immigration thread, the debate seems to be alive and well.

I refer you to Joe's posting below yours.

So far, people are behaving well on it, precisely Because it is a show-piece thread in many ways, and people know a close watch is being kept on it.

Not a good example to pick.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Would anyone care to clarify what actually constitutes 'Political Correctness' other than the literal meaning of being correct, politically speaking?? Who is responsible for it? How does it spread/insinuate itself?

That's a mighty fine definition! :)

To be correct in a political sense, irrelevant as to the truth as backed up by facts. To view the 'party line' or doctrine of the group as being what matters. To regard a 'groupthink' as being literal. It's particularly applied to liberal / left of centre causes. When the same thing happens with right wing groupings it's typically called 'censorship' or 'vested interests'. :)

As for it's origins - anyone in a position of influence or authority who manipulates the truth to suit a doctrinal 'line'.

It's spread - by active or inactive complicity. The former in spinning the story, using it and propagating it when it's known to be a lie or a distortion of the facts. Inactive complicity when we go along with it, not questioning the dogma presented.

Joe

Originally posted by max
This is one of the things that annoys me about the anti-pc brigade, their readiness to blame everything with which they disagree on someone elses pc-ness.

The real reason for the thread's closure was:



And as the current thread proves, Joe is not the most pc person on this forum.

Damn right, Max. :)

I respect open debate and intellectual freedom too much to be PC.

But I am willing to take responsibility when required to try and retain civilised behaviour. Perhaps on those threads we need to look at the nature and origin of the name calling, as well as the bald reason I stated there.

Joe

Originally posted by max
This is one of the things that annoys me about the anti-pc brigade, their readiness to blame everything with which they disagree on someone elses pc-ness.

The real reason for the thread's closure was:



And as the current thread proves, Joe is not the most pc person on this forum.

Joe is not a pc clown as I call them.... I actually asked Him to close the thread as it was descending into personal slanging.... what I meant to say was I personally felt threatened by some of the comments coming my way simply for stating something which is "politically incorrect."

The whole point of pc is that it stifles debate.... it makes people feel uncomfortable about putting certain views forward.... at least if we debate something we may see the weaknesses in our argument and learn from each other.... to stifle a debate and label people merely sends them underground or into the arms of less appealing organisations who feed off this.... thus pc can have the opposite effect.... physics ( for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. )

Some discussion here of the actual pamphlet, the reaction of the Independant and the debate on the Today programme yesterday that was quite vigorous!

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2006/01/pc_citadel_ably.html

Originally posted by JoeP
That's a mighty fine definition! :)

To be correct in a political sense, irrelevant as to the truth as backed up by facts. To view the 'party line' or doctrine of the group as being what matters. To regard a 'groupthink' as being literal. It's particularly applied to liberal / left of centre causes. When the same thing happens with right wing groupings it's typically called 'censorship' or 'vested interests'. :)

As for it's origins - anyone in a position of influence or authority who manipulates the truth to suit a doctrinal 'line'.

It's spread - by active or inactive complicity. The former in spinning the story, using it and propagating it when it's known to be a lie or a distortion of the facts. Inactive complicity when we go along with it, not questioning the dogma presented.

Joe

So the enemy is groupthink then, not PC, which is just one facet of it. Now that I can resoundingly endorse.

The sort of groupthink that gave us WMDs pointed at Britain, ready in 45 minutes, is precisely the sort of masking of facts by the complicit or ignorant that we should be resisting.

The tendency to lay the blame for all groupthink at the feet of the liberal left is, however, still a little mysterious.

Originally posted by JoeP

It's patronising in the extreme to believe that no one in the country except for a suitably chosen intellectual elite is capable of taking on board the truth.
Joe

No, no, no. That is not what I said. What I said was that there are different loose groupings of people who have their own agenda. One of those is the "PC" brigade, and another is those who typically have politically opposing views. BOTH have demonstrated themselves capable of distorting or plain ignoring the facts to further their own agenda. BOTH clearly have their eyes on the other and what they are saying and doing, and therefore it is only to be expected that this will influence to some extent what they do and say.

I used to believe that there was such a thing as an objective truth in the political sense, but now I don't. Politics, in my opinion, is simply the battle between adherents of different subjective truths. Whoever wins gets to define, up to a point, what truth is.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So the enemy is groupthink then, not PC, which is just one facet of it. Now that I can resoundingly endorse.

The sort of groupthink that gave us WMDs pointed at Britain, ready in 45 minutes, is precisely the sort of masking of facts by the complicit or ignorant that we should be resisting.

The tendency to lay the blame for all groupthink at the feet of the liberal left is, however, still a little mysterious.

Phan, no, I didn't say that. I've not laid groupthink at the feet of the liberal left alone. Any insular group has it.

PC is a sub-set of this sort of behaviour. Again, you're attempting to bring wider issues in, like your vested interests earlier, which I would agree exist in the world but are not what we're trying to discuss here.

And this isn't about WMD or such - why not start a thread on that subject if you wish to raise that?

There seems to be some determined resistance on your part to adderss this issue, Phan. Perhaps we need to agree to disagree.

Joe

Originally posted by TeaFan
No, no, no. That is not what I said. What I said was that there are different loose groupings of people who have their own agenda. One of those is the "PC" brigade, and another is those who typically have politically opposing views. BOTH have demonstrated themselves capable of distorting or plain ignoring the facts to further their own agenda. BOTH clearly have their eyes on the other and what they are saying and doing, and therefore it is only to be expected that this will influence to some extent what they do and say.

I used to believe that there was such a thing as an objective truth in the political sense, but now I don't. Politics, in my opinion, is simply the battle between adherents of different subjective truths. Whoever wins gets to define, up to a point, what truth is.

