ipaul Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 'It's Political Correctness gone mad!' A cry of indignation that is often heard these days, but what do n-europites think of Political Correctness in general? I feel like the only one who actually doesn't mind and I think that for all it's faults, it is by and large a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramar Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'm sorry but when can't call Spotted Dick, what it is, then political correctness has gone too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Health and Safety has gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Health and safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Political correctness has a sad tendency to always go ridiculous. I've always felt that being respectful to whatever crowd you're currently with is the best policy. Someone deciding's what right or wrong to say or do seems a little strange - surely it's up to those who might actually get offended to decide? Not everyone will cry out because of a swear word. It's all about knowing your audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't really like it in most aspects. Its good to try and not offend people, but it just makes people more offended by things when we're specifically told what to call someone. For instance, now that we have to call people with black skin "African American" or just "African" in europe, every time someone says the word "black" not even using it to describe someone, people get offended, for no reason. I should be able to say "I prefer the white coloured appliance" without getting called a racist. My uncle's view on the subject (and I'm not sure if he got this from some random bit of media, or if its his own conclusion) is that every time the word that we call some group of people gets any sort of negative connotation, even if the word itself is nowhere near offensive, it has to be changed. For instance, "Indian" had to be changed to "Native American", which had to be changed to "Aboriginal", which had to be changed to "First Nations", because people keep associating the word with the alcoholic first nations you see all the time on the streets in major urban centers. Now, calling them "Indians" was wrong, but it was just a mistake columbus made, and the word "Indian" isn't actually offensive, considering it offensive would be insulting actual Indians. But the other 3 (and I'm not sure about the order of the middle 2, or if I'm missing a few) have nothing wrong with them. Changing the word every few years does nothing, unless you try and help the alcoholics in the first place. I hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What I don't like is that it seems to be mainly people who these "Politically Incorrect" words aren't referring to are the main ones complaining about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 My girlfriend is given this booklet each year at uni, with updated information about her lecturers, what to do when this happens, that happens, etc. There is also a section on the correct ways to say things. It has a table with what is usually said, and what should be said. Examples such as, "Mankind - Humankind, Man-power - Effort", etc, etc. And then there are loads of race, age, etc, etc. I find this more offensive than the incorrect terms. If I were a woman I'd be pissed that people think I'm that touchy. I kind of lost interest in this post. I might come back and post again once I remember what I was thinking, I also said etc a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) Health and Safety has gone mad. Health and safety. As a person who will likely spend most of my working life on building sites, health and safety is pretty damn important. For more conventionally safe situations, bear in mind that if someone hurt themselves, and no one had warned them, there'd be an outcry, and possibly a suing. It's one of those things the people behind can't win - if they're there, they're hated, if they're not, people want to know why. I use the terms black, white, east Asian, South Asian, etc, etc to describe people, but if someone asks otherwise, I would, in there case, use "African American" (it really pisses me off when Americans use that term talking about black English people...) As for the sexism thing, I use "humanity" instead of "mankind" anyway, and "man-power" is a generally accepted colloquialism. Edited October 9, 2009 by The fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 In terms of "postman" and the like, the "man" part is pronounced how it is in "woman", not how it is in "man". So I fail to see what the big problem about it is - we say "postman" and not "post-MAN". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Some people just need to grow the fuck up and get a life. Like for example anybody that spells it "womyn". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 As a person who will likely spend most of my working life on building sites, health and safety is pretty damn important. For more conventionally safe situations, bear in mind that if someone hurt themselves, and no one had warned them, there'd be an outcry, and possibly a suing. It's one of those things the people behind can't win - if they're there, they're hated, if they're not, people want to know why. No, I understand there are places where health and safety is paramount. However, being told in an office environment to avoid complicated tie knots because you might develop RSI is an insignia away from Nazi Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why is "black" so bad? A black person, a white person - it's describing the effing skin colour. African American doesn't always work, because black people aren't only from Africa. Plus, if he or she isn't living in America, but for example in Denmark, the term doesn't fit, either. The fact is that the most covering term when talking about