Political Correctness Gone Mad?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Of course it isn't but this short clip articulates my own feelings on the subject

Political Correctness Gone Made - Stewart Lee

especially the clincher half way through

[SeanMacGabhann]

Moved from the main forum Mr Administrator??? It's political cor... oh wait

[spadetownboy]

and the point is?

[SeanMacGabhann]

just something to keep in one's back-pocket.

In any given week, 5 out of 7 days include some tiresome debate where the phrase is trotted out as if, by it's very mention, the argument is now concluded and that assumption has always irked me. And when I came across this today I thought it worth sharing (plus, more people need to be aware of Stewart Lee's work)

[Keef]

I disagree with some of what he said Sean. He made good points, and used some very powerful examples to show how un-politically correct (or just racist basically) things used to be, but he came across as a selfsatisfied knob, and to say that everyone who would use the term "political correctness gone mad" is just trying to cover up the fact that they're a racist or a biggot is a sweeping generalisation.

Shame, because I think he had the chance to make a very good point, and as far as I'm concerned he f**ked it up.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I keep forgetting who this Slosh is! ;-)

As to your point tho, I think many people would agree with you. Which is why he spends most of his time in the margins...

[mockney piers]

As you know I'm rather partial to Mr Lee, and I know that much of stand-up, and satire in general is to exaggerate for effect; however I'm inclined to agree with Ke..err Slosh on this one. He did alienate and rather undermine his point somewhat, but of course he's never been one to pull his punches and he's certainly made me think twice about using that phrase without thinking it through first.

But it's undeniable that the use of language can colour or even frame debate, and in many respects political correctness now only serves to self defeat it's stated intentions.

[Nero]

Agreed. He came across as a clever man who had let his indignation overrule his innate intelligence. Political correctness is very different from anti-racism or common polity. I also remember people around me, in my family, saying racist things casually and without malice, it seemed, and agree that things have moved on, but that wasn't due to Cleckheaton Council (or wherever) banning Christmas, was it? Nero

[AnotherPaul]

But did political correctness ever have stated intentions? It's not a movement as such and there's no organised agenda. I think of it as verbal camoflage which can be used to disguise personal attacks on those expressing opinions deemed excessively caring.

Instead of an individual expressing dislike - which can be awkward and embarrassing - to cloak that dislike beneath what seems to be pre-existing social trend can work to make that unpleasant attitude sound ok.

It's not bigotry or racist in itself and Mr Lee is a bit casual about that. How un PC of him.

[downsouth]

There is a spectrum that over time shifts. Attitudes in the 40s and 50s would now be deemed offensive. However there are some areas where society as a whole is either not ready or will never be ready/accepting. Unfortunately political correctness is a term that has in recent years been used to describe all efforts at achieving a consensus - laudable but at times fraught with very poor exceptions.

There are though absolutes, and racist is racist and prejudice and sexist are just that. The rest is grey and for society through media like this to discuss, debate and keep alive.

[mockney piers]

"But did political correctness ever have stated intentions? It's not a movement as such and there's no organised agenda."

Totally fair comment Paul. I do think there is existence of a movement in the loose sense as an idea, also loosely defined, with a more or less cogent intention behind it. That is to end the use of pejorative terms against minorities.

"Political Correctness" as terminology was largely coined by the right who's perception is that the loony left are imposing their will on them. It's little surprise that most reporting of some loony council agenda tends to be reported by the likes of the Daily Mail, and in most cases tends to be a huge exaggeration on the part of the reporting.

Of course that's not to say that some of the more bonkers examples haven't happened, but I'm pretty sure much less than we'd think. Not unlike all those crazy law-suits we read about, most of them don't make it to the courts and few will succeed there; doesn't mean we don't read article after article of man sues worm for trespass etc.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Indeed MP, and pretty much my point.

I lack the context of the Lee interview above so the race angle may have been a focal point before the recording starts but the point I took from it is that, with 84% of that audience agreeing with the statement "Political Corectness Has Gone Too Far", it is important that people start to talk about reality (ie of course it hasn't) and quash prejuidces

There was a thread some time back where the usual "council bans Christmas" thing was brought up and I was able to link to the refutation but I'm always startled by many people's ability to swallow such nonsense. But then if it reenforces their prejudice (about Europe, Guardian readers, immigration, whatever) they will seize it with glee (which is where the racist accusation in the interview may have stemmed from)

[Keef]

downsouth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a spectrum that over time shifts. Attitudes in the 40s and 50s would now be deemed offensive. However there are some areas where society as a whole is either not ready or will never be ready/accepting. Unfortunately political correctness is a term that has in recent years been used to describe all efforts at achieving a consensus - laudable but at times fraught with very poor exceptions.

>

> There are though absolutes, and racist is racist and prejudice and sexist are just that. The rest is grey and for society through media like this to discuss, debate and keep alive.

Your post reminded me of an English Teacher telling us that her husband still had a very old tin of shoe polish labelled as "Nigger Black". Now this obviously, and quite rightly, wouldn't be acceptable today. However, there are those people who I wouldn't call racist who were born of a different time to us, and probably use phrases which would be found offensive today without having any malicious intent.

I work with a lot of elderly people, and visit them in their homes. It is common for them to mention something about their carer who happens to be black, and to say some thing along the lines of "she's a nice girl, dark skinned, but lovely". Now some people would call that person a racist, and I can understand why. I however would call them a person who grew up around Woolwich in a very different time, and who is actually trying in their way to show that the colour of a person's skin doesn't make a difference.

Aaaanyway, not really sure where I was going with that.