I wasn't talking about objective truth in the sense of politics. I was talking about truths backed by facts.

I was talking about objective truth in terms of 'this group of people is at least as responsible for the spread of HIV as the group we named' or 'this group of youths is as responsible for the attacks on Jews as the group we named'.

As you say, those that win get to define 'truth', and that is what liberal 'PC' or right wing censorship is all about. The difference is that on the whole we acknowldge censorship, but PC is denied - and that is dangerous.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Phan, no, I didn't say that. I've not laid groupthink at the feet of the liberal left alone. Any insular group has it.

PC is a sub-set of this sort of behaviour. Again, you're attempting to bring wider issues in, like your vested interests earlier, which I would agree exist in the world but are not what we're trying to discuss here.

And this isn't about WMD or such - why not start a thread on that subject if you wish to raise that?

There seems to be some determined resistance on your part to adderss this issue, Phan. Perhaps we need to agree to disagree.

Joe

I was just tossing in an egregious examples of groupthink that demonstrates to me at least, that hawkish groupthink leads to as much carnage and destruction as liberal left groupthink.

If PC is an example of groupthink, then surely groupthink is the threat, wherever it flourishes.

Joe,

Yes. The problem is, though, that "truths backed by facts" is a tautology. Truths backed by truths backed by truths... it's an endless regression, and doesn't mean anything. I assume you mean "statistics". Which, as we know, are not at all the same thing as facts.

Originally posted by TeaFan
Joe,

Yes. The problem is, though, that "truths backed by facts" is a tautology. Truths backed by truths backed by truths... it's an endless regression, and doesn't mean anything. I assume you mean "statistics". Which, as we know, are not at all the same thing as facts.

No - if a Muslim attacks a Jew, and a Christian attacks a Jew, there are there two sets of facts. Two attacks have taken place, each of equal importance, each with enough facts (not statistics) to support a prosecution.

I apreciate that there are statistics to define the activity of a general population for whom you do not have specific information about individuals within that population.

But if you CAN get down to specifics, then facts are possible. My shirt is blue, my mug has 'Garfield' on it, the guy who beat me up was black, white or yellow - these are facts, not opinions or statistics.

We are discussing here how a form of spin and manipulation can be applied to certain facts - numbers of people, actions of people, not staitistics - to change the perception of reality.

Joe

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I was just tossing in an egregious examples of groupthink that demonstrates to me at least, that hawkish groupthink leads to as much carnage and destruction as liberal left groupthink.

If PC is an example of groupthink, then surely groupthink is the threat, wherever it flourishes.

Again, I've never said Groupthink isn't a problem.

But as I've said in various ways above, it seems that certain types of Groupthink / censorship / bias / lies are more acceptable than others - and there in lies the problem.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
No - if a Muslim attacks a Jew, and a Christian attacks a Jew, there are there two sets of facts. Two attacks have taken place, each of equal importance, each with enough facts (not statistics) to support a prosecution.

I apreciate that there are statistics to define the activity of a general population for whom you do not have specific information about individuals within that population.

But if you CAN get down to specifics, then facts are possible. My shirt is blue, my mug has 'Garfield' on it, the guy who beat me up was black, white or yellow - these are facts, not opinions or statistics.

We are discussing here how a form of spin and manipulation can be applied to certain facts - numbers of people, actions of people, not staitistics - to change the perception of reality.

Joe

Still problematic though. Someone attacking someone else, caught on CCTV, just tells us that one person made physical contact with another. Doesn't tell us why, whether they were justified, what their intent was. And politics is so much about meaning and perception, and this is what is so subjective.

An example from my own experience: a friend tells another friend that she thinks he is taking too much coke. She believes she did this in a caring, concerned way. He believes she has been overtly critical of him, is not acting as a friend, and is being hostile to him. There are two equal subjective realities, and both and none of them are real.

Then extrapolate massively, and look, for e.g., at the Palestinian/Israeli debate - hopelessly riddled with subjective truths, and almost impossible (now) to decide what the truth is.

Sorry to be a bother, I have a philosophy degree, I can't help it.

'Groupthink' - whoever is doing the 'thinking' and for whatever purpose, is intrinsically not healthy.

The analogy of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' fairytale, as already mentioned by LordChaverly, is appropriate here.

With any form of groupthink, common sense goes straight out the window.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
'Groupthink' - whoever is doing the 'thinking' and for whatever purpose, is intrinsically not healthy.

The analogy of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' fairytale, as already mentioned by LordChaverly, is appropriate here.

With any form of groupthink, common sense goes straight out the window.

StarSparkle

A point for discussion: in a world of mass media, can any of us avoid partaking in groupthink?

Originally posted by TeaFan
Sorry to be a bother, I have a philosophy degree, I can't help it.

So? What does that bring to the debate, except self-aggrandisment?

I have a degree in Politics, with a strong emphasis on political thought, but I wouldn't use it to throw my weight around here.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
So? What does that bring to the debate, except self-aggrandisment?

I have a degree in Politics, with a strong emphasis on political thought, but I wouldn't use it to throw my weight around here.

StarSparkle

Oh dear, misunderstood again. It was self-deprecating. Thus highlighting the limits of e-communication, as so often on SF.

Originally posted by TeaFan
Still problematic though. Someone attacking someone else, caught on CCTV, just tells us that one person made physical contact with another. Doesn't tell us why, whether they were justified, what their intent was. And politics is so much about meaning and perception, and this is what is so subjective.

An example from my own experience: a friend tells another friend that she thinks he is taking too much coke. She believes she did this in a caring, concerned way. He believes she has been overtly critical of him, is not acting as a friend, and is being hostile to him. There are two equal subjective realities, and both and none of them are real.

