Are we two politically correct in these times

[russtafa]

I think it's great to protect gays and minorities but some times i think it's insane

[robertlouis]

I think it's great to protect gays and minorities but some times i think it's insane

Yes, sometimes when it's taken to extreme lengths that are patently ridiculous, even to people like me who tend to believe that sensitive use of political correctness in language will prove in the longer term to be an effective way of diminishing prejudice and hatred in people's social attitudes and behaviour.

So sort of yes and no lol! - although you can probably guess rightly that I'm generally in favour of it.

[russtafa]

So am i except when it go's to extremes then its ridiculous

[Stavros]

In democratic societies, minorities have acquired 'protected status' as if they were rare birds; but critically, it is to protect employment rights. There was a time when people lost their jobs if they were homosexual -possibly when homosexuality was still illegal; though it doesn't seem to have affected the hairdressing sector...
Employers would shy away from hiring the disabled either because some people are uncomfortable with some forms of disability, or because of a belief the disabled do not have the same abilities as 'normal people'. Colour was another critical element, and eventually religion too. In the 1970s, the Labour Government introduced the legislation making it illegal to discriminate against Women -in work, and in social situations although some private clubs, for example, even today, can still bar women from membership and even in some cases, entry. Most law since the 1970s has built on this. I have seen application forms for jobs in recent years which ask the question; Do you consider yourself to be transgendered? Unthinkable even 10 years ago.

Yes, it can seem excessive, but some firms are also covering their backs against possible litigation from disaffected employees/applicants who use the minority card to claim they are being discriminated against. Ironically, since the majority of the population doesn't share everything in common, in a pure sense, we are all minorities....

[hippifried]

"Political correctness" isn't about minorities & never really has been. It's just being polite. For the past couple of decades, there's been a conserted effort by some (not all) to equate rudeness with honesty. That's a lie. It was a lie when the crocodile tears from the anti-PC campaign started, & it's still a lie. Oh I know there's been cases of forced politick gone overboard, like anything forced, but one would think that was the norm if you listen to the whiners. Codified or froced politick is rude in itself. I'm sure that if this post pisse some whiner off enough, they'll dig through the archives & enumerate all half dozen cases or so from the last few decades, but so what? Rude behavior has never been a good idea, but this campaign is nothing but a lame attempt to justify it. For the most part, it's a tactic to turn bullshit stereotypes into perceived reality or accepted myth. Does it work? I'm sure it does to some extent among the gullible & fearful. Hard to tell because there's no real stats. Just noise.

There's no such thing as impunity, therefore there's no right to be an asshole.

[trish]

Are we too courteous and too considerate in these times?
I seriously doubt it.

Should schools and universities endeavor to teach and promote courtesy and consideration?
I think so.

Should private companies expect their workers to be courteous and considerate of each other and their clients?
Of course.

Are there lots of examples where attempts by schools, universities, companies and places of work to interpret and correct behavior have misfired or gone overboard?
Yes.

Are there a lot more examples where bigoted or unthinking people have been deliberately rude, cruel and hurtful.
Yes.

Do people have a reasonable expectation to be treated with courtesy and consideration?
Yes.

Should people have a legal expectation to be treated with courtesy and consideration?
Usually not, but it probably depends on the circumstances.

[Stavros]

In the UK there was a sort of 'backlash' in the 1980s because the 'urgency' with which issues over minorities were being dealt with was so intense 'the majority' felt they didn't matter because they didn't have a wooden leg, were not black and Jewish and Gay, and so on. I think the left 'discovered' these issues and flogged it to death, in the end people accept difference or they don't, but legally are circumscribed by how they deal with it. Many large institutions, commercial and otherwise, have written all this stuff into their 'constitutions' so its now the gospel of 'diversity and inclusion'. But some people here think people are actually ruder, and more insolent than ever before.

[russtafa]

Its good that the law looks after gays and ethnics but i think it's stupid when they ban children's books that's crazy

[trish]

I'm not sure if you're making a specific reference here or are speaking in generalities. There have been some school districts in the U.S. that restrained teachers from assigning Huck Finn because the dialects of some of the characters were deemed disparaging of various groups of people, predominately African-Americans. Indeed, if I recall, there has been a recent rewrite of Huck Finn with all the "objectionable" language excised. I for one am vehemently opposed to the school board's decision and of the literary assessment upon which it is based. Were I living in that district I would have actively opposed it.

As to the book, I can't very well oppose an author's right to scribble and publish whatever horse-hocky they want, but I don't have to buy horse-hocky__which is why I won't be buying the expurgated Huck Finn or any of Ann Coulter's inane rants for that matter.

But back to schools. Individual States and local school boards, in the U.S., determine the curriculum of K-12 schools, apparently subject only to the legal constraints of the First Amendment. If a school board decides to ban the teaching of Mark Twain that is their prerogative. So we have individual school districts and States banning books, courses, introducing pseudo-history and pseudo-science in scattered places all over the U.S. Some people call it freedom. Others call it abuse to warp a child's education for the sake political ideology. We can't even decide to pay our bills on time, so there's not much of a chance we'll get a reasonable national curriculum for our schools.

You say, in this thread about political correctness, that it's good that "law looks after gays..." I assume you mean that the law makes incorrect speech illegal. I don't know about Australia, but here it is rarely the law but rather private and public institutions, places of business and work that have taken the major initiative to encourage their employees to be conscious of offensive behavior. After all, it's only good business.

[Stavros]

The list in the link includes Little House on the Prairie, Huckelberry Finn, Tintin, and Noddy and Big Ears (!). There comes a point when the left or whoever is responsible for this, undermines its own credibility. Uncle Tom's Cabin (not on this list), like it or not, played a critical role in informing people about slavery, and undermining its hold on the intelligence. When I was in what we call here Junior School (7-11) we used to troop out into the schoolyard on British Empire Day, and stand to attention while the Union Jack was hoisted up a flagpole. It meant nothing to me then, I did not become an Empire loyalist or political conservative and do not consider myself to be superior to Arabs, Africans, Chinese or anyone else -I am sure children and adults -and children AS adults- can make up their own minds about Noddy and Big Ears, I really do.
http://listverse.com/2007/12/03/top-...ct-kids-books/