someone with a darker skin colour is "black" - even though most "black" people's skin is actually more brown than black. The problem is that both in the past and now, some people have the insane idea that black people are "less human" or "not worth as much" as white people. Thus, pretty much any word we use when referring to people with a darker skin colour is at some point deemed racist or politically incorrect simply because of the fact that it distinguishes black people from white people. It's like we're trying to deny the fact that we look different. And that seems to me even more politically incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Just to point out that the term 'black' is now the acceptable term to use to describe a person. (in the UK anyway) (it never used to be but now is again) And that there is nothing wrong with using that word now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Just to point out that the term 'black' is now the acceptable term to use to describe a person. (it never used to be but now is again) And that there is nothing wrong with using that word now. The problem is that it was ever a problem to begin with. I hate it when negative connotations are put into words where they don't belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 The problem is that it was ever a problem to begin with. I hate it when negative connotations are put into words where they don't belong. Yep i agree. It was made a 'problem' and then realised it isn't but now there is alot of ppl that feel to scared to use the word 'black' incase they are wrongly called a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Yep i agree. It was made a 'problem' and then realised it isn't but now there is alot of ppl that feel to scared to use the word 'black' incase they are wrongly called a racist. Exactly. I even felt a tiny bit politically incorrect using the term in the above post. 'Tis a shame, really. So much "political correctness" is pretentious if you ask me - too little of it is actually founded in reality. In some cases, deeming a word politically incorrect is actually what makes it politically incorrect in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 In days gone by the word "retarded" used to be completely acceptable in society. Now its frowned on, because people use these terms in nasty ways. Every term that comes around gets abused by society then its suddenly become unacceptable. The NHS actually has an awareness department as such. They do seminars (which is compulsory every 2 years) training us to be nice to everyone and what terms you can and can't use. And how to deal with certain problems and who to report to. "Wheelchair dependant" is apparently a negative term and you should call them "wheelchair users" as if it suggests they have a choice. If I was in a wheelchair I wouldn't really give a shit which one they used... I get worse names as someone with a skin condition! But you can say "see you later" to someone that is blind. Or "gotta run" to someone in a wheelchair.. Its crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 But you can say "see you later" to someone that is blind. Or "gotta run" to someone in a wheelchair.. Its crazy But then you are the one seeing/running. --- People just need to use common sense and have a bit of respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why is "black" so bad? A black person, a white person - it's describing the effing skin colour. African American doesn't always work, because black people aren't only from Africa. Plus, if he or she isn't living in America, but for example in Denmark, the term doesn't fit, either. The fact is that the most covering term when talking about someone with a darker skin colour is "black" - even though most "black" people's skin is actually more brown than black. The problem is that both in the past and now, some people have the insane idea that black people are "less human" or "not worth as much" as white people. Thus, pretty much any word we use when referring to people with a darker skin colour is at some point deemed racist or politically incorrect simply because of the fact that it distinguishes black people from white people. It's like we're trying to deny the fact that we look different. And that seems to me even more politically incorrect. You're right, it is what their skin colour is. There's no getting around that. A white person is white, for example. I seriously worry about many people who refer to skin colour as if it's some sort of disability. It's not. It's part of heritage and it makes up part of who you are. I kinda like having my name and skin colour, because I find it funny when I see the puzzled look on people's faces as they try to determine where I'm from or what I'm like as a person because of it. The downside is that when you put your name on application form or something, you feel that you can sometimes be judged without someone ever truly getting to know you. But, with that in mind, why would you ever need to refer to the term "black" anyway? There's one example I've heard over the years where if you walk into a room and see 2 white guys and one black guy, you refer to the black guy by his skin colour, whereas you might refer to the white guys by other physical features, such as their height, build, or something else. "The tall guy" for example. I guess being black is part of a physical appearance, but I think if Martin Luther King (Jr) taught us anything, it is that we should be looking beyond the physical. Some people can do that, others can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) You're right, it is what their skin colour is. There's no getting around that. A white person is white, for example. I seriously worry about many people who refer to skin colour as if it's some sort of disability. It's not. It's part of heritage and it makes up part of who you are. I kinda like having my name and