Then extrapolate massively, and look, for e.g., at the Palestinian/Israeli debate - hopelessly riddled with subjective truths, and almost impossible (now) to decide what the truth is.

Sorry to be a bother, I have a philosophy degree, I can't help it.

Oh please, this is getting VERY far away from the issue in hand.

In teh case cited above, the issue was that the assaults carried out by Muslim youth were under-reported, those by white youth more accurately reported. There is no need for context, background, etc.

One set of figures was more accurate than the other.

Is there a justification? I do not believe there is.

It's not a bother that you have a philosophy degree, it's just taht it is taking us away from the more grounded issues of accuracy in reporting and systematic falsehoods found in soem reporting and official information.

Joe

Joe.... I think the problem is in the mindset.... the "brainwashing" of people that gives them the ultimate right to tell you that you are wrong.... simply because the view held by a person who promotes freedom of thought and speech and can back up those views is perceived to be a threat to the greater population as they may educate them... and thus create dissent when the view is proved.

We appear not to want to create dissent and so the whole issue of things like perpetrators rights of a crime are above the victims rights.... the fact is this is the way society is going and unless we debate these issues then pc is going to have an adverse affect on society.

Originally posted by JoeP
Oh please, this is getting VERY far away from the issue in hand.

In teh case cited above, the issue was that the assaults carried out by Muslim youth were under-reported, those by white youth more accurately reported. There is no need for context, background, etc.

One set of figures was more accurate than the other.

Is there a justification? I do not believe there is.

It's not a bother that you have a philosophy degree, it's just taht it is taking us away from the more grounded issues of accuracy in reporting and systematic falsehoods found in soem reporting and official information.

Joe

I disagree, I think it's quite central. Granted, there are some things which are easier to check than others. But "accurate reporting"? Accurate by whose yardstick? Can we have a debate about accuracy, when most of us probably have a pretty weak grip on what is actually going on out there, outside of our immediate neighbourhoods and experiences?

I think what we have established is that anyone who is any position of power, whether they be a newspaper journalist, a local councillor or whoever, is able to push their version of reality at the rest of us. Some of these are called PC, some are not. PC may be deemed by many to be more acceptable than the others, but it seems that plenty are alive to it as well, so I can't see that it's going to wreck civilisation as we know it.

Originally posted by Jake01
perpetrators rights of a crime are above the victims rights.... the fact is this is the way society is going and unless we debate these issues then pc is going to have an adverse affect on society.

But is this a fact? Or is it a mirror image of political correctness? This is my point - PCs and anti-PCs; they're all at it!!

Originally posted by TeaFan
A point for discussion: in a world of mass media, can any of us avoid partaking in groupthink?

Another good thread idea!

However, my quick answer here is that it is difficult because we only get filtered information.

The answer is to select from different sources and to think for one's self occasionally.

Herein lies my main issue with PC - it restricts this sort of intellectual widening.

When I did my MBA I studied groupthink in many organisations - civil, military, voluntary - as part of my work. Whilst it's deviating from the subject here, I'd say that a major difference between Groupthink and PC is that groupthink is rarely a policy.

Groupthink tends to emerge from a commonality of thinking and approach often caused by similarity of education, background and too long in the same organisation or section. There is no 'style guide' or 'language usage notes' for Groupthink.

Political Correctness seems to be more policy driven.

Joe

Originally posted by TeaFan
But is this a fact? Or is it a mirror image of political correctness? This is my point - PCs and anti-PCs; they're all at it!!

It's the ecology of ideas at work

Originally posted by JoeP
Another good thread idea!

However, my quick answer here is that it is difficult because we only get filtered information.

The answer is to select from different sources and to think for one's self occasionally.

Herein lies my main issue with PC - it restricts this sort of intellectual widening.

When I did my MBA I studied groupthink in many organisations - civil, military, voluntary - as part of my work. Whilst it's deviating from the subject here, I'd say that a major difference between Groupthink and PC is that groupthink is rarely a policy.

Groupthink tends to emerge from a commonality of thinking and approach often caused by similarity of education, background and too long in the same organisation or section. There is no 'style guide' or 'language usage notes' for Groupthink.

Political Correctness seems to be more policy driven.

Joe

I think PC is, above all, over-compensation. PC, if I remember right, originated mainly in universities, among middle class academics. It seems to be about guilt over people who face discrimination, and the desire to protect. Now obviously, there were and are people who need some protection from our institutions, but the problem is now that they are often over-protected. And I think that is what people are unhappy or uneasy about.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It's the ecology of ideas at work

Bloody hell! :) What does that mean?

Originally posted by TeaFan
But is this a fact? Or is it a mirror image of political correctness? This is my point - PCs and anti-PCs; they're all at it!!

Again, I've said numerous times on this thread that the problem exists from both sides - it's just that censorship is accepted as existing and being wrong, whereas PC is effectively denied.

As for accurate reporting - again, one may easily say that the inaccuracy is equally likely to apply to each point of view. I understand what you're saying but there has to be a baseline from which we operate.

Originally posted by TeaFan
I think what we have established is that anyone who is any position of power, whether they be a newspaper journalist, a local councillor or whoever, is able to push their version of reality at the rest of us. Some of these are called PC, some are not. PC may be deemed by many to be more acceptable than the others, but it seems that plenty are alive to it as well, so I can't see that it's going to wreck civilisation as we know it.


That is the problem in a nutshell - PC may be deemed more acceptable.

Whilst it may be unlikely to wreck civilisation as we know it, it is likely to change our lives. Just as censorhip impacts, so must, almost by your definition, PC.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP

As for accurate reporting - again, one may easily say that the inaccuracy is equally likely to apply to each point of view. I understand what you're saying but there has to be a baseline from which we operate.

