Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct

Franz Von Peppercorn · 28-04-2019 06:44PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Also if you can't work successfully without getting offended easily or can't cope with people questioning social issues. Perhaps you should consider looking for another job also!

People should probably not talk politics in work anyway. Both sides solved there.

freshpopcorn · 28-04-2019 06:48PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

People should probably not talk politics in work anyway. Both sides solved there.

People don't even have to talk politics at work tough. It can be picked up on social media or a person's beliefs could be known from over heard conversation/etc.

meeeeh · 28-04-2019 06:49PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

People should probably not talk politics in work anyway. Both sides solved there.

Another rule what we shouldn't be doing. And yet it totally depends of situation, how close you are to your co-workers, where you work and so on.

coolshannagh28 · 28-04-2019 06:52PM

ogsjw wrote: »

How can someone have a discussion with you if they have no clue what you're on about? That would make two people talking about things they have no clue about. :pac:

You need to brush up on your subject .

Danzy · 28-04-2019 06:52PM

Political correctness is just where the modern version of Arch Bishop McQuaid end up.

Most of them are now on the Left of liberal centre but the attitude is the same.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 28-04-2019 07:24PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Another rule what we shouldn't be doing. And yet it totally depends of situation, how close you are to your co-workers, where you work and so on.

Yeh. I’m was going to do a longer post with exceptions but they could go on forever. If I say don’t criticise the boss at work I mean in public not if you and a colleague are in a private room or at lunch. When I say don’t engage in politics same rules apply.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 28-04-2019 07:35PM

judeboy101 wrote: »

We were warned about this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

The same people who say this would decry Orwell as a SJW if he were around today.

storker · 28-04-2019 09:18PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The same people who say this would decry Orwell as a SJW if he were around today.

Maybe, but it was Orwell who warned that totalitarianism would come from the left while everyone was looking out for it on the right.

Nobelium · 28-04-2019 09:21PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The same people who say this would decry Orwell as a SJW if he were around today.

it seems Orwell's points have gone swoosh over your head

Franz Von Peppercorn · 28-04-2019 10:21PM

storker wrote: »

Maybe, but it was Orwell who warned that totalitarianism would come from the left while everyone was looking out for it on the right.

The Soviet Union was clearly known to be totalitarian. Orwell was hardly unique.

Seathrun66 · 29-04-2019 12:52AM

storker wrote: »

Maybe, but it was Orwell who warned that totalitarianism would come from the left while everyone was looking out for it on the right.

You need to re-read Orwell. He warned about the right in Homage to Catalonia. He then lived through the effects of right-wing totalitarianism in WWII before writing Animal Farm & 1984, again warning about the right and including the left having witnessed Stalin's excesses.

He never dropped his focus on the fascists. And we'd do good not to also. Focusing on undergraduate students attacking with words while neo-Nazis attack with fists may be misguided.

suicide_circus · 29-04-2019 06:46AM

Danzy wrote: »

Political correctness is just where the modern version of Arch Bishop McQuaid end up.

Most of them are now on the Left of liberal centre but the attitude is the same.

This. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

it's a censorious, moralistic, pious and ultimately elitist dogma which seeks to limit the scope and set the terms of reference for any discussion around certain sacred cows.

There have been people in every era who have set themselves up as moral gatekeepers of the society. Finger waggers. Pearl clutchers. Inquisitors.

Atoms for Peace · 29-04-2019 07:27AM

From reading homage to Catalonia Oreell was in far greater danger from Soviet backed communists than the fascists during the time he spend in Spain.
Being a "Trot" could result in a visit from the nice people of the NKVD.

Seathrun66 · 29-04-2019 08:49AM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

From reading homage to Catalonia Oreell was in far greater danger from Soviet backed communists than the fascists during the time he spend in Spain.
Being a "Trot" could result in a visit from the nice people of the NKVD.

Given he was shot through the neck by the fascists I'd say the danger from them was greater. But yeah, the Russian shenanigans in Barcelona weren't impressive.

