nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

When did Political Correctness come into vogue?

truffle5

Ladies and gentlemen, we have passed a watershed moment. I believe the uncovering of recent events in Rotherham have sounded the death knell for the “political correctness” movement. It had been coming for a while now. The ideology has had a detrimental effect on Western culture and it has taken the mass rape of 1400 children for some to come to terms with this fact.

It’s bizarre that a man may physically assault someone and keep his job (e.g. John Prescott – his popularity actually increased after the Rhyls incident) yet if he utters a single word, even in private, that the PC brigade doesn’t like, he must resign (e.g. Ron Atkinson. This man has done a lot for English football and we all know he’s a good guy, but suddenly he’s akin to Hitler for making a joke about a black player). My own grandfather was a generous, kind-hearted man who was well-liked by the entire community, but he used to use the term “niggger” casually in conversation when referring to blacks. Do we disregard all the good he has done in his life and dismiss him as a bad man? Similar to how Gordon Brown dismissed an elderly woman with genuine immigration concerns as a “bigot”.

Then we have the mind-boggling examples of uber-liberal parents raising their children as “gender neutral” and dressing their boys in skirts and giving them Barbie dolls to play with. When did it become a crime to be a straight white male? Am I only the one who thinks this is a bit weird? I suspect not – but the PC brigade has you in fear of speaking out. Somebody has to shout stop.

My question is: when exactly did political correctness become a “thing”? I have my own theories but I’m aware this post is becoming too long so I’ll hold off on posting them for now.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MS.ing

7 minutes past 3 on the 17

Ranchu

truffle5 wrote: »

My question is: when exactly did political correctness become a “thing”? I have my own theories but I’m aware this post is becoming too long so I’ll hold off on posting them for now.

People are better educated these days. You obviously missed out.

Me?

Granda was a racist. It might be genetic.

Filmer Paradise

OP, I dunno.

What I do know is that Political Correctness is Tyranny with manners.

Awkward Badger

Its political incorrectness gone mad so it is.

Ditch

This'll last and last ..... :rolleyes:

Fr_Dougal

He was deadly as Mr. Bean.

Shakespeare's Sister

It was about the 1960s I think, when there was a move towards being non dickish to people just because of their skin colour/sexual orientation/nationality/gender etc and nothing more.
Now 50 years on, it goes too far occasionally (sometimes this is imagined for sure, but sometimes it's a reality - e.g. prison for a tweet, wtf?) but its origins are surely no bad thing.
I'm suspicious of people who have a problem with it across the board, but can understand questioning of when it goes too far (as I would myself) - context and intent sometimes need to be taken into consideration, people (old people especially) aren't always trying to offend if they slip up in terms of language.

truffle5

Regarding political correctness, I’m sure it took hold in different countries at different times so it may be worthwhile to examine several cases. In Ireland in the 1980s we were still largely a monoethnic society and homosexuals were universally seen as deviants and criminals, so there was no need for PC. But somewhere in the 1990s, non-white immigrants began to trickle into the country and homosexuality became more acceptable, possibly as our exposure to American television grew and the “normalisation” of seeing blacks and gays in Western society took hold.

The movement seems to have begun a lot sooner in the UK as they became home to many Jamaican, Pakistani, African and Indian immigrants back in the 1950s/60s. Government agencies were told to encourage diversity and hire a certain percentage of non-whites. The newsreader had to be black. Political parties had to put non-whites up for election in certain constituencies.

PC in the USA has completely spun out of control. You are racist if you even acknowledge the skin colour of someone over there. I've even seen American friends grimace at the word “black”. The “correct” term is apparently African-American. It used to be the term “negro” but somewhere down the line it was decided that that’s racist. I could go on about how affirmative action and race quotas punish intelligent white children from advancing to university in favour of less-gifted minorities. This is overt racism.

FloatingVoter

I don't buy Vogue. Too expensive. More of a Vanity Fair man myself.

Shakespeare's Sister

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I'm suspicious of people who have a problem with it across the board

... e.g. the OP:

But somewhere in the 1990s, non-white immigrants began to trickle into the country and homosexuality became more acceptable, possibly as our exposure to American television grew and the “normalisation” of seeing blacks and gays in Western society took hold.