Joe

Absolutely agree with you, chief. I know a couple of my posts might have seemed rather semantic, but I think it does help to know what baselines and premises we are operating from, including when having debates on web forums. I hope that if we know what we're meant to be talking about when we start a thread, it should go better (the excellent immigration thread as an example).

Anyway, i think I should leave this thread now.:wave:

Originally posted by TeaFan
I think PC is, above all, over-compensation. PC, if I remember right, originated mainly in universities, among middle class academics. It seems to be about guilt over people who face discrimination, and the desire to protect. Now obviously, there were and are people who need some protection from our institutions, but the problem is now that they are often over-protected. And I think that is what people are unhappy or uneasy about.

There's a very great deal of truth in this posting.

I think the antecedents of PCness do lie in white, middle-class (intellectual) guilt. You could argue it started off as a good idea, trying to even up some of the unfairness in the world, but unfortunately it only ever attempted to put right unfairness in certain areas, and with certain selected groups. And it has now turned full circle and is itself producing unfairness. And seems to accept no criticism.

An example of an original good idea, which was then unfortunately stripped of all common sense, allowed to go too far, and twisted into an instrument of repression.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by Jake01
Joe.... I think the problem is in the mindset.... the "brainwashing" of people that gives them the ultimate right to tell you that you are wrong.... simply because the view held by a person who promotes freedom of thought and speech and can back up those views is perceived to be a threat to the greater population as they may educate them... and thus create dissent when the view is proved.


Not sure that I can totally agree with you there though Jake01.

It is fair to say that one persons opinion is often more valid or worthy than another's.

If I understand you correctly you are labeling the perpetrators of 'PC' as brainwasher's. That neglects to acknowledge that 'PC' is a negative reaction to a negative reaction, and in turn you are having a further negative reaction to that.

More clearly, bigotry has spawned PC, or rather in the first instance, positive discrimination, which has transformed into a pejorative opinion of such positive discrimination. You should draw your own conclusions as to why folk wish to have a negative opinion of positive discrimination - I make no judgment there.

Now, to take it back to the root of the point, without the original bigotry there would be no PC.

... so, by conclusion, you know what the answer is don't you :)

Originally posted by TeaFan
But is this a fact? Or is it a mirror image of political correctness? This is my point - PCs and anti-PCs; they're all at it!!

There are always two sides to a debate.... and I am glad we are all debating with reason and not insult.

My point again.... the Metropolitan Police force have a fast track policy of recruiting and promoting ethnic police officers and have admitted to turning down applications from indigenous applicants.... purely because the pc in the system tells them to do so.... May I pose you a question.... do you think people should be recruited and promoted on their merit and credibility or simply because there is a need to fill some sections with ethnic credibility so we can all say.... well ethnics are doing these jobs.... or is the service going to suffer to placate the pc brigade who push these issues? and their lives in turn when something happens to them and the service is not up to scratch.

Originally posted by TeaFan
I think PC is, above all, over-compensation. PC, if I remember right, originated mainly in universities, among middle class academics. It seems to be about guilt over people who face discrimination, and the desire to protect. Now obviously, there were and are people who need some protection from our institutions, but the problem is now that they are often over-protected. And I think that is what people are unhappy or uneasy about.
Nail, head, firmly hit.

Originally posted by Jake01
There are always two sides to a debate.... and I am glad we are all debating with reason and not insult.

My point again.... the Metropolitan Police force have a fast track policy of recruiting and promoting ethnic police officers and have admitted to turning down applications from indigenous applicants.... purely because the pc in the system tells them to do so.... May I pose you a question.... do you think people should be recruited and promoted on their merit and credibility or simply because there is a need to fill some sections with ethnic credibility so we can all say.... well ethnics are doing these jobs.... or is the service going to suffer to placate the pc brigade who push these issues? and their lives in turn when something happens to them and the service is not up to scratch.

I was going to leave, but you enticed me back:) Actually, your point, the one I quoted, was that the criminals have more rights than their victims. So is that a fact? If you answer that one, I'll answer your above question.

Originally posted by Tony
Not sure that I can totally agree with you there though Jake01.

It is fair to say that one persons opinion is often more valid or worthy than another's.

If I understand you correctly you are labeling the perpetrators of 'PC' as brainwasher's. That neglects to acknowledge that 'PC' is a negative reaction to a negative reaction, and in turn you are having a further negative reaction to that.

More clearly, bigotry has spawned PC, or rather in the first instance, positive discrimination, which has transformed into a pejorative opinion of such positive discrimination. You should draw your own conclusions as to why folk wish to have a negative opinion of positive discrimination - I make no judgment there.

Now, to take it back to the root of the point, without the original bigotry there would be no PC.

... so, by conclusion, you know what the answer is don't you :)

What I meant by "Brainwashing" was that pc can sometimes tell you what is and what is not acceptable to talk about.... if you are taught that immigration is not a subject to talk about and you do then you will be in fear of reprisal ( a label ).... but like I said earlier you may be driven underground with your issues.... that is dangerous.

Originally posted by Tony
Not sure that I can totally agree with you there though Jake01.

It is fair to say that one persons opinion is often more valid or worthy than another's.

If I understand you correctly you are labeling the perpetrators of 'PC' as brainwasher's. That neglects to acknowledge that 'PC' is a negative reaction to a negative reaction, and in turn you are having a further negative reaction to that.

More clearly, bigotry has spawned PC, or rather in the first instance, positive discrimination, which has transformed into a pejorative opinion of such positive discrimination. You should draw your own conclusions as to why folk wish to have a negative opinion of positive discrimination - I make no judgment there.

Now, to take it back to the root of the point, without the original bigotry there would be no PC.

... so, by conclusion, you know what the answer is don't you :)

Well, I dislike positive discrimination as well, I'm afraid. It's just discrimination under another name and against another group, but that's another thread.

What's interesting is that there does appear to be an increasing acceptance on this thread (I think) that PC does exist, which is quite something, considering the denial that normally gets generated here.

That's been my main concern - to get it acknowldged as a negative force in society that is as bad as any other form of censorship or bigotry.

:)

Ah, ok I do agree with you there Jake01, but I don't agree with how you present it.

I don't see much evidence of immigration being a taboo.

But for a snapshot behind the origins of PC or positive discrimination then you only have to look as far as the last thread I noticed http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81173

Sometimes some parts of society need protecting from themselves, and I don't mean the obvious ones.


Joe, it's only a negative force when applied in a negative way. That's usually by people who don't know what they are doing, or those with an agenda to push for their own reasons - which ironically isn't very PC in itself.

Originally posted by Jake01
what I meant to say was I personally felt threatened by some of the comments coming my way simply for stating something which is "politically incorrect."

The whole point of pc is that it stifles debate.... it makes people feel uncomfortable about putting certain views forward.... at least if we debate something we may see the weaknesses in our argument and learn from each other.... to stifle a debate and label people merely sends them underground or into the arms of less appealing organisations who feed off this.... thus pc can have the opposite effect.... physics ( for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. )

what this seems to say to me is that you didn't like the level of disagreement your inflammatory thread recieved and since you'd posted a rather right wing statement, it was convenient to label anyone who disagreed with you as being pc. No chance of course that they actually didn't give a damn what was pc and what wasn't and that they were actually just expressing their own opinions, in the same way that you wanted too?
As to labelling people, it's pretty much impossible not too, it's how our brains work, everyone gets put in categories and has labels stuck to them in our heads, not all of them are negative labels like racist or pc, but even 'mum' is a label.

Moving back to something closer to on topic, the met has a policy of trying to recruit more ethnic officers not to be pc but because it makes the job of the force easier. They have to police ethnic communities and it's easier done with officers with something in common with those communities. So rather than being pc, they are just being sensible.
Positive discrimination though is something that I think is wrong. If it's the case that there are less senior ethnic police officers then they need to look at the reasons why and try to do something about them, not artificially promote people to balance the books.

Originally posted by TeaFan
I was going to leave, but you enticed me back:) Actually, your point, the one I quoted, was that the criminals have more rights than their victims. So is that a fact? If you answer that one, I'll answer your above question.

This is my personal experience TeaFan.... I was attacked in my own home by someone who threatened me with a knife and told me I was going to die if I didn't comply and if I told the police He would come back and kill me.... much bigger guy than me btw.... He tried to rob me.... I still went to the police in any case.... He was found and prosecuted.... He was a drug addict but then suddenly was given the full protection of the pc law.... He was given a community order.... for what I would class attempted murder.... He was given a drug rehabilitation course (not disagreeing with this ).... He was re-housed and given full disability claims as He had suffered "trauma" over the court case..... I got nothing in recompense.

Originally posted by TeaFan
Bloody hell! :) What does that mean?

ideas compete for mindspace, feeding on thought.

more successful ideas gain greater mindspace, gain more people holding the ideas in their own heads.

the selfish meme.

Originally posted by Jake01
This is my personal experience TeaFan.... I was attacked in my own home by someone who threatened me with a knife and told me I was going to die if I didn't comply and if I told the police He would come back and kill me.... much bigger guy than me btw.... He tried to rob me.... I still went to the police in any case.... He was found and prosecuted.... He was a drug addict but then suddenly was given the full protection of the pc law.... He was given a community order.... for what I would class attempted murder.... He was given a drug rehabilitation course (not disagreeing with this ).... He was re-housed and given full disability claims as He had suffered "trauma" over the court case..... I got nothing in recompense.

did he actually try to kill you, if not then it wasn't attempted murder.

It doesn't sound like an ideal outcome I'll agree with you, but neither does it sound like he was given more rights than you, you're just not happy at the level or severity of the sentence he received.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what this seems to say to me is that you didn't like the level of disagreement your inflammatory thread recieved and since you'd posted a rather right wing statement, it was convenient to label anyone who disagreed with you as being pc. No chance of course that they actually didn't give a damn what was pc and what wasn't and that they were actually just expressing their own opinions, in the same way that you wanted too?
As to labelling people, it's pretty much impossible not too, it's how our brains work, everyone gets put in categories and has labels stuck to them in our heads, not all of them are negative labels like racist or pc, but even 'mum' is a label.

Moving back to something closer to on topic, the met has a policy of trying to recruit more ethnic officers not to be pc but because it makes the job of the force easier. They have to police ethnic communities and it's easier done with officers with something in common with those communities. So rather than being pc, they are just being sensible.
Positive discrimination though is something that I think is wrong. If it's the case that there are less senior ethnic police officers then they need to look at the reasons why and try to do something about them, not artificially promote people to balance the books.

I take on board your comment about labelling and maybe I came across as right wing.... I don't always express myself in the right way, that is why debate is a good thing.

Fact is though the Met. has discriminated against UK indigenous nationals because of their colour in favour of ethnics... no amount of discussion can deny this.... it is documented fact and has been admitted. Thing is.... who was responsible for this policy and more importantly.... why?

Originally posted by Cyclone
did he actually try to kill you, if not then it wasn't attempted murder.

It doesn't sound like an ideal outcome I'll agree with you, but neither does it sound like he was given more rights than you, you're just not happy at the level or severity of the sentence he received.

Felt like it at the time Cyclone.... and no I am not happy at the severity of the punishment.... He has got off lightly due to His harsh upringing and drug taking life.... so more money has been thrown at Him.... and by the way He is still at large to carry out His threat to return and kill me. Dosen't make me sleep easy.