29-04-2019 09:01AM

In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

robindch · 29-04-2019 09:10AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I gave a straightforward definition, and you have expanded on it. Why do you think we are part of some 1% elite who could do that, and that 99% of the population would fail to do the same?

Because a lot of the population don't seem to accept the need to define and understand something before finding against it. Would have been interesting if the research (carried out using "a novel combination of face to-face and digital qualitative techniques", see here) had indicated how many people had asked interviewers to clarify terms before passing judgement - I'd say few if any?

We can certainly argue about whether it's 1% or 10% who could provide a coherent, workable definition and cogent arguments for or against PC, but as above, I'll put money down that the number of people who could carry out these two tasks to an acceptably clear level remains a small minority.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-04-2019 12:54PM

What would be different if the country was less politically correct?

Apart from things like not having gay marriage and having more abusive and offensive language in day to day life.

I hear people say they cant say xyz for fear of being seen as politically incorrect. What do these people really miss because of political correctness? Do they want to go out and shout at gay people or immigrants? Call black people n1ggers and tell poor people they're scum because they accept social welfare?

I see all this as nonsense that people use to slow down progress because they don't like change even when the change is obviously better.

suicide_circus · 29-04-2019 01:02PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do they want to go out and shout at gay people or immigrants? Call black people n1ggers and tell poor people they're scum because they accept social welfare?

G'way with your lazy strawmen.

Danzy · 29-04-2019 01:04PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

G'way with your lazy strawmen.

Yeah, I had to laugh at his old reactionary Bullcrap.

They really are 1950s Priests reborn.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 29-04-2019 01:19PM

storker wrote: »

Maybe, but it was Orwell who warned that totalitarianism would come from the left while everyone was looking out for it on the right.

That's quite a simplistic reading of his life and opinions.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-04-2019 01:20PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

G'way with your lazy strawmen.

Fine. Try answering this part from the same post; What would be different if the country was less politically correct?

suicide_circus · 29-04-2019 01:22PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fine. Try answering this part from the same post; What would be different if the country was less politically correct?

important topics like immegration and the welfare state could be publically discussed without people being labelled xxxxists.

freshpopcorn · 29-04-2019 01:24PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What would be different if the country was less politically correct?

Apart from things like not having gay marriage and having more abusive and offensive language in day to day life.

I hear people say they cant say xyz for fear of being seen as politically incorrect. What do these people really miss because of political correctness? Do they want to go out and shout at gay people or immigrants? Call black people n1ggers and tell poor people they're scum because they accept social welfare?

I see all this as nonsense that people use to slow down progress because they don't like change even when the change is obviously better.

People want to discuss things such as
What will happen if a halting site is located on my road?
Will criminality increase?
How will it affect my children's lives?
Should a local community have a right to say they don't want a direct provession centre in their town because they question how the schools, doctors,etc will cope?
Or how Ireland struggles to to house people or for the health service to care for them without bringing more people into the country.
People feel they can't discuss these topics or similar without somebody getting on their high horse.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-04-2019 01:28PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

important topics like immegration and the welfare state could be publically discussed without people being labelled xxxxists.

Leftists?

Isn't there discussion if immigration without calling people bigots or bleeding hearts?

I don't support unlimited immigration. I'd be a fan of more managed immigration. I don't get called a bigot or a racist when I express those opinions.

I do it regularly without being called names. Maybe you want more civility in discussion.

suicide_circus · 29-04-2019 01:33PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Leftists?

Isn't there discussion if immigration without calling people bigots or bleeding hearts?

I don't support unlimited immigration. I'd be a fan of more managed immigration. I don't get called a bigot or a racist when I express those opinions.

I do it regularly without being called names. Maybe you want more civility in discussion.

some of its overt. much of it is not. why do virtually no politicians or journalists voice the concerns held by many citizens about immigration?

