NFR: Political Correctness.

[Blingo]

I personally think it has all gone too far. I am massively anti bullying and unfair treatment, but we seem to be reaching levels where you won't even be able to fart when you are walking along the road in case it upsets someone.
How do you see it?  :59:

[TonyGilroy]

Call it politeness and respect and it's hard to argue against.

You of course give a humerous example that is OTT and therefore not relevant to a discussion on PC.

[Blingo]

Why is that Tony, is it not PC ? The point is that it has gone beyond politeness and respect and has turned into a very threatening situation whereby you are constantly having to worry about everything you say and that surely is not right is it.

[Lighthouse]

It is a shame that things that appeared innocent at the time are now racist. Like golliwogs and Childrens Stories about a Tar Baby etc. It is also odd that we are allowed to insult some people in our society and not others. Fat,ugly,deformed people still come n for abuse in the press and in the street and it seems fair game. Black, gay etc however are well protected.

But political correctness when meaning politeness and consideration is fine. When it means that people are criticised for once watching the Black and White Minstral Show or laughing at A Round The Horne sketch. I think we are pushing it too far.

[TonyGilroy]

Why is that Tony, is it not PC ? The point is that it has gone beyond politeness and respect and has turned into a very threatening situation whereby you are constantly having to worry about everything you say and that surely is not right is it.

That rather depends on what you might want to say.

[leonffc]

Call it politeness and respect and it's hard to argue against.

You of course give a humerous example that is OTT and therefore not relevant to a discussion on PC.

How about not being allowed to put Christmas lights up in case a Muslim is offended? That's relevant to PC and not OTT.
And most of the time Muslim groups say they should be displayed but white PC pansies decide they shouldn't. Pathetic!!

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Call it politeness and respect and it's hard to argue against.

You of course give a humerous example that is OTT and therefore not relevant to a discussion on PC.

How about not being allowed to put Christmas lights up in case a Muslim is offended? That's relevant to PC and not OTT.
And most of the time Muslim groups say they should be displayed but white PC pansies decide they shouldn't. Pathetic!!

The main 'problem' with Political Correctness is that unsubstantiated rumours about things such as cancelling christmas or calling it winterval get spread and people bang on about it, usually encouraged by rage papers such as the Daily Mail who simply lie to fit their agenda. Funnily enough, a bit like the EU.

Love how you use the phrase 'PC pansies' as well, just goes to reinforce your position on it all, as well as helping to promote the idea that being PC is 'gay' or 'effeminate'.

My advice - get upset about something that is worthwhile rather than society's attempt to become more inclusive.

[dont stand me down]

I'm with Blingo let's see a return to the days where its ok to be openly racist,sexist and homophobic.

[Blingo]

That's not what i'm saying dsmd, but where should the line be drawn?

Tony, typical answer from a solicitor. lol. ;p

[Jack Fulham]

I think it just depends on what generation you're from. What is acceptable tends to differ from one generation to the next.

[LBNo11]

...whatever my points of view on this or any non Fulham related discussion are, as moderators we have to maintain the standard that is accepted (although not necessarily agreed with) by the majority of this site. Hopefully responses will not dive into a political point scoring morass, in the meantime 084.gif

[Blingo]

It is not meant to Ed, asa it does i'll close it, if you haven't beaten me to it lol. ;p

[Rupert]

Ah, Political Correctness, how the lawyers must love it.

As a young, second-generation Irish Catholic, growing up in London in the 60's and 70's, what with the IRA doing their best to make anyone with an Irish-Catholic connection hated by all over here, I had a lot of nonsense hurled in my general direction. I have to say that most of the time the (usually) ignorant Englishman hurling the insults, derogatory remarks and plainly inaccurate slurs in my direction was usually simply displaying his own ignorance, something I was often able to helpfully point out to him, without ever getting punched for it.

Now, I accept that I am lucky enough to be relatively clever and articulate, and can keep calm enough to argue my case, and those without those abilities probably do need protecting from life's bullies (which is what racists, homophobics and the like are), so do see the need for PC rules to be in place.

However, I would also argue it goes both ways.

For example- currently there is a move to make same-sex marriages legal. We in the Catholic church, along with a number of other churches and faiths, have a huge problem with this. We see marriage as the basis of a successul and loving family relationship (in an ideal world, admittedly) which is the best place for a child to be raised in. Same sex marriages, by definition, will not lead to any children being born, however loving and caring they are, so we fail to see why they should exist. Civil partnerships are available for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
From research carried out, it appears that most homosexuals fail to see the need for marriage either and would not want to get married in a church which does not agree with their lifestyle choices.
Yet, this is being urged on us by a small group of fantical "equal rights" people. They are already threatening to close, or have already closed, Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in their care (since such relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching), this despite the fact that Catholic agencies are far more successful than any other group at getting children successfully adopted. So, in the name of PC, children suffer. Good one, eh?

I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.

[TonyGilroy]

"I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.

But you're defining "marriage" in terms which suit you and thereby denying marriage to those outside your criteria.

I think actually that this is a very different topic to political correctness.

My thing is tolerance. Others can live life how they wish but I demand that they allow me (and everyone else) the same choice.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Ah, Political Correctness, how the lawyers must love it.

As a young, second-generation Irish Catholic, growing up in London in the 60's and 70's, what with the IRA doing their best to make anyone with an Irish-Catholic connection hated by all over here, I had a lot of nonsense hurled in my general direction. I have to say that most of the time the (usually) ignorant Englishman hurling the insults, derogatory remarks and plainly inaccurate slurs in my direction was usually simply displaying his own ignorance, something I was often able to helpfully point out to him, without ever getting punched for it.

Now, I accept that I am lucky enough to be relatively clever and articulate, and can keep calm enough to argue my case, and those without those abilities probably do need protecting from life's bullies (which is what racists, homophobics and the like are), so do see the need for PC rules to be in place.

However, I would also argue it goes both ways.

For example- currently there is a move to make same-sex marriages legal. We in the Catholic church, along with a number of other churches and faiths, have a huge problem with this. We see marriage as the basis of a successul and loving family relationship (in an ideal world, admittedly) which is the best place for a child to be raised in. Same sex marriages, by definition, will not lead to any children being born, however loving and caring they are, so we fail to see why they should exist. Civil partnerships are available for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
From research carried out, it appears that most homosexuals fail to see the need for marriage either and would not want to get married in a church which does not agree with their lifestyle choices.
Yet, this is being urged on us by a small group of fantical "equal rights" people. They are already threatening to close, or have already closed, Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in their care (since such relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching), this despite the fact that Catholic agencies are far more successful than any other group at getting children successfully adopted. So, in the name of PC, children suffer. Good one, eh?

I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.

So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?

[Rupert]

So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?

I am not discriminating against anyone, you, in fact are discriminating against me and about five million others in the UK!

Gay people may "marry" in a registrar's office (heterosexual couples may "marry" as in this manner well, this is not under threat from this proposed legislation, it is marriage in Church that is under consideration) or adopt a child. They are legally entitled to, this is enshrined in British law and nobody, to the best of my knowledge, on "our" side of the arguement is seeking to remove these equal rights from them. If anyone is, I do not agree with them.

There are plenty of government agencies who are able to arrange adoption of children who need adopting, the fact that they seem to be pretty inefficient about this is not our problem, surely? We, Catholics, give financial support to Catholic adoption agencies through the weekly collection, surely it is our right to see that the Catholic children in the care of Catholic agencies are placed with the sort of family structure that we Catholics are familiar with? Or, do we not have that right? Must we be forced to deny our beliefs? Surely that is as bad as forcing Gay people to deny their beliefs? We do not do that, they have a choice, why can't we have an equal choice?

[Blingo]

Ah, Political Correctness, how the lawyers must love it.

As a young, second-generation Irish Catholic, growing up in London in the 60's and 70's, what with the IRA doing their best to make anyone with an Irish-Catholic connection hated by all over here, I had a lot of nonsense hurled in my general direction. I have to say that most of the time the (usually) ignorant Englishman hurling the insults, derogatory remarks and plainly inaccurate slurs in my direction was usually simply displaying his own ignorance, something I was often able to helpfully point out to him, without ever getting punched for it.

Now, I accept that I am lucky enough to be relatively clever and articulate, and can keep calm enough to argue my case, and those without those abilities probably do need protecting from life's bullies (which is what racists, homophobics and the like are), so do see the need for PC rules to be in place.

However, I would also argue it goes both ways.

For example- currently there is a move to make same-sex marriages legal. We in the Catholic church, along with a number of other churches and faiths, have a huge problem with this. We see marriage as the basis of a successul and loving family relationship (in an ideal world, admittedly) which is the best place for a child to be raised in. Same sex marriages, by definition, will not lead to any children being born, however loving and caring they are, so we fail to see why they should exist. Civil partnerships are available for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
From research carried out, it appears that most homosexuals fail to see the need for marriage either and would not want to get married in a church which does not agree with their lifestyle choices.
Yet, this is being urged on us by a small group of fantical "equal rights" people. They are already threatening to close, or have already closed, Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in their care (since such relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching), this despite the fact that Catholic agencies are far more successful than any other group at getting children successfully adopted. So, in the name of PC, children suffer. Good one, eh?

I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.

So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?

No....but is he not allowed to express his opinion?

[Blingo]

"I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.

But you're defining "marriage" in terms which suit you and thereby denying marriage to those outside your criteria.

I think actually that this is a very different topic to political correctness.

My thing is tolerance. Others can live life how they wish but I demand that they allow me (and everyone else) the same choice.

And THAT is exactly my point. There are certain people, factions, elements of society that insist that we have to accept what THEY want or they go for example to the Race Relations Board. Now, I am not racist, believe it or not, but where does the White man go to report someone? Would he be listened to? Does the Englishman's opinion even count in his country anymore? There is just too much of a one sided argument with these people and it is not fair either.

[ImperialWhite]

Now, I am not racist, believe it or not, but where does the White man go to report someone? Would he be listened to? Does the Englishman's opinion even count in his country anymore? There is just too much of a one sided argument with these people and it is not fair either.

"I'm not a racist but..."

I agree - it isn't fair.

White people are in a privileged position in our society. Data shows this.

[TonyGilroy]

I think we'd all agree that discrimination is wrong so I don't understand any argument in favour of the right to discriminate.

Most objections to PC though come down to that when properly picked apart.