skin colour, because I find it funny when I see the puzzled look on people's faces as they try to determine where I'm from or what I'm like as a person because of it. The downside is that when you put your name on application form or something, you feel that you can sometimes be judged without someone ever truly getting to know you. But, with that in mind, why would you ever need to refer to the term "black" anyway? There's one example I've heard over the years where if you walk into a room and see 2 white guys and one black guy, you refer to the black guy by his skin colour, whereas you might refer to the white guys by other physical features, such as their height, build, or something else. "The tall guy" for example. I guess being black is part of a physical appearance, but I think if Martin Luther King (Jr) taught us anything, it is that we should be looking beyond the physical. Some people can do that, others can't. Yeah again i agree. The only time i use the word 'black' is when describing a person, Obviously thats not the only descriptive point i make but it is one of them (colour of the persons skin, its the job i do, there is no avoiding that but 'black' is the current politically correct way to describe a person). Edited October 9, 2009 by Mike1988uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Not sure if it applies, but what I hate most is when people are offended by things that aren't actually offensive to them, but they've been told that it is offensive. A friend claimed that Madonna mouting herself on massive mirrored cross in a mock-crucifixion while singing a powerful ballad that actually tapped into many themes of redemption and forgiveness was offensive to christians. She didn't deface it or make any gestures that could be perceived as negative toward the cross and what it symbolised. I was at a loss as to how it was offensive, and not just using the image in homage/to emphasise themes in the music (which weren't vulgar or anything). -- I agree that I hate the whole "black/african american" thing...I just say black. Around here, that seems to be the norm, and it's not like it's derogatory...I'm a "white person", when my skin is more acurately a horrible hodge podge of pink, pale pink and yellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah again i agree. The only time i use the word 'black' is when describing a person, Obviously thats not the only descriptive point i make but it is one of them (colour of the persons skin, its the job i do, there is no avoiding that). Generally, I think many black people are proud of the fact that they are black, anyway. Why should it be something negative? It should be a point of celebration. The Irish are proud of the fact that they are Irish, so I think it can be used as a positive thing. It's all about being individual and like it or not, we are all different to each other. But, I think this is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 You're right, it is what their skin colour is. There's no getting around that. A white person is white, for example. I seriously worry about many people who refer to skin colour as if it's some sort of disability. It's not. It's part of heritage and it makes up part of who you are. I kinda like having my name and skin colour, because I find it funny when I see the puzzled look on people's faces as they try to determine where I'm from or what I'm like as a person because of it. The downside is that when you put your name on application form or something, you feel that you can sometimes be judged without someone ever truly getting to know you. But, with that in mind, why would you ever need to refer to the term "black" anyway? There's one example I've heard over the years where if you walk into a room and see 2 white guys and one black guy, you refer to the black guy by his skin colour, whereas you might refer to the white guys by other physical features, such as their height, build, or something else. "The tall guy" for example. I guess being black is part of a physical appearance, but I think if Martin Luther King (Jr) taught us anything, it is that we should be looking beyond the physical. Some people can do that, others can't. Yeah, but we can't get around the fact that it's one of the most physical descriptive features there is, so trying to silence it to death is just ridiculous. We should indeed look past the physical appearance, but people seem to think that means we should ignore the physical appearance altogether and pretend it doesn't exist. But that's silly. The physical appearance is as much a part of us as everything else. But it isn't the part of us that matters. The latter of the two previous sentences most people seem to get. The former ... not so much, it seems. At least the "political correct" people don't seem to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah, but we can't get around the fact that it's one of the most physical descriptive features there is, so trying to silence it to death is just ridiculous. We should indeed look past the physical appearance, but people seem to think that means we should ignore the physical appearance altogether and pretend it doesn't exist. But that's silly. The physical appearance is as much a part of us as everything else. But it isn't the part of us that matters. The latter of the two previous sentences most people seem to get. The former ... not so much, it seems. At least the "political correct" people don't seem to get it. I don't think you can ignore it. I mean, it's there. I don't think it should be ignored, because it can make up a part of who you are. But, you shouldn't judge a person solely on that, either. That's when it becomes a problem. For example, if you are a female with blonde hair, you are sometimes instantly classed as an "airhead." These connections are wrong. So, in essence, I think we agree on the same things? Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts