Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

What is the most politically correct thing you have heard?

1…1517192021

Comments

  • #482
    Davelarson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 213 ✭✭Davelarson


    old hippy wrote: »
    You don't much like women, Dave. I see you're doing the same thing on the abortion forum, too.

    What makes you think I don't like women? Because I criticize feminism? I didn't realise that was against the law.


  • #483
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Davelarson wrote: »
    What makes you think I don't like women? Because I criticize feminism? I didn't realise that was against the law.

    You've condemned an entire nation - not because of its high inccidence of sexual violence against women but because women are rightly speaking out against the issue.

    Of course it's not against the law to have that kind of outlook; it just strikes me as odd.


  • #484
    Davelarson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 213 ✭✭Davelarson


    old hippy wrote: »
    You've condemned an entire nation - not because of its high inccidence of sexual violence against women but because women are rightly speaking out against the issue.

    Of course it's not against the law to have that kind of outlook; it just strikes me as odd.

    You can criticize feminism without being anti woman. You would honestly have no problems with being forced by your employer to attended an ideological performance piece?


  • #485
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    old hippy wrote: »
    Well here's the thing, Dave. Despite me pointing out that there's a high incidence of it in Sweden, you haven't yet acknowledged that.
    But your veiled threat to rape me would indicate sexual assault is a bit of a larf for you, eh?

    What the hell are you on about?


  • #486
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    old hippy wrote: »
    You don't much like women, Dave. I see you're doing the same thing on the abortion forum, too.

    There is an abortion forum? :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Davelarson wrote: »
    We're sleepwalking into an Orwellian state, only instead of a socialist dictatorship we have the dictatorship of tolerance worshiping at the altar of equality. We already have posters here who come across as the thought police.

    Try arguing with some of the radical feminist nut jobs online and see how long before you're censored. It's easy to dismiss these people as cranks with no relevance outside their own circlejerk, but imagine if they ascended into positions of power. Imagine someone who believes in spelling 'herstory' and womyn as the education minister.

    Hi Dave, notwithstanding the rest of your post what exactly is your issue with tolerance and equality?


  • #488
    pundy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 673 ✭✭✭pundy


    why is everyone attacking this Davelarson chap? he's been clearly egged on, and everything he has said has been completely blown out of proportion by Old hippy.

    to be fair, most of the points Dave has made are agreeable. I think i'd be angry if i was forced to sit through a feminist play or whatever it was.

    he never said there was anything wrong with equality


  • #489
    Davelarson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 213 ✭✭Davelarson


    Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »
    Hi Dave, notwithstanding the rest of your post what exactly is your issue with tolerance and equality?

    Nothing, as long as you don't start restricting the rights of others to achieve some kind of utopia. I oppose reverse discrimination and terms like 'male privilege' and 'white privilege'. On the Guerrilla feminism facebook page they were ranting about how white people shouldn't be allowed dress up as ninjas, Indian warriors ect for Halloween because it's offensive.


  • #490
    pundy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 673 ✭✭✭pundy


    Davelarson wrote: »
    Nothing, as long as you don't start restricting the rights of others to achieve some kind of utopia. I oppose reverse discrimination and terms like 'male privilege' and 'white privilege'. On the Guerrilla feminism facebook page they were ranting about how white people shouldn't be allowed dress up as ninjas, Indian warriors ect for Halloween because it's offensive.

    they're retards, that's why Dave. (am i allowed use that word even!?)


  • #491
    Davelarson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 213 ✭✭Davelarson


    pundy wrote: »
    why is everyone attacking this Davelarson chap? he's been clearly egged on, and everything he has said has been completely blown out of proportion by Old hippy.

    to be fair, most of the points Dave has made are agreeable. I think i'd be angry if i was forced to sit through a feminist play or whatever it was.

    he never said there was anything wrong with equality

    Thanks for the support mate. To be honest, I do get a kick from winding up some of the more sensitive souls here.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    No more warnings. There'll be bans next.


  • #493
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,198 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Davelarson wrote: »
    Nothing, as long as you don't start restricting the rights of others to achieve some kind of utopia. I oppose reverse discrimination and terms like 'male privilege' and 'white privilege'. On the Guerrilla feminism facebook page they were ranting about how white people shouldn't be allowed dress up as ninjas, Indian warriors ect for Halloween because it's offensive.

    How would anybody know?