Originally posted by Jake01
This is my personal experience TeaFan.... I was attacked in my own home by someone who threatened me with a knife and told me I was going to die if I didn't comply and if I told the police He would come back and kill me.... much bigger guy than me btw.... He tried to rob me.... I still went to the police in any case.... He was found and prosecuted.... He was a drug addict but then suddenly was given the full protection of the pc law.... He was given a community order.... for what I would class attempted murder.... He was given a drug rehabilitation course (not disagreeing with this ).... He was re-housed and given full disability claims as He had suffered "trauma" over the court case..... I got nothing in recompense.

Fair dos, I can see why you feel the way you do. Must have been bloody scary. Although I can see why he was given a community order, no point sending someone to prison if they're trying to get off drugs.

Now I'll answer your question. I don't think the Met took their policy because the "pc in the system tells them to", whatever that means. When the guy in charge was interviewed on the radio, he said it was purely pragmatic - you can't police London with a really white police force. The people in charge of the police must know that their officers have been guilty of the most appaling racism in the past, and still do it. Everyone else knows. So they must think "if we want people to help us, we need to be seen to have changed". The Damilola Taylor case highlighted this perfectly - people from the black community in Peckham just wouldn't approach the police with info.

I know they took advice - I have to say, I would have thought it was illegal, because I don't know which Genuine Occupational Qualification they would have claimed under the Race Relations Act. Personally, I don't buy arguments that this is to make the police more representative, but then I wouldn't; I believe the police represent authority and private property, not communities. I can see why it winds people up, but I can also see why liberals say to some critics (and I'm not saying this applies to you) "I don't remember you kicking up a fuss about police racism to black people, so why are you kicking off now?". Because some anti-PC people are anti- because they really believe it threatens free speech, and some oppose it because they want to continue to discriminate against black people, gays etc.

Sorry it's a bit rambling. Does it answer your question?

Originally posted by JoeP
Again - wouldn't argue with that at all.

And it's not just the US Government - it's any authority body with a particular interest in maintaining the status quo.

But again, this appears to be a fine example of what I described as Political Correctness. I see no reason why the EMCR couldn't tell the full truth - it's just that they chose to tell a truth more palatable to their world view. By telling a partial truth they WEAKEN their case - anyone wishing for full information will think twice about taking on board anything they say.

Vested interest politics and PC are equally objectionable to me; it's just that PC seems more acceptable to some.

Joe

As Browne indicates in his article, there is actually a close connection between vested interests and the pc culture. In other words, there are numerous groups which have an occupational or financial stake in fostering and embedding pc ideological orthodoxies (e.g. support workers, lawyers and advocates or 'cause' groups of various kinds). A recent example of this is the rise in the number of jobs promoting 'diversity' in both the public and private sectors. Conversely, opposition to these embedded ideological orthodoxies is poorly organised, if organised at all.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
As Browne indicates in his article, there is actually a close connection between vested interests and the pc culture. In other words, there are numerous groups which have an occupational or financial stake in fostering and embedding pc ideological orthodoxies (e.g. support workers, lawyers and advocates or 'cause' groups of various kinds). A recent example of this is the rise in the number of jobs promoting 'diversity' in both the public and private sectors. Conversely, opposition to these embedded ideological orthodoxies is poorly organised, if organised at all.

True.

I suppose, though, at one time 20 or 30 years ago, PC was viewed as a tool against the 'establishment' whilst 'vested interests' were associated with the established order.

Do we now have a situation where PC culture has become part of the established order, and the vested interests are less in line with the ideological orthodoxies of today?

Joe

Originally posted by LordChaverly
As Browne indicates in his article, there is actually a close connection between vested interests and the pc culture. In other words, there are numerous groups which have an occupational or financial stake in fostering and embedding pc ideological orthodoxies (e.g. support workers, lawyers and advocates or 'cause' groups of various kinds).

Can you explain what you mean, please? My partner is an advocate for people with learning difficulties (used to be called "mental handicap"). Her job is to help people to make decisions and help them get their voice heard and assert their rights. Bear in mind that this is a group of people who have been treated appalingly by wider society until very recently. Do you think this is an example of an "embedded ideological orthodoxy" which should be opposed?

Originally posted by TeaFan
Can you explain what you mean, please? My partner is an advocate for people with learning difficulties (used to be called "mental handicap"). Her job is to help people to make decisions and help them get their voice heard and assert their rights. Bear in mind that this is a group of people who have been treated appalingly by wider society until very recently. Do you think this is an example of an "embedded ideological orthodoxy" which should be opposed?

Can't speak for Lord Chaverlely, but....

No, I'd say that 'embedded ideological orthodoxy' is when people go beyond what is needed to get the job done and start setting up policies that, start applying and ideological slant on to what should be done and why, rather than looking at it from the point of view of what would be best for the group being served.

There is a difference between behaving decently towards all members of society and believing that you've changed the world by stoping people use a particular set of words that may not even be viewed as offensive by people to whome they're relevant.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Can't speak for Lord Chaverlely, but....

No, I'd say that 'embedded ideological orthodoxy' is when people go beyond what is needed to get the job done and start setting up policies that, start applying and ideological slant on to what should be done and why, rather than looking at it from the point of view of what would be best for the group being served.

