Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct

Nobelium · 27-04-2019 09:23PM

PC . . . Political Correctness

The question is . . "politically correct" according to who's politics exactly ?

What's "politically correct" in China, Europe and the USA is quite different

Who's political agenda is deemed "politically correct" in Ireland ?

Demonique · 27-04-2019 09:25PM

McDave wrote: »

I think PC overreached long ago. It was one of the reasons Clinton fell to Trump. Many in the liberal spectrum there are questioning why this has happened. Some are fingering the take over of identity politics.

PC here is a decade or so behind US and UK peaks. But is no less sanctimonious for it. For me, the high water mark was Colm O’Gorman’s claim on the radio that the gay marriage referendum was in fact about the whole liberal agenda. Tin ear permissive liberals have been giving it socks ever since. For instance:

1. An early low profile overreach was Enda Kenny’s ‘recognition’ of Travellers as an ethnic group, without any evidentiary basis whatsoever.

2. While I enthusiastically supported ‘repeal the eighth’, I felt the heart repeal logo was an affront. After all abortion is an unfortunate, messy business. It shouldn’t have been ‘marketed’ like a Valentine’s day box of chocolates. But the Repeal campaign used that heart logo extensively without it seems giving it a moment’s thought.

The heart repeal logo didn't prevent them winning the referendum

Agree about travellers though

klaaaz · 27-04-2019 09:30PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I was actually talking about backslash and abuse against John Boyne for refusing to call himself cis male. It's completely disingenuous to pretend some people aren't hounded especially on Twitter for just having different opinion.

Twitter is for narcissistic people, it is not a barometer of public opinion. One person tweeting on "behalf of a community" criticising others does not represent that community. The vast majority of the population are not on Twitter anyway and the media who are fuelling for clickbait news latch onto the narcissistic tweeters, and let's face it that spat has helped Mr. Boyne's profile as I never heard of him before, I do now

dxhound2005 · 27-04-2019 09:34PM

This is an extract from the article linked in the OP, which was the university types deciphering the results of their survey. They're telling us we're too old and too stupid to manage our lives in the modern world.

But “what we saw with both Brexit and Trump was people feeling the rapidity of social and technological change was quite dizzying. And if you’re older and less educated, it’s even more dizzying, partly because you’re less able to benefit from the advantages of it, and more likely to suffer disadvantages.

“The young, bright-eyed, nimble on their feet, tech-savvy people thrive in a globalised world and are going to have multiple identities – Irish, European, global citizen – which is a wonderful diluter of prejudice.”

In the coming years, “there’s going to be exponential changes in technology, work and the social fabric, which are going to exaggerate this difference between educated people with flexible identities and transferable skills” and those with more traditional notions of identity. As a result, he suggests, “these trends identified in the data are likely to increase”.

Nobelium · 27-04-2019 09:38PM

McDave wrote: »

I think PC overreached long ago. It was one of the reasons Clinton fell to Trump. Many in the liberal spectrum there are questioning why this has happened. Some are fingering the take over of identity politics.

PC here is a decade or so behind US and UK peaks. But is no less sanctimonious for it. For me, the high water mark was Colm O’Gorman’s claim on the radio that the gay marriage referendum was in fact about the whole liberal agenda. Tin ear permissive liberals have been giving it socks ever since. For instance:

1. An early low profile overreach was Enda Kenny’s ‘recognition’ of Travellers as an ethnic group, without any evidentiary basis whatsoever.

2. While I enthusiastically supported ‘repeal the eighth’, I felt the heart repeal logo was an affront. After all abortion is an unfortunate, messy business. It shouldn’t have been ‘marketed’ like a Valentine’s day box of chocolates. But the Repeal campaign used that heart logo extensively without it seems giving it a moment’s thought.

3. The horrified but confident reaction of the water cooler ‘liberal’ media to the vote for Casey was an indication of how much in control of social debate the liberati thought they were. I think this is where the backlash, which one of the IT correspondents mentioned today, actually had a chance to crystallise.

4. A couple of weeks back the SB Post had an interesting feature on immigrants in Ireland, lauding the extent to which integration takes place here. But without giving a moments thought to what the public reaction might be to the high proportions of, say, Muslim immigration experienced in some other European countries, and the serious problems arising from it.

What is most striking for me is not just the emergence of these issues in national debate, but the shrill, censorious attitude of many of those promoting ‘liberal’ solutions, with characterisations of ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘nationalist’, ‘anti-semite’, etc. being readily thrown at anyone demurring from the hardline ideological standpoints emerging as the new liberal ‘consensus’ of a metropolitan, multicultural Ireland, pioneered by new leftist, ‘liberal’, and feminist clergies.