  • #494
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,629 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    One that surprised me was being told by a former flatmate from Canada that we were rascist for using the word "Eskimo" to describe the people who live around the Northern pole and that we should instead be calling them Inuit.

    Honestly, I'd be very pissed off if work demanded I attend a feminist play. I consider feminism to be a sexist ideology and believe their ability to convince the unquestioning that they're a force for egalitarianism to be one of the greatest pieces of propoganda ever sold to the unquestioning.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #495
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleepy wrote: »
    One that surprised me was being told by a former flatmate from Canada that we were rascist for using the word "Eskimo" to describe the people who live around the Northern pole and that we should instead be calling them Inuit.

    It's considered offensive in Canada because the indigenous people are either Inuit, Yupik or Inupiat, and calling them Eskimo is like Irish people being referred to as British Isles People. Calling them Inuit isn't considered very clever either, since only a minority are actually Inuit. They prefer to be called what they are, like Irish people prefer Irish, and Germans, German and so on. Whoever said call them Inuit wasn't on the PC ball with that one.

    Strangely, in Greenland it's ok to refer to native peoples as Eskimo, maybe because there is more diversity and Eskimo refers broadly to all the indigenous peoples of the area, in the same way as European is used to describe all the peoples of Europe.


  • #496
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    "They're not disabled they're differently abled"

    Oh hare


  • #497
    Davelarson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 213 ✭✭Davelarson


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    "They're not disabled they're differently abled"

    Oh hare

    The thing with these right-on pc terms is that they're incredibly patronizing to the people they're supposed to 'protect'.


  • #498
    ruthloss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭ruthloss


    Foreign Food is now called Ethnic Cuisine.


  • #499
    Guyanachronism
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭Guyanachronism


    Interesting thread but it's mostly the typical conservative getting annoyed at changes in language. Or the correcting ones ignorance is the PC police. Or choke on your morning coffee Daily Mail sort of stories that lack context.

    The netural pronouns in Sweden one being my favourite because they were introduced as a way of not assigning a gender to somebody whose sexuality you don't know. So if you want to refer to a plumber who is coming in the third person, you no longer have to resort to assuming their gender but instead can leave that open, the reason it was adopted in kindergartens was in the hope it would avoid associating genders with particular professions. So no more assuming the plumber will be male and the nurse female.

    I did get annoyed when learning all the terms for peoples sexual orientation. I thought three was enough (hetreosexual, homosexual, bisexual) but there is also polysexual, pansexual, androphile and gynephile. I learnt all these new trms after a self identififed pansexual person didn't like being called bisexual.

    I understand the use of androphile and gynephile. Basically andophile attracted to men, gynephile attracted to women, it allows transgender people to avoid identifying their sexual orientation in relation to their gender identity. The terms around transgender people is fine because they're trying to escape the gender binary in language.

    Now pansexual is somebody who is attracted to all irrelevant of gender or lack thereof so male female, male to female transistion, female to male transistion, cross-gender, none of the above. Polysexual likes certain but not all, so they might like male to female and non gendered/androgynous people but not males or only female to males or getting more complicated biological males identifying as females. These terms escape bisexual as bisexual (bi meaning two) implies attraction to male or female and not transgendered people.

    Fair enough terms for a detailed discussion of peoples orientation but I have been in circles where people have identified using the other terms and it just reeked of trying to be cool and unique, you know because being lesbian, gay or bisexual is just too mainsteam.


  • #500
    Gotham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    Guyanachronism wrote: »
    I did get annoyed when learning all the terms for peoples sexual orientation. I thought three was enough (hetreosexual, homosexual, bisexual) but there is also polysexual, pansexual, androphile and gynephile. I learnt all these new trms after a self identififed pansexual person didn't like being called bisexual.

    I have no problem with people doing whatever they want regarding their body/identity, but its people who expect others to cater for them that I dislike. I know I'm going to offend someone.

    Humans are born into genders, the most common of which are male and female. Less commonly there are chromosome mutations with extra X and Y chromosomes and some can at a stretch be classed as unique sexes.
    Nothing you do is going to change that, no surgery or therapy is going to change your gender.

    As an analogy, you can identify as an otherkin (a random animal basically), but no amount of work is going to make you a fox or a wolf.
    Expecting other people to call you a fox or a wolf is absurd and getting offended when people presume you're "a human" is even more absurd.

    Do what you like, really - but don't expect other people to cater to some kind of self entitled view point.


  • #501
    Crea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Crea


    Handi-capable


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    The Dom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭The Dom


    Nodin wrote: »
    Never happened. That was debunked years ago, but still does the rounds.

    Are you just posting that this story was "debunked" in reply to my post because you seen that the nursery rhyme "Baa baa black sheep" was mentioned?

    As I already said:
    The Dom wrote: »
    Sorry, but it is far from a "myth".

    In 2006 there was a similar story that may well have been exaggerated (where the words of 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' were said to have been changed for educational purposes) but there was indeed plans to remove the word 'black' on the grounds that it might cause offensive to black people six years prior to that, in the year 2000:

    I have already posted a link and details to that story, Nodin - but will so again to make it clear that the example that I am speaking of has not being "debunked":
    Nursery rhyme ban scrapped. They can hear Baa Baa Black Sheep after all.

    A warning that the nursery rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep should not be taught in schools because it is "racially offensive" has been scrapped.

    The guidelines by education chiefs at Birmingham City Council were dropped after black parents condemned the advice as ridiculous.

    Schools had been told that the old rhyme was negative and could cause offence.

    The issue was highlighted when a council inspector pointed out the guidelines during a visit to a nursery school.

    The guidelines stated: "The term 'black sheep' is considered by many people a very negative statement.

    "It is often used to describe someone's negative feelings about a person, eg. 'he's the black sheep of the family'.

    "The history behind the rhyme is very negative and also very offensive to black people, due to the fact that the rhyme originates from slavery.

    "The rhyme has colonial links: 'Three bags full' refers to the three bags of wool which the slaves were told to collect and 'yes sir, yes sir' is how the slaves would reply to the slave masters when told to do a task.

    "For the above reasons it would be advisable to refrain from singing this nursery rhyme."

    Parents and teachers called the advice "madness", with one black parent, who would not be named, saying: "It is quite ridiculous. The rhyme is about black sheep not black people. It is not offensive."

    Her views were supported by children's entertainer Lenny Alsop, who said the rhyme was harmless.

    "Wherever I go, almost every child knows Baa Baa Black Sheep, which suggests that they are delighted by it," he said.

    A Birmingham City Council spokesman said: "The Working Group Against Racism in Children's Resources has for many years produced guidance which is valuable in nurseries, alongside a whole range of guidance from other agencies.

    "We have investigated an alleged incident where an inspector referred staff at a nursery facility to the guidance.

    "As a result of this one-off incident, we have looked at this guidance again, and have made it clear to the nursery that this advice was inappropriate.

    "We will not be allowing the guidance to be handed out in Birmingham nurseries in the future."


  • #503
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Dom wrote: »
    Are you just posting that this story was "debunked" in reply to my post because you seen that the nursery rhyme "Baa baa black sheep" was mentioned?

    I have already posted a link and details to that story, Nodin - but will so again to make it clear that the example that I am speaking of has not being "debunked":

    "Just one problem: the reasons for the singing of words other than black is nothing to do with "political correctness". Today's Private Eye reports that it also isn't a new story. The Daily Star and Sun both first ran it back in February 1986, followed by the Daily Mail in October of the same year. The following year Islington council took the SDP to court to stop them alleging they had removed the word black from the nursery rhyme in a party political broadcast, when they had done no such thing. According to the Eye the story came round again in 2000, this time in Birmingham, and as recently as last year, when the Mail on Sunday alleged it had happened in Aberdeen. Not a single one of the reports were based on the facts."
    http://www.septicisle.info/2006/03/baa-baa-rainbow-bollocks.html


  • #504
    Gotham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    The Dom wrote: »
    "The rhyme has colonial links: 'Three bags full' refers to the three bags of wool which the slaves were told to collect and 'yes sir, yes sir' is how the slaves would reply to the slave masters when told to do a task.
    I'm sure they got it mixed up with cotton...


  • #505
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Gotham wrote: »
    I'm sure they got it mixed up with cotton...

    It all dates back to the 80's, when "real journalism" was at its height....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loony_Left#Baa_Baa_White_Sheep


  • #506
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    She's a great actor.