Joe

But Joe, "looking at it from the point of view of what would be best for the group being served" is precisely what enrages much of the anti-PC brigade. So if the group being served is, say Somali women, and a project is set up which meets the self-expressed needs of Somali women, then the cry goes up "it's PC gone mad!". I think those that are implacably opposed to PC need to address this apparent contradiction. (we have established that I am happy to criticise the excesses of PC, but don't want to ditch anti-discriminatory practices)

Originally posted by TeaFan
But Joe, "looking at it from the point of view of what would be best for the group being served" is precisely what enrages much of the anti-PC brigade. So if the group being served is, say Somali women, and a project is set up which meets the self-expressed needs of Somali women, then the cry goes up "it's PC gone mad!". I think those that are implacably opposed to PC need to address this apparent contradiction. (we have established that I am happy to criticise the excesses of PC, but don't want to ditch anti-discriminatory practices)

No, I doubt anyone would say that - I wouldn't. People say 'PC gone mad' when soemone decides that Christmas Lights may offend some group of society. They say 'PC gone mad' when the old chesnut of 'Chair' rather than Chairman or Chairwoman is used.

If a project is put together that meets the needs of a group - great.

If a policy is carried through to the detriment of another group because of 'ideological orthodoxy' then that is PC gone mad.

I worked for some time with kids with cerebral palsy in the 1980s in my first job. I designed and built software and hgardware solutions to help with communication, etc. What matters with such things is delivering concrete assistance as required. If we spend time debating the philosophy of disability, the language used to describe it, etc. rather than actually getting solutions to problems, then that, to me, is Political Correctness.

To fix a problem one has to fix the problem; a problem is not solved by redefining how we talk about it.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
If a policy is carried through to the detriment of another group because of 'ideological orthodoxy' then that is PC gone mad.

By definition all policies which are carried out to benefit one particular section of society will be to the detriment of another. If a governing body, be it local or central government or a school board, for instance, choose to ring fence funds for a Somalian women's refuge and English lessons then there must be another group which suffers financially.

How often have the press raged about loony left councils funding whale watching for single mothers when 'our roads are collapsing'? It is this identification of specific issues which has so enraged the anti-pc brigade.

there is no policy of taking things to such extremes as banning christmas though. Everytime such an example surfaces, it's either a complete exaggeration by the tabloids or a single jobsworth who doesn't represent the whole of government taking something too far because they don't understand what they are meant to be achieving (or maybe because they wish to cause a problem).

Originally posted by max
By definition all policies which are carried out to benefit one particular section of society will be to the detriment of another. If a governing body, be it local or central government or a school board, for instance, choose to ring fence funds for a Somalian women's refuge and English lessons then there must be another group which suffers financially.

How often have the press raged about loony left councils funding whale watching for single mothers when 'our roads are collapsing'? It is this identification of specific issues which has so enraged the anti-pc brigade.

Glad you raised that.

If resources are restricted then there needs to be triage. The greatest good for the greatest number should surely be the ethos of public funding bodies if they're short of cash. To me, when this principle is broken that is a possible indication of the operation of ideology over requirement.

Having been Chair of School Governors for a coupel of years, and Chair of Finance for a few years on a School Governing board, and been a committee member on a couple of Charities, I'm aware of funding ring-fencing. Ring fencing of funds is a partially political and partially resource management decison, based on priorities. And it is in the balance of the different aspects of the decision making process that PC thinking may be detected.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
What matters with such things is delivering concrete assistance as required. If we spend time debating the philosophy of disability, the language used to describe it, etc. rather than actually getting solutions to problems, then that, to me, is Political Correctness.

Joe


Of course it is possible to excessively debate philosophy to the detriment of action, and that is not helpful (although I'm not sure that automatically qualifies it as PC). But to do without thinking, that would be just be a bit stupid. An excellent example re; the philosophy of disability that you mention is the development of a social model of disability in the 1980s. Having an alternative to the medical model has opened up massive potential for disabled people, although far from realised. But social models of disability, and the intellectual debates that underpin it, are targets of accusations of PC.

As I have said before, we must ensure that criticising the excesses of PC does not mean stopping or reversing the process of trying to make our society fairer and tackling unfair discrimination.

Originally posted by Cyclone
there is no policy of taking things to such extremes as banning christmas though. Everytime such an example surfaces, it's either a complete exaggeration by the tabloids or a single jobsworth who doesn't represent the whole of government taking something too far because they don't understand what they are meant to be achieving (or maybe because they wish to cause a problem).

True - but there are sufficient docuemnted instances to indicate that PC thinking does exist, and is problematic.

It's not just a bogey-man invented by the tabloid press and popular media and SF Co-Admins. :)

Originally posted by TeaFan
Of course it is possible to excessively debate philosophy to the detriment of action, and that is not helpful (although I'm not sure that automatically qualifies it as PC). But to do without thinking, that would be just be a bit stupid. An excellent example re; the philosophy of disability that you mention is the development of a social model of disability in the 1980s. Having an alternative to the medical model has opened up massive potential for disabled people, although far from realised. But social models of disability, and the intellectual debates that underpin it, are targets of accusations of PC.

As I have said before, we must ensure that criticising the excesses of PC does not mean stopping or reversing the process of trying to make our society fairer and tackling unfair discrimination.

I wouldn't want to reverse any processes that make society fairer. However, that MIGHT mean that positive discrimnination would be frowned upon. :)

As for the construction of social models of disability, I'm biased. Part of my work was very hands on, in terms of me working with particular children for periods of time to solve the immediate problems of their day to day life. I guess I've never been smart enough to determine the relevance of social models of disability to someone who can't actually afford to get hardware that will allow them a greater degree of independence in their day to day life.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
True - but there are sufficient docuemnted instances to indicate that PC thinking does exist, and is problematic.

It's not just a bogey-man invented by the tabloid press and popular media and SF Co-Admins. :)

In some cases it does exist. It is heavily exaggerated by the tabloid press for their own political reasons.
And in every case that comes to light, the decision is reversed and a non-pc yet sensible judgement is made by someone senior.