The IT has unexpectedly struck a raw nerve. I think a backlash is indeed in the offing.

Another couple of examples that seem to have gone over most people's heads is allowing the HSE to not only self declare , but name it's own centres, "centres of of excellence" and calling policies the "fair deal scheme" etc. and such like, in an attempt to stifle any genuine debate and genuine concern raising is another insidious development.

meeeeh · 27-04-2019 09:42PM

klaaaz wrote: »

Twitter is for narcissistic people, it is not a barometer of public opinion. One person tweeting on "behalf of a community" criticising others does not represent that community. The vast majority of the population are not on Twitter anyway and the media who are fuelling for clickbait news latch onto the narcissistic tweeters, and let's face it that spat has helped Mr. Boyne's profile as I never heard of him before, I do now

I'm pretty sure you heard of 'The Boy in the Stripped Pyjamas'.

While authors have to promote their books he is hardly some attention seeking nobody. The same goes for Navratilova (another example) who has every right to voice opinion about female sport. I don't want to make this about trans issues it's just this seems to be the most current battlefield where emotions and righteousness is often drowning reasoned debate.

Pythagorean · 27-04-2019 09:43PM

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

When in certain circles saying something as innocent and true as there are differences between men and women can be considered 'Hate speech' then I think things have gone too far.[/QUOT

Consider the case of George Hook; when he suggested that a rape victim maybe should have been a bit more careful about whose room she agreed to go back to, the howls of outrage that followed forced Newstalk to terminate his contract. I seem to remember the condemnation even came from some Government ministers. A similar mob rule forced Kevin Myers from his newspaper column, after he made some remarks about Jewish TV presenters.

klaaaz · 27-04-2019 09:46PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is an extract from the article linked in the OP, which was the university types deciphering the results of their survey. They're telling us we're too old and too stupid to manage our lives in the modern world.

The issue in this age is that anyone can access and put an opinion across online, most people have internet enabled phones(the good). This includes those making up crap and sharing it online as truth when it's fake. (the bad). A large chunk of the population are gullible and believe anything as fact when its shared online. This is also true for the tabloids who sensationalise stories to trigger a reaction.

meeeeh · 27-04-2019 09:49PM

Pythagorean wrote: »

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

When in certain circles saying something as innocent and true as there are differences between men and women can be considered 'Hate speech' then I think things have gone too far.[/QUOT

Consider the case of George Hook; when he suggested that a rape victim maybe should have been a bit more careful about whose room she agreed to go back to, the howls of outrage that followed forced Newstalk to terminate his contract.

Outrage was over the top and I didn't agree with him loosing his job but you are totally minimising what Hook said. He went on a rant about personal responsibility of the victim and her drinking.

Nobelium · 27-04-2019 09:49PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is an extract from the article linked in the OP, which was the university types deciphering the results of their survey. They're telling us we're too old and too stupid to manage our lives in the modern world.

But “what we saw with both Brexit and Trump was people feeling the rapidity of social and technological change was quite dizzying. And if you’re older and less educated, it’s even more dizzying, partly because you’re less able to benefit from the advantages of it, and more likely to suffer disadvantages.

“The young, bright-eyed, nimble on their feet, tech-savvy people thrive in a globalised world and are going to have multiple identities – Irish, European, global citizen – which is a wonderful diluter of prejudice.”

In the coming years, “there’s going to be exponential changes in technology, work and the social fabric, which are going to exaggerate this difference between educated people with flexible identities and transferable skills” and those with more traditional notions of identity. As a result, he suggests, “these trends identified in the data are likely to increase”.

Going by the opinions permitted on mainstream media, ageism seems to have been deemed politically correct.
People are are more easily manipulated and indoctrinated when they are younger.

dxhound2005 · 27-04-2019 09:52PM

klaaaz wrote: »

The issue in this age is that anyone can access and put an opinion across online, most people have internet enabled phones(the good). This includes those making up crap and sharing it online as truth when it's fake. (the bad). A large chunk of the population are gullible and believe anything as fact when its shared online. This is also true for the tabloids who sensationalise stories to trigger a reaction.

And 69 per cent agreed with the statement that “society is too politically correct”.

From the survey. So a very large chunk are not so gullible, and seem to think they are more clued up than the "politically correct" types.

klaaaz · 27-04-2019 09:53PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you heard of 'Boy in Stripped Pyjamas'.

While authors have to promote their books he is hardly some attention seeking nobody. The same goes for Navratilova (another example) who has every right to voice opinion about female sport. I don't want to make this about trans issues it's just this seems to be the most current battlefield where emotions and righteousness is often drowning reasoned debate.