People who are obsessed with it are quite amusing - it's like they're upset over not being able to spout whatever racist/homophobic sh-t they want.

woodoo

truffle5 wrote: »

It’s bizarre that a man may physically assault someone and keep his job (e.g. John Prescott – his popularity actually increased after the Rhyls incident) yet if he utters a single word, even in private, that the PC brigade doesn’t like, he must resign (e.g. Ron Atkinson. This man has done a lot for English football and we all know he’s a good guy, but suddenly he’s akin to Hitler for making a joke about a black player).

That's a great point. It has taken on an almost religious levels of piety. Similar to insulting Mohammad in a Muslim country or Jesus 50 years ago in Ireland. Someones career can be over for saying something fairly innocuous but deemed to fall foul of the new PC dogma.

truffle5

woodoo wrote: »

That's a great point. It has taken on an almost religious levels of piety. Similar to insulting Mohammad in a Muslim country or Jesus 50 years ago in Ireland. Someones career can be over for saying something fairly innocuous but deemed to fall foul of the new PC dogma.

Absolutely. People have lost their careers and have had their lives destroyed for muttering a word that the PC police didn't like (American celebrity chef Paula Deen; Ron Atkinson; American DJ Don Imus). Yet you can start an illegal war that has resulted in thousands of deaths and you're grand (Tony Blair).

conorh91

Political correctness is alive and well

source

Although it is taken up by liberals, political correctness originally referred to the blind adherence to the communist doctrines of the Soviet era, which was contrary to what a sensible individual would ordinarily believe.

These days, liberalism has all the traits and failures of Communist Party rhetoric. Yes, it's ironic. But it's also sad. Liberalism is an inherently valuable and important belief system. It's been corrupted by people who use it to express routine outrage, well-rehearsed indignation, and who seem to enjoy taking offence.

It's become exactly what it set out to defend against: authoritarianism.

Liberalism, insofar as it is "Politically Correct", is an intellectually-challenged, new wave of authoritarianism.

[Deleted User]

I don't condone what the likes of Ron Atkinson did but at the same time i'm not sure i agree with this sacking culture (baby out with the bathwater mindset) that has come from political correctness. Problem is that TV companies are so obsessed with avoiding embarassment and loss of viewership that they take whatever measure they can to save their own skins.

Overall you probably have a few head bottlewashers with every socio-cultural group getting their tummies tickled in return for giving TV networks a cheap opportunity for positive publicity.

truffle5

conorh91 wrote: »

Liberalism is an inherently valuable and important belief system. It's been corrupted by people who use it to express routine outrage, well-rehearsed indignation, and who seem to enjoy taking offence.

It's become exactly what it set out to defend against: authoritarianism.

Liberalism today, insofar as it is "Politically Correct", is an intellectually-challenged, new wave of authoritarianism.

Someone get this man a beer. Nail on the head. Real liberalism is about allowing people to hold whatever views they like - the "live and live" attitude. My personal beliefs are closest to classical liberalism.

Modern liberalism is a corrupted form of leftist-authoritarianism . You can have whatever view you want - as long as it's pro-choice, pro-race mixing, anti-Israel, pro-welfare, anti-business etc. God help you if you fall foul of the twitter and tumblr social justice warriors.

PS: why is it only Western countries that entertain this PC nonsense? Japan is a very successful and modern country that is proud of it's heritage.

Shakespeare's Sister

truffle5 wrote: »

Real liberalism is about allowing people to hold whatever views they like - the "live and live" attitude.

People can have what views they like - and others can challenge them (seeing as they can also have what view they like).
Not all views are sacred and deserving of "live and let live" - that goes for some liberal views also.

Donkey Oaty

truffle5 wrote: »

pro-race mixing

Never heard of that, but it sounds fun. What might it be?

Shakespeare's Sister

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Never heard of that, but it sounds fun. What might it be?

The OP is hilariously transparent. :pac:

Nodin

truffle5 wrote: »

Someone get this man a beer. Nail on the head. Real liberalism is about allowing people to hold whatever views they like - the "live and live" attitude. My personal beliefs are closest to classical liberalism.

Modern liberalism is a corrupted form of leftist-authoritarianism . You can have whatever view you want - as long as it's pro-choice, pro-race mixing, anti-Israel, pro-welfare, anti-business etc. God help you if you fall foul of the twitter and tumblr social justice warriors.

PS: why is it only Western countries that entertain this PC nonsense? Japan is a very successful and modern country that is proud of it's heritage.

What's wrong with "race mixing"?

truffle5 wrote: »

so there was no need for PC. But somewhere in the 1990s, non-white immigrants began to trickle into the country and homosexuality became more acceptable, possibly as our exposure to American television grew and the “normalisation” of seeing blacks and gays in Western society took hold

.

Have you something against gay people?

truffle5

Nodin wrote: »

What's wrong with "race mixing"?

Nothing. Did I say otherwise?

Have you something against gay people?

Nothing. Did I say otherwise?

miss no stars

It's actually kind of interesting in that sometimes PC is good - nobody should be demeaned for things they cannot change.

I think the problem is that the PC brigade don't differentiate between things we cannot change and the choices we make. One of my grandmothers is very un-PC. She says what she thinks, although usually behind closed doors. A fat relative for whom I have no time whatsoever (she's an absolute disgrace of a person) said to her at a family funeral "Well [my nanny], do you think this outfit makes me look fat?" fishing for compliments. My nanny's response "Yes. But you are fat, you're a holy show".

I was watching a programme about the world's best diet and I think it was South Korea, they're all thin, but they're all completely unafraid to say to someone "you've put on weight" or "you're getting fat, you need to cut back".

So yeah, PC brigade do a lot of damage. Like the 40" waist trousers for primary school kids being sold as "sturdy fit" rather than "super morbidly disgracefully obese fit". But maybe if we were being honest about a 40" waist on a 26" inseam being a fcuking disgrace, the trousers wouldn't be made in the first place.

Timmyctc

This is a car crash of a thread. But I cant.Look.Away. Between this and the few "Send the Muslim's home" threads we've had about here recently, I'm really feeling good about humanity

Nodin

truffle5 wrote: »

Nothing. Did I say otherwise?

Given the tone of the quote below, you seem to think theres some validity in the view that there is something wrong with mixing of the races.....

You can have whatever view you want - as long as it's pro-choice,
pro-race mixing, anti-Israel, pro-welfare, anti-business etc. God help you
if you fall foul of the twitter and tumblr social justice warriors.

truffle5 wrote: »

Nothing. Did I say otherwise?

Essentially, yes. See below - look at the quotes around the word "normalisation"in particular.

so there was no need for PC. But somewhere in the 1990s, non-white immigrants began to trickle into the country and homosexuality became more acceptable, possibly as our exposure to American television grew and the “normalisation” of seeing blacks and gays in Western society took hold

Me?

OP why don't we just spare you time and energy and everyone just avoid the thread and you trot on.

truffle5

Nodin wrote: »

Given the tone of the quote below, you seem to think theres some validity in the view that there is something wrong with mixing of the races.....

But..but..but..race is a social construct. It doesn't exist. You're reading my post wrong.

Essentially, yes. See below - look at the quotes around the word "normalisation"in particular.

No problem with gays, but homosexuality was a criminal act back up until 1993. It was considered a fringe sub-culture of deviants. These days it has been normalised i.e. people aren't as shocked to see a gay couple holding hands while walking down the street.

FloatingVoter

Timmyctc wrote: »

This is a car crash of a thread. But I cant.Look.Away. Between this and the few "Send the Muslim's home" threads we've had about here recently, I'm really feeling good about humanity

We have one thread sending the muslims home. The whole Israel thing resembles a party rally at Nuremberg sometimes. If we're not careful, we'll be sat here on our little island wondering where everybody went.

RobYourBuilder

I can think of 1,400 reasons why extreme political correctness sucks.

Shakespeare's Sister

truffle5 wrote: »

No problem with gays, but homosexuality was considered a criminal act back up until 1993. It was considered a fringe sub-culture of deviants. These days it has been normalised i.e. people aren't as shocked to see a gay couple holding hands while walking down the street.

How is that "political correctness"? It's just a realisation that people fancying members of the same sex (through no choice of their own, because it's hardly voluntary) don't affect hetero people whatsoever.

realweirdo

woodoo wrote: »

That's a great point. It has taken on an almost religious levels of piety. Similar to insulting Mohammad in a Muslim country or Jesus 50 years ago in Ireland. Someones career can be over for saying something fairly innocuous but deemed to fall foul of the new PC dogma.

It is a form of censorship alright. You have to mind your p's and q's.

For example, an Islamist can say what they like about Christians on TV or radio call them every name in the book, slate their religion no end, all broadcast by the mainstream media.

But you try doing the same about Islam on TV or radio and immediately the debate gets shut down for not being "PC".

Just one example of many.

An awful lot of ethnic minorities are exploiting this PC culture and have become virtually immune to criticism.