Originally posted by Cyclone
In some cases it does exist. It is heavily exaggerated by the tabloid press for their own political reasons.
And in every case that comes to light, the decision is reversed and a non-pc yet sensible judgement is made by someone senior.

Which is great! :)

But, as I say, it exists and is a problem. And whilever there are people shouting about it, those senior managers will do their job. And no doubt when the shouting stops, so will a few of teh reversals of policy.

But don't you wonder WHY the junior made the decision? And what their rationale was?

Joe

the original topic though is whether britain is threatened by it, which I think we've just show it isn't.

It does make you wonder about the people who make such odd decisions. It makes me wonder whether they actually understand what discrimation truly is and thus what it isn't.
How come someone honestly think that requiring english speaking for a job was potentially against the race discrimination act (and thus racists)? Either they are stupid, they don't understand what is and isn't racism, or they wanted to cause a fuss for ulterior reasons.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the original topic though is whether britain is threatened by it, which I think we've just show it isn't.

It does make you wonder about the people who make such odd decisions. It makes me wonder whether they actually understand what discrimation truly is and thus what it isn't.
How come someone honestly think that requiring english speaking for a job was potentially against the race discrimination act (and thus racists)? Either they are stupid, they don't understand what is and isn't racism, or they wanted to cause a fuss for ulterior reasons.

No, Cyclone.

There is a threat that is currently being countered. It is real. Decisions biased by PC affect the economic and social well being of this country.

Like many things, PC is a threat unless we keep a close and beady eye on it. Just because the threat is contained doesn't make the threat vanish.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
I I guess I've never been smart enough to determine the relevance of social models of disability to someone who can't actually afford to get hardware that will allow them a greater degree of independence in their day to day life.

Joe

but remember Joe, it wasn't very long ago that the very idea that disabled people should be allowed to be independent was considered foolish and dangerous. Lots of ideas are viewed as dangerous when they are new, some of them probably as dangerous political correctness, but we find that some of them serve us well over time. Ideas have their place with practical solutions, and in my view they are symbiotic.

Good debate this, by the way.

But isn't pc-ness just another swing of the pendulum? For many thousands of years the pendulum was stuck on the far side of acceptable behaviour, burning widows as witches, ostracising 'different' people, stoning strangers, etc. Then in a more enlightened time we decided that it was time to be more tolerant and respect people's differences.

However, some pc zealots have taken this pc-ness to extremes and we are, rightly, seeing a back-lash now to prevent these extremes. This, in my mind, is pulling the pendulum of tolerance to the middle. Undoubtedly, it will swing too much the other way but one day it will settle somewhere in the middle and we will have a society that is acceptable to all, except the extremists of course.

Originally posted by JoeP
No, Cyclone.

There is a threat that is currently being countered. It is real. Decisions biased by PC affect the economic and social well being of this country.

Like many things, PC is a threat unless we keep a close and beady eye on it. Just because the threat is contained doesn't make the threat vanish.

Joe

If you want to put it like that then any undesirable is a threat.
I guess the real question is whether it's a threat that needs action taking before it's too late...
I'd probably also qualify you statement with an 'overly'. ie

"Decisions biased by being overly PC affect the economic and social well being"

I suppose having a clear definition of what is the correct behaviour and what is overly pc would help. On here for example you can be called pc for expressing virtually any non fascist opinion if the right person responds, and I'd say that people not being fascists isn't a threat to the country.

Originally posted by Cyclone
If you want to put it like that then any undesirable is a threat.
I guess the real question is whether it's a threat that needs action taking before it's too late...
I'd probably also qualify you statement with an 'overly'. ie

"Decisions biased by being overly PC affect the economic and social well being"

I suppose having a clear definition of what is the correct behaviour and what is overly pc would help. On here for example you can be called pc for expressing virtually any non fascist opinion if the right person responds, and I'd say that people not being fascists isn't a threat to the country.

Just because a decision originates from the left or liberal perspective doesn't, to me, make it 'PC'. Neither does something from the right or the 'non-left' automatically make it 'fascist'.

It's precisely that sort of name calling that has been discussed earlier in this thread as well. It isn't helpful.

I'd agree with you on overly, though, and feel that some of my earlier comments go some way to clarify what I mean by that. And there are earlier comments in this thread that also indicate where people think lines could be drawn.

Joe

Originally posted by TeaFan
but remember Joe, it wasn't very long ago that the very idea that disabled people should be allowed to be independent was considered foolish and dangerous. Lots of ideas are viewed as dangerous when they are new, some of them probably as dangerous political correctness, but we find that some of them serve us well over time. Ideas have their place with practical solutions, and in my view they are symbiotic.

Good debate this, by the way.

Agreed - but this is where we use that old fashioned stand-by, 'common sense'.

If soemone can be independent, great - help them become more so.

If someone hasn't the ability - physical or mental - to do so, even with whatever help can be offered - then it's foolish to pretend that they can, and that's where I'd say 'PC'. It's when doctrine and dogma over-rule practicality that I have issues.

Just because an idea is new and possibly dangerous doesn't make it 'PC' in my thinking; it's when that idea is aplied to an existing situation without regard for whether it genuinely helps the situation.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP

If someone hasn't the ability - physical or mental - to do so, even with whatever help can be offered - then it's foolish to pretend that they can, and that's where I'd say 'PC'. It's when doctrine and dogma over-rule practicality that I have issues.

Joe


My job is entirely to do with supporting disabled people to have more independence, and I've never heard anyone pretending that people are able to do what is impossible for them. Some people will try imaginative and creative ways to open up as many possibilities for people, and foster aspirations and ambitions that disabled people have been denied for decades, but that's not PC, that's just wanting people to have life chances like anyone else.