Yes I saw that film but I and others did not know who wrote the novel. As for the Navratilova stuff and that issue, that originated guess where, Twitter!. I too have noticed that the trans issues battlefield has originated from guess where, damn twitter again! Twitter is not an arena for reasoned debate, i'm deliberately not on Twitter myself, i'd be glad the day it's gone as it has poisoned many issues. Twitter is like a narcissistic Daily Mail!

ogsjw · 27-04-2019 09:54PM

Margaret Flabby Trash wrote: »

I think people are sick and tired of the likes of RTE shoving political correctness down their throat. E.g., if RTE produces a documentary on Travellers, it will be 100% about how they are poor victims of settled people's racism and need more protection, more funding, more respect for their culture, etc.

I saw a documentary produced by a big british network about Romas and it just let them talk, and talk, and talk their way into a deep hole. I was flabberghasted. It's called Gypsies on benefits & proud and is on youtube.

Let's get some journalism like that into the country.

klaaaz · 27-04-2019 09:56PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And 69 per cent agreed with the statement that “society is too politically correct”.

From the survey. So a very large chunk are not so gullible, and seem to think they are more clued up than the "politically correct" types.

Where do the 69% get their news info from? They certainly do not vote for "anti-PC" political parties so my point stands.

freshpopcorn · 27-04-2019 09:58PM

ogsjw wrote: »

I saw a documentary produced by a big british network about Romas and it just let them talk, and talk, and talk their way into a deep hole. I was flabberghasted. It's called Gypsies on benefits & proud and is on youtube.

Let's get some journalism like that into the country.

Niall Boylan would be up for it I'd say!

Elmer Jones · 27-04-2019 09:58PM

No woman should go off on her own with a man she barely knows.

15 years ago the above statement would have been considered to be quite sensible advice however if you said that today (just like George Hook tried to) you'd be labelled as being a misogynistic victim blamer.

These days you can't question anyone who claims to be a victim in life, and it stifles public discourse because people are afraid to say anything about certain sections of society for fear of being labelled as racist,sexist,homophobic, transphobic etc.

dxhound2005 · 27-04-2019 09:59PM

ogsjw wrote: »

I saw a documentary produced by a big british network about Romas and it just let them talk, and talk, and talk their way into a deep hole. I was flabberghasted. It's called Gypsies on benefits & proud and is on youtube.

Let's get some journalism like that into the country.

How about doing a documentary on stamp collectors or bee keepers instead? They are probably a bigger proportion of the population than travellers (0.7%).

ogsjw · 27-04-2019 10:01PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

They are probably a bigger proportion of the population

I'm not sure that's the criteria for producing documentaries or reporting in general. 0.7% of the population can be behind 20-30-40%+ of anti-social activity, that's something worth investigating.

Plus I'll bet there are plenty of documentaries about stamp collecting and bee keeping out there.

Pythagorean · 27-04-2019 10:02PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Pythagorean wrote: »

Outrage was over the top and I didn't agree with him loosing his job but you are totally minimising what Hook said. He went on a rant about personal responsibility of the victim and her drinking.

Supposing a man got blind drunk, walked down an alleyway, was assaulted and robbed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that he maybe should have been a bit more careful ?

ogsjw · 27-04-2019 10:04PM

Pythagorean wrote: »

Supposing a man got blind drunk, walked down an alleyway, was assaulted and robbed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that he maybe should have been a bit more careful ?

Is victim blaming unreasonable?

...yes. (??)

Nobelium · 27-04-2019 10:07PM

Pythagorean wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

Supposing a man got blind drunk, walked down an alleyway, was assaulted and robbed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that he maybe should have been a bit more careful ?

suggesting carefulness, yes, that's reasonable . . .attributing blame to him for being assaulted and robbed, no.

Hook's treatment was political though. They were patiently waiting for Hook to slip up . . . and he played right into their hands.

Had he been on the other side, he could make whatever untrue claim he liked without repercussion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-04-2019 10:10PM

ogsjw wrote: »

Is victim blaming unreasonable?

...yes. (??)

Depends on the circumstances that led up to the incident.

People, for the most part, are responsible for the decisions they make, but this doesn't make crime acceptable.

meeeeh · 27-04-2019 10:12PM

Pythagorean wrote: »

Supposing a man got blind drunk, walked down an alleyway, was assaulted and robbed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that he maybe should have been a bit more careful ?

But he didn't use phrase 'a bit more careful'. There was a lot more to his rant. And I am not going into discussion about rights and wrongs of his firing but you are misrepresenting wgat he actually said. And like silencing someone for their opinion, minimising and misrepresenting what someone said won't help the debate either.