El_Duderino 09 · 29-04-2019 01:34PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

People want to discuss things such as
What will happen if a halting site is located on my road?
Will criminality increase?
How will it affect my children's lives?
Should a local community have a right to say they don't want a direct provession centre in their town because they question how the schools, doctors,etc will cope?
Or how Ireland struggles to to house people or for the health service to care for them without bringing more people into the country.
People feel they can't discuss these topics or similar without somebody getting on their high horse.

1 so what is someone gets on their high horse? Why is that so frightening that it would put them off even discussing it?

Statement 1. Crime rates tend to increase when travellers move into an area -see these stats.

Statement 2. Travellers are scumbags and criminals.

The first statement is fine (assuming it's demonstrably true). The second statement isn't fine.

Is that political correctness gone mad?

meeeeh · 29-04-2019 01:34PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What would be different if the country was less politically correct?

Apart from things like not having gay marriage and having more abusive and offensive language in day to day life.

I hear people say they cant say xyz for fear of being seen as politically incorrect. What do these people really miss because of political correctness? Do they want to go out and shout at gay people or immigrants? Call black people n1ggers and tell poor people they're scum because they accept social welfare?

I see all this as nonsense that people use to slow down progress because they don't like change even when the change is obviously better.

That's just total nonsense. Political correctness has nothing to do with marriage rights referendum. It about deplatforming people just because people don't like what they say. Not Irish example but Richard Dawkins had talk cancelled because he is apparently insensitive to some religious people, Jordan Peterson had some stuff cancelled because he got picture taken with a moron and similar. Or the outrage around Liam Neeson. Even George Hook loosing his job and I completely disagreed with what he was saying. Attacks of Germaine Greer and even Margaret Atwood because their opinion of metoo was different to what it was supposed to be.

We are under tyranny of new kind of puritanism when only those with 'correct' opinion should have a say. That has nothing to do with how one would vote in marriage referendum.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-04-2019 01:38PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

some of its overt. much of it is not. why do virtually no politicians or journalists voice the concerns held by many citizens about immigration?

The same reasons they pander to old people and largely ignore young people. They have to pander to voters.

Yer man had a pop at travellers to get votes and he wasn't arrested. He wasn't silenced. He won some voters and lost others.

He was allowed to say it and people were allowed to agree or disagree with him. I dont see the problem you're describing

El_Duderino 09 · 29-04-2019 01:45PM

meeeeh wrote: »

That's just total nonsense. Political correctness has nothing to do with marriage rights referendum. It about deplatforming people just because people don't like what they say. Not Irish example but Richard Dawkins had talk cancelled because he is apparently insensitive to some religious people, Jordan Peterson had some stuff cancelled because he got picture taken with a moron and similar. Or the outrage around Liam Neeson. Even George Hook loosing his job and I completely disagreed with what he was saying. Attacks of Germaine Greer and even Margaret Atwood because their opinion of metoo was different to what it was supposed to be.

We are under tyranny of new kind of puritanism when only those with 'correct' opinion should have a say. That has nothing to do with how one would vote in marriage referendum.

It is not nonsense. Not to long ago the notion of equal rights for gays was PC gone mad. Now it's absolutely normal.

Not discriminating against Irish people in the UK was PC gone mad. Now it's something I'm very grateful for. No dogs no blacks no Irish.

Can you think of any examples of PC gone mad in Ireland?

meeeeh · 29-04-2019 01:47PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

1 so what is someone gets on their high horse? Why is that so frightening that it would put them off even discussing it?

Statement 1. Crime rates tend to increase when travellers move into an area -see these stats.

Statement 2. Travellers are scumbags and criminals.

The first statement is fine (assuming it's demonstrably true). The second statement isn't fine.

Is that political correctness gone mad?

No political correctness gone mad is when people are accused of being bigots because they are not enthusiastic if Traveller family moves next door. Usually by people who live in nice middle class areas and oppose to any new development which would bring the value of the house down. It's very easy to decide how people should feel when you don't need to worry about issues like that.

Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct

Comments