My favourite anti PC row is the banning christmas one. Found 2 articles, this from the BBC in 2002, and this from the Guardian in 2005. I work with a fella in his 50s who loves all this, I find it absolutely hilarious!

I do have to say though, that I had a "Political Correctness gone mad" moment when Mrs Keef was doing her teacher training, and was told quite seriously that "you can't use the term Brain Storming as it's offensive to epileptics". Come on!!!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Lol - But then again if Mrs Keef was told

"you can't use the term Brain Storming as it's used only by idiots in The City and you should know better"

I would argue it was quite correct ;-)

Oh and the other thing that gets blamed on PC is when "elf n' safety" issues stop people doing something. When the REAL reason companies don't allow stuff is because they are scared of litigation, encouraged not by do gooder lefty types but rapacious legal-fee companies and all too readily taken up by Joe & Josephine Soap

[mockney piers]

Would "thinking out of the box" be offensive to cricketers? I hope so, I hate that phrase.

"Blue sky thinking" offensive to venutians? Please please please!!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Have some more..

Baaaaaad phrases

[citizenED]

"I work with a lot of elderly people, and visit them in their homes. It is common for them to mention something about their carer who happens to be black, and to say some thing along the lines of "she's a nice girl, dark skinned, but lovely". Now some people would call that person a racist, and I can understand why. I however would call them a person who grew up around Woolwich in a very different time, and who is actually trying in their way to show that the colour of a person's skin doesn't make a difference."

This comment Slosh is most poignant. The point is that people from that different age simply aped the acceptable lazy language of the time to describe something. You rightly say they should not be accused of being racist for it. That is the whole thing with political correctness - it's a process of making small corrections to language so that when our generation are being looked after by carers we will say "she's a nice girl, dark-skinned and lovely"

citizen

[spadetownboy]

check out yesterdays observer online for some cracking examples of un-pcness from down under,its in the world news section "sheilas but the mockers on ockers". quite funny.

[Keef]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lol - But then again if Mrs Keef was told

>

> "you can't use the term Brain Storming as it's

> used only by idiots in The City and you should

> know better"

>

> I would argue it was quite correct ;-)

See your point, but to be fair, we always "Brain Stormed" when I was at school. But in defence of my good lady, I believe it was a fellow student (who by all accounts was likable but a complete and utter pain in the arse) having a big row about it with another very proper student about the Brain Storming issue. Mrs Keef just enjoyed the show for pure comedy value >:D<

This thread leads me to a slightly different conversation that I think we may have touched on here before. There is a real fear in society of being seen to be racist, or prejudiced, and so people will not always voice their opinions.

If someone said to me they thought Britain should close it's doors to more people coming in to live, I wouldn't immediately label them as racist. Of course there is a chance they could be, but they could equally be totally reasonable, but have well formed arguments to back up their opinion. I have seen people shot down very quickly and called racist for saying things like this, and it angers me, because quite often the people doing the shooting, seem to be doing it basically to show how "right on" they are, and distance themselves from any possibly controversial opinions.

For the record, I don't think Britain should be closing it's doors, and the fact that I felt the need to say that maybe proves my point.

[Nero]

For the record, I do think that there are far too many Brits, whatever their hue, on some form of benefit who should be working, even part time. Cameron is on to something when he cites the Wisconsin model (a Democrat state that managed to get people off welfare) as the one to follow. Nero

[SeanMacGabhann]

Nero

Good point and is the type of debate that it should be possible to have without left v right throwing sticks at each other

That said (!) when you say there are too many, wat definition are you using. Is it cost to the nation (it's not that much - around 3% of GDP) or is it "for their own good"?

Also, the Wisconsin program isn't a total sucess either is it? There are some very real, and sometimes inhuman, aspects to the whole thing. For example is it REALLY better for a single mother to spend 4 hours a day on rubbish public transport to and from work for the minimum wage just to keep her off welfare?

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nero

>

> Good point and is the type of debate that it

> should be possible to have without left v right

> throwing sticks at each other

>

> That said (!) when you say there are too many, wat

> definition are you using. Is it cost to the nation

> (it's not that much - around 3% of GDP) or is it

> "for their own good"?

>

> Also, the Wisconsin program isn't a total sucess

> either is it? There are some very real, and

> sometimes inhuman, aspects to the whole thing. For

> example is it REALLY better for a single mother to

> spend 4 hours a day on rubbish public transport to

> and from work for the minimum wage just to keep

> her off welfare?

Sean,

It may only cost 3% of GDP but it involves up to 5,000,000 people (unemployment, disability, NEETS etc - can't substantiate figure immediately but am fairly confident of scale) - that's probably > 15% of the potential working population. It's the impact of not being a contributor to the economic health of the nation that is damaging. Stories of third / fourth generation welfare dependent families are depressing - while the Wisconsin experiment may be harsh it has had the effect of dragging several hundred thousand out of welfare dependency.

In addition in UK, jobs that some of those relying on welfare might take up are being taken up by immigrants - not of itself necessarily a bad thing but it is making for an unhealthy growth in the UK population that, if it were to continue at present rates, is unsustainable. If 50% of those on benefits were to take up employment it might reduce net immigration by 2.5m over next 5 years and hence strain on public services such as health, education etc - surely a double benefit?

[Keef]

Another case where this phrase is used.

This is a total utter load of bollix though!

[Brendan]

Yeah I?ve got a very good way to get around that one. Don?t Listen to BBC radio!

[lozzyloz]

Do vegetarians really find "faggots" that offensive?

I wonder how many "old sluts" also lobbied the BBC since they're editing that out too.