It's not just political correctness is stifling debate, unfounded or unsupported by fact claims make as much damage to healthy debate.

ogsjw · 27-04-2019 10:15PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Niall Boylan would be up for it I'd say!

**** Niall Boylan, hateful prick. This post is a great example of part of the problem. Mention one reasonable enough thing (hey guys, demographics that defraud the welfare system are not great! Both natives and non-natives!) and suddenly you're being accused of monetarily supporting Richard Spencer or something. There is a middle ground folks. It's called moderation/being moderate.

Pythagorean · 27-04-2019 10:17PM

Nobelium wrote: »

Pythagorean wrote: »

suggesting carefulness, yes, that's reasonable . . .attributing blame to him for being assaulted and robbed, no.

My essential point is this; that political correctness sees things in very black and white terms, e.g the example of the rape victim referred to by George Hook. She is automatically categorized as a victim, regardless of the circumstances, and anyone who dares question this assumption is hounded out. Kevin Myers, by remarking about Vanessa Feltz, fell foul of the same mindset.

ogsjw · 27-04-2019 10:20PM

Pythagorean wrote: »

My essential point is this; that political correctness sees things in very black and white terms

How can it when no one can even provide a black and white definition and examples of 'political correctness'. A mod asked for a definition pages ago and no one even attempted to define it.

People call anything they don't agree with that leans progressive as 'political correctness gone mad'.

EDIT: Pythagorean, learn to quote properly please, for all of our sakes.

storker · 27-04-2019 10:23PM

klaaaz wrote: »

Twitter is like a narcissistic Daily Mail!

Or Guardian, depending on your point of view.

Nobelium · 27-04-2019 10:23PM

Pythagorean wrote: »

My essential point is this; that political correctness sees things in very black and white terms, e.g the example of the rape victim referred to by George Hook. She is automatically categorized as a victim, regardless of the circumstances, and anyone who dares question this assumption is hounded out. Kevin Myers, by remarking about Vanessa Feltz, fell foul of the same mindset.

Someone that has been genuinely raped, assaulted robbed etc. is a victim. That's not a political opinion, it's a very basic fact of justice, law and order.

I agree Hook's treatment was political though. They were patiently waiting for Hook to slip up so his airtime could be politically re purposed. . . and he played right into their hands with his false claim.

Had he been on the other side, he could make whatever untrue claim he liked without repercussion.

One eyed Jack · 27-04-2019 10:26PM

ogsjw wrote: »

If we are ever going to get past the last five years of tearing chunks at each other, we are going to have to start studying Social Contract Theory. It is an argument as old as human philosophy itself. Some groups legitimately infringe on others and that must be stopped if we are ever going to progress as a society.

Have you studied Social Contract Theory yourself? How do you expect societies progress without infringement of one group upon another being granted legitimacy through political and legal structures?

There are two large 'career homeless' demographics that negatively affect Ireland and yes, we need them to respect the society we have built. Otherwise all we're ever going to do is go round and around pointing fingers at each other.

You just pointed the finger at what you term two large ‘career homeless’ groups suggesting that they need to respect the society we have built, while at the same time you’re suggesting that we need to stop pointing fingers and infringing upon other groups in society in order to progress as a society!

But equal rights for everyone, irrespective of skin colour, religion, orientation or gender is a different argument altogether. But both kinds of arguments get tarred as being 'PC'.

No it’s not, it’s essentially the same argument, and from it came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are legal and political structures which acknowledge, recognise, respect and protect the dignity and human rights of all groups in society, even the groups you’re pointing the finger at claiming that they are a hindrance to social progress!

That is the problem. And actually I think it affects people tarred as bigots more than anything. An honest discussion about Social Contract theory is a much needed first step with regards for what you're specifically referring to.

I can promise you I won’t tar you as a bigot if you’re willing to have an honest discussion about Social Contract Theory that doesn’t involve you pointing fingers at specific groups in society that you want to infringe upon their human rights and claim you have a legitimate reason to do so with the objective being social progress according to how you determine we would be a better society according to your take on the Social Contract.

dxhound2005 · 27-04-2019 10:26PM

ogsjw wrote: »

Pythagorean wrote: »

How can it when no one can even provide a black and white definition and examples of 'political correctness'. A mod asked for a definition pages ago and no one even attempted to define it.

People call anything they don't agree with that leans progressive as 'political correctness gone mad'.

If you read the article in the OP you will see that the whole thing is a nonsense. They recognise that themselves.

The term “political correctness” carries a lot of baggage, and there’s likely to be a wide spectrum of views and attitudes captured in that 69 per cent. So too do the phrases “foreign national influx” and even “Irish identity”. And “everything changes too quickly” could mean many different things.

Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct

Comments