  • #507
    The Dom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭The Dom


    Nodin wrote: »
    "Just one problem: the reasons for the singing of words other than black is nothing to do with "political correctness". Today's Private Eye reports that it also isn't a new story. The Daily Star and Sun both first ran it back in February 1986, followed by the Daily Mail in October of the same year. The following year Islington council took the SDP to court to stop them alleging they had removed the word black from the nursery rhyme in a party political broadcast, when they had done no such thing. According to the Eye the story came round again in 2000, this time in Birmingham, and as recently as last year, when the Mail on Sunday alleged it had happened in Aberdeen. Not a single one of the reports were based on the facts."
    http://www.septicisle.info/2006/03/baa-baa-rainbow-bollocks.html

    Not that the above has come from a credible source or anything, but even if it had, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

    That all concerns other incidents.

    Let's say though, for argument's sake, that the council inspector never existed, never went to the nursery and never advised them that they should really stop singing the rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep rhyme as it was racially offensive.

    Why then would the education chiefs at Birmingham City Council say the following:
    "We have investigated an alleged incident where an inspector referred staff at a nursery facility to the guidance.

    "As a result of this one-off incident, we have looked at this guidance again, and have made it clear to the nursery that this advice was inappropriate.

    "We will not be allowing the guidance to be handed out in Birmingham nurseries in the future."

    Are you saying the BBC made them up?
    Nodin wrote: »
    It all dates back to the 80's, when "real journalism" was at its height.... Loony Left Wiki

    :p

    How apt. From the "Loony Left" Wiki link you provided:
    Some say the "Baa Baa White Sheep" story was a wholesale fabrication, reporting events that never happened. However, in 2000, the BBC reported the overturning of the nursery rhyme's ban on politically correct grounds by Birmingham City Council.


  • #508
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Dom wrote: »
    Not that the above has come from a credible source or anything, but even if it had, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

    That all concerns other incidents.

    Let's say though, for argument's sake, that the council inspector never existed, never went to the nursery and never advised them that they should really stop singing the rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep rhyme as it was racially offensive.

    Why then would the education chiefs at Birmingham City Council say the following:



    Are you saying the BBC made them up?



    :p

    How apt. From the "Loony Left" Wiki link you provided:


    There is the slight chance that of all the times its been reported, the BBC one might be true. I wouldn't put money on it, however.


  • #509
    The Dom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭The Dom


    Nodin wrote: »
    There is the slight chance that of all the times its been reported, the BBC one might be true.

    Well, quit saying it's been debunked then.


  • #510
    Davelarson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 213 ✭✭Davelarson


    Guyanachronism wrote: »
    Interesting thread but it's mostly the typical conservative getting annoyed at changes in language. Or the correcting ones ignorance is the PC police. Or choke on your morning coffee Daily Mail sort of stories that lack context.

    The netural pronouns in Sweden one being my favourite because they were introduced as a way of not assigning a gender to somebody whose sexuality you don't know. So if you want to refer to a plumber who is coming in the third person, you no longer have to resort to assuming their gender but instead can leave that open, the reason it was adopted in kindergartens was in the hope it would avoid associating genders with particular professions. So no more assuming the plumber will be male and the nurse female.

    I did get annoyed when learning all the terms for peoples sexual orientation. I thought three was enough (hetreosexual, homosexual, bisexual) but there is also polysexual, pansexual, androphile and gynephile. I learnt all these new trms after a self identififed pansexual person didn't like being called bisexual.

    I understand the use of androphile and gynephile. Basically andophile attracted to men, gynephile attracted to women, it allows transgender people to avoid identifying their sexual orientation in relation to their gender identity. The terms around transgender people is fine because they're trying to escape the gender binary in language.

    Now pansexual is somebody who is attracted to all irrelevant of gender or lack thereof so male female, male to female transistion, female to male transistion, cross-gender, none of the above. Polysexual likes certain but not all, so they might like male to female and non gendered/androgynous people but not males or only female to males or getting more complicated biological males identifying as females. These terms escape bisexual as bisexual (bi meaning two) implies attraction to male or female and not transgendered people.

    Fair enough terms for a detailed discussion of peoples orientation but I have been in circles where people have identified using the other terms and it just reeked of trying to be cool and unique, you know because being lesbian, gay or bisexual is just too mainsteam.

    Who the hell has to time lean all that crap? There's male, female and transgender. And there's heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. That's it. If you think your 'pansexual' or some kind of 'third gender' you're just being a special snowflake or you need to seek professional help.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Dom wrote: »
    Well, quit saying it's been debunked then.


    It's been debunked numerous times previously. Not only that, but I can guarantee that the anecdotes about similar incidents in this thread are untrue. Therefore it would be unwise to treat this without some scepticism.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement