NFR: Political Correctness.

[Blingo]

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.

How do you work that out IW?

[Peabody]

Surely, the object of being PC is to encourage respect and few can argue with that aim. The trouble, there are quite a few, no, alot of people who believe that if it is in the newspaper then it is true and of course it isnt but unfortunately, PC and being PC gets a bad press.

[Lighthouse]

Spending lots of time with my sister when she has been in hospital this year we often hear the nurses say ' Now you will feel a little scratch'. Clearly injecting a blimmin great needle into one is not scratching. However 'you will feel a little p****' is no longer pc.

However the public do like to sue everybody now. I am told not to help move a gurney with my sister on it in case I hurt myself and sue etc etc. So with political correctness comes the blame culture.We all know we should not attack each other over politics or appearance or sexual orientation. But somehow we all do it. What bothers people is causing offence where none was ment. Something else that has become popular recently.

[sipwell]

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.

How do you work that out IW?

Because scientific study shows this report after report in all segments of society. Of course, the Daily Mail thinks it is bogus science. The best statistical analysis is asking 100 Daily Mail readers a completely biased question. In Belgium we have an extreme right wing party which discriminates against Muslims as they do not fit the image of a "Fleming". I am a Fleming myself and I tend to believe that as long as everyone accept some basic values (and speak the language in response to the state), they are as Fleming as I am. There is nothing PC about that: it is my deep held conviction.

The term political correctness is in itself problematic, as it implies wrong and right. I disagree with that. For me the line is drawn when someone - after you made a remark of some kind - says he or she is (rightly) hurt by it, whether you think this person is overreacting or not is besides the point. You have been disrespectful towards his or her feelings. It also applies only in cases where the issue is something a person cannot help (race, gender, disability, skin colour, intelligence,...), when it is not a choice. If jokes are concerned, isn't it more fun to tell a joke everyone can laugh with (even the butt of the joke) rather than have a joke at the expense of someone? 

I agree however that in some cases PC has become a dreadful norm, where you cannot - what the French call - "parler-vrai" (speak-truth). It is essentially in the eye of the beholder.

[Blingo]

did u read the joke?

[TonyGilroy]

I think they're all very different things.

I hate the blame culture - sometimes things go wrong despite everybody doing their best. Sh1t happens.

Health and safety has gone too far in, I think, everyones opinion, but when you get down to the detail usually there is some point behind each regulation.

You might feel a little p**** ,I'm sure, would simply be regarded as a joke whether intended as such or not. I can't believe that it's prohibited in some nursing manual.

Treating people equally and with respect though (PC as I understand it) is just good manners.

[sipwell]

did u read the joke?

The initial joke or did you write another borderline one? You can PM me. :)

[Blingo]

The original one. It might not be PC for me to PM you lol. ;p

[AlFayedsChequebook]

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?

But being gay is not a 'belief' is it?

As for the church not trying to take away gay people's rights - luckily they can't but it has not stopped them trying to prevent positive changes being made. Look right now at the CofE's response the the government wanting to allow Gay marriage as opposed to only Civil partnerships - Sentamu was writing in the Guardian the other day about how awful it was.

The question of catholic adoption is a difficult one - if the agencies in question receive no public funding then I guess they are within their rights to only allow catholic adoption? The problem is that you inhenrently believe that being Gay is wrong - which I think is absolutely disgusting because you are discriminating against people based on belief in a book written two thousand years ago.

What I dont understand is why Christianity has an issue with Gay people. The Bible has lots of things that have since been dropped (eating of shellfish, slavery, child marriage to name but a few) so why can you not accept that being gay is perfectly fine?

[sipwell]

The original one. It might not be PC for me to PM you lol. ;p

You seem to have a very weird opinion of me. You are aware that lefties are on the whole a lot more open and a lot less restrained by norms and values than right wing people, I hope? That is why a lot of people have difficulties with lefties. They are far less easily pinned down. I have a number of core values which are non-negotiable (equality as in respect for other people is one of them) but far less than the right wing or centre-right people. 

[Blingo]

The original one. It might not be PC for me to PM you lol. ;p

You seem to have a very weird opinion of me. You are aware that lefties are on the whole a lot more open and a lot less restrained by norms and values than right wing people, I hope? That is why a lot of people have difficulties with lefties. They are far less easily pinned down. I have a number of core values which are non-negotiable (equality as in respect for other people is one of them) but far less than the right wing or centre-right people. 

Don't flatter yourself hahahah. I like you Sippy, you're quite bright.;p I also have core values which I do not deviate from, I think most people have. Politics is not something I care much about because whichever way they go they tend to screw the country up. As for pinning you down, I can assure you that in serious mode I will match most people. Don't underestimate a successful old man my friend.

[Logicalman]

.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?

yee-haw!

[AlFayedsChequebook]

.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?

yee-haw!

Not really, that is what the right want to equate it to so that people are up in arms.

Positive discrimination is still hotly debated amongst all.

[TonyGilroy]

FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.

What matters is that our education system provides equal opportunity for all and for all sorts of reasons that remains a remote aspiration.

[sipwell]

.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?

yee-haw!

I don't see why it should. If you're for democracy, you should be for balanced representation. We help people in hospitals, why not help an ailing society then as well.

[finnster01]

I am sure it will not be a shock to many of you that I am firmly in Blingo's corner on this. There is no question that PC has gone too far. In fact, I will argue that it has actually been like that for the longest.

For example our very own former Goalkeeper , 'Big Fat' Jim Stannard that Tony Pulis brought to Gillingham. Gillingham fans had begun to fondly offer celery to their goalkeeper because of his rather large frame. The club, however, decided that celery could result in health and safety issues inside the ground. As a result, fans were subjected to celery searches with the ultimate sanction for possession of celery allegedly being a life ban.' Offering celery for fun to suggest maybe he should give the buffet table a bit of a rest is not racial abuse, gay slagging nor religious abuse and I find it hard to explain how a stick of celery is a health and safety issue. To get a life ban for bringing a stick of celery to a match is very much over the top in most people's opinion (although granted that getting a lifetime ban from Gillingham is possibly a blessing in disguise)

In fact Jim Stannard himself thought it was all good banter and fun

[Blingo]

FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.

Alan Sugar didn't ;p

[Blingo]

I am sure it will not be a shock to many of you that I am firmly in Blingo's corner on this. There is no question that PC has gone too far. In fact, I will argue that it has actually been like that for the longest.

For example our very own former Goalkeeper , 'Big Fat' Jim Stannard that Tony Pulis brought to Gillingham. Gillingham fans had begun to fondly offer celery to their goalkeeper because of his rather large frame. The club, however, decided that celery could result in health and safety issues inside the ground. As a result, fans were subjected to celery searches with the ultimate sanction for possession of celery allegedly being a life ban.' Offering celery for fun to suggest maybe he should give the buffet table a bit of a rest is not racial abuse, gay slagging nor religious abuse and I find it hard to explain how a stick of celery is a health and safety issue. To get a life ban for bringing a stick of celery to a match is very much over the top in most people's opinion (although granted that getting a lifetime ban from Gillingham is possibly a blessing in disguise)

In fact Jim Stannard himself thought it was all good banter and fun

EAT THE EVIDENCE LOL

[Rupert]

But being gay is not a 'belief' is it?

As for the church not trying to take away gay people's rights - luckily they can't but it has not stopped them trying to prevent positive changes being made. Look right now at the CofE's response the the government wanting to allow Gay marriage as opposed to only Civil partnerships - Sentamu was writing in the Guardian the other day about how awful it was.

The question of catholic adoption is a difficult one - if the agencies in question receive no public funding then I guess they are within their rights to only allow catholic adoption? The problem is that you inhenrently believe that being Gay is wrong - which I think is absolutely disgusting because you are discriminating against people based on belief in a book written two thousand years ago.

What I dont understand is why Christianity has an issue with Gay people. The Bible has lots of things that have since been dropped (eating of shellfish, slavery, child marriage to name but a few) so why can you not accept that being gay is perfectly fine?

A number of interesting points, let's ty to go through them for you-

Being gay is not a belief, true, and frankly I neither know, nor care, exactly what sexual orientation people are (okay, I assume married people are hetero, but that aside, it is none of my business), however, there are groups who approach "gay rights" with religious fervour. The marriage in Church thing is a perfect example of this.
Tell me, if the attitude of the mainstream religions (Catholicism, Anglicans, Islam) is so abhorrent to those who are gay, why the hell do they want to get married in our places of worship? The truth is, the average couple, under those circumstances, would not want to be maaried in a group which rejected their lifestyle. And who can blame them? Not me.
Catholic churches will not marry you if neither of you is Catholic, one of you will need to convert to the church first, and one of the tenets of our faith is that homosexuality is not natural.
Of course you are free to reject that opinion, just as we are free to reject yours. And, yes, of course a number of Catholics are homosexual, some are priests. How they deal with this conflict is between them and God (in the case of priests, they are supposed to be celebate so their orientation is irrelevant, again in a perfect world).
Nor will a Catholic priest marry you if you refuse to being up your children as Catholics.
So, should we stop discriminating against non-Catholics too? Or does the state not already provide for those we won't marry?
Marriage in church is not some sort of birthright, it is a religious ceremony, carried out by ministers of your faith, and if you reject the beliefs of the religious body then why would they want to marry you?

Your point about anything we pay for (adoption agencies) being ours to decide- er, no. Not in British law. Anti-discrimination legislation applies across the board.

As for the book "written two thousand years ago", some parts are closer to three and a half thousand years, and that is the point, really. It has withstood the test of time. Many things justified by the Bible, in the past, actually are never justifed in scripture, it has been used to justify them by using certain passages and ignoring others. You are free to reject the life it advocates, we are free to point to the way we see society degenerating nowadays with this "anything goes" attitude and ask, are we really so wrong to hold on to what we think is right.

It is not so much that the Church, nowadays, has much issue with those who are gay, but a small minority of those who are gay seem to want to force their beliefs down the Church's throat in the name of equal rights.

You'll notice, I hope, that I have not described your beliefs in this topic as "disgusting"?
Maybe I have more respect for freedom of speech and belief than you?

[TonyGilroy]

I may be wrong but I didn't think that proponents of gay marriage were insisting on it being in Church.

I'd agree that Church weddings should be for believers in that faith but what if they're gay?