Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ottae

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

And again, that just furthers the narrative that divides everybody even more.

American false harmony nonsense. "We're all in this together, but I get more rights and money and cultural representation and also I'd see you hanging from a tree if I could."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

S0lo, you just pretty much described the real problem here. Everyone can be made fun of except the minority groups, that's literally flat out what you said. It's ridiculous.

 

Oh, you can make fun of whatever you want. It's up to you how much of your own inner corruption you want to reveal to the world. As for myself, i pretty early in life lost the taste for discriminatory humour.

 

This is not just because it's pretty obvious what it causes in both the objects of it and in those indulging in it, as it is self-evident that every act commited against another living being while knowing about its wrongness lowers our own self-image according to the hurt we cause by it; The hurt face of an overweight person when she comes upon a group of co-workers joking about "fat" people? It comes from feeling hurt. The instantly lowered voices, the faces as if caught with the hand in the cookie jar, the evasive looks of said group? That comes from the basic human emotion that it isn't right to cause hurt in other people. That aside i simply do not find it funny to hear the newest version of the one routine discriminatory humour ever came up with:

 

"Someone is different from me. I see that as cause for ridicule and laughter. That's why i share it with people more similar to me, as i excpect them to share my amusement about said difference."

 

The only new addition these days appears to be: "...and if the object of my ridicule, or anyone for that matter, feels offended, then that's simply due to them being PC-obsessed *enter derogatory term for people who try not to be the cause of hurt* who lack a sense of humour."

 

In that regard, it's funny how unfunny people like to blame their audience for not getting "it". But actually, it's not. It's pathetic, that's what it is. So, to spare you from that additional embarassment (to publicly not being funny), dear unfunny people of the world:

 

We do get "it". "It" simply fails to amuse us. Be it your edgy racism, your provocative thoughts about anyone receiving any kind of social benefits, your well-calculated sexual Offensiveness, your bold defense of free speech by the way of rape jokes; We do get what you believe to be funny about all that. We simply do not share that believe. In fact we actively oppose it by denying you the gratification (e.g. laughter) you seek, as what you deem "humour" looks to us like but a repetiton of prejudical stereotypes, designed to gather cheap laughs at the expense of the minority you think is most likely to let you get away with it. What we see is a display of cruelty, cowardice and misanthropy that is saddening to witness in a fellow human being. And while i have your ear; Please just stop being like that. It would be to everyone's benefit. First and foremost your own, as renouncing a hatred- and fear-based world view just feels f*cking great. And it has the added benefit that you become a viable love-(or sex-)interest to other people than those just seeking for someone they can hate more than they hate themselves. So again, please just stop. Your inner human and your sexual organs will appreciate it. I thank you on their behalf. And ours, of course. Which in this case stands for just about everybody, as just about everbody profits from less people propagizing hate and fear for entertainment purposes. Except people who enjoy hating and inducing fear. But they simply don't matter, as they are a bunch of f*cking wankers.

 

So yeah, i guess my answer to people complaining about how PC is is forced upon them is clear, but i'll just summarize again: Just be a decent human being ffs. And should you be unable to do so, at least stop blaming decent human beings for your feeling of inadequancy in their presence or in presence of their opinions. They are not the cause of that feeling, the decent human being inside you is, in a helpless effort to get through to your messed up ego. Maybe one of these days you just listen what it has to say. The first, not the later. Your ego has done enough talking for a lifetime. Thank you for your attention.

Edited by S0lo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
How are they the same, unless you falsely assume that the reason the inherent advantage for white males exists is because they do have superior character traits or other quantifiable attributes?

 

I'm saying that the underlying logic behind the concept of "privilege" is the presence of inherent superiority in anyone based on attributes they have from birth. I'm not saying I agree with that logic (Jesus, that was obvious from the start), I'm saying that that is what the concept of "privilege", in this instance, is.

 

 

 

 

Privilege, MichaelW, does not equate to superiority - it means you hold a position of advantage over other people simply because of the manner of your birth. Equating the two is quite the backwards notion: I imagine such a principle featured prominently in the pre-1860's American political agenda, you know, the one where whites were 'privileged'. I imagine a man such as yourself, burdened by great knowledge, is also a proponent of other brilliant vehicles of disadvantage such as trickle-down economic policy.

 

And that advantage over other people by birth is called what? Superiority. "Privilege" is just a modern term for the same idea that people are inherently better than one another by the virtue of their birth. A white person has "privilege" because they are white, not because of anything else. In the same way that a black person or a person of any other ethnic minority doesn't have "privilege" and is therefore inferior. This is a terrible mindset. I've not denied this nor said that there is any inherent ethnic superiority or inferiority between any ethnic groups. Not that you'll actually understand this because you're too busy pretending the rationale behind privilege isn't moronic or based on outdated concepts of ethnicity.

 

Which of course, your fit of indignant rage, failed to see. Frankly, I'm not surprised that you missed this, given that you've just played right into the point I was making.

 

What, exactly was the point you were trying to make? That we should not recognise the advantages given by virtue of birth to the majority, because if we talk about it in term of race, that makes it racist? Unfortunately, no, you are misguided. You cannot ignore the fact that socioeconomic disadvantage is inextricably linked to race, gender and ethnicity, as you sit in a position of privilege whereby you can freely ignore social inequality as, for you, inequality is a statistic rather than a fact of everyday life.

 

 

My point, for those of you who need it explained to you, is that "privilege" is the reinforcement of the idea that certain people have inherent advantages bestowed upon them by birth.

 

<Jeez, thanks for explaining that one to me - to think, that was what people were talking about the whole time - who knew?>

 

 

And ergo, an inherent superiority because of those advantages. The underlying logic of privilege is that certain groups of people are better than others.

 

But hey, if you want to act like a smug piece of sh*t (whoops, too late for that), go right ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'm saying that the underlying logic behind the concept of "privilege" is the presence of inherent superiority in anyone based on attributes they have from birth. I'm not saying I agree with that logic (Jesus, that was obvious from the start), I'm saying that that is what the concept of "privilege", in this instance, is.

But your attack on the very idea of privilege was based on the false notion that claiming it exists implies that there is actually an inherent superiority in those who are deemed to be privileged, which is, as far as I can see, a non sequitur argument. It's still not exactly clear what point you're trying to make; either you're claiming that the underlying principle of privilege is the belief amongst those people who are responsible for upholding the status quo that a particular subgroup of society are superior (either actively or passively), which doesn't in any way constitute an argument against the concept of privilege as it concedes that these views exist but in no way suggests that simply acknowledging them as a problem accepts that that inherent but not quantifiably superiority exists. Or you're claiming that the very existence of privilege as a concept requires you to acknowledge that some people are inherently but not quantifiably superior to others, which I fail to see the logic in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

S0lo, you just pretty much described the real problem here. Everyone can be made fun of except the minority groups, that's literally flat out what you said. It's ridiculous.

 

Oh, you can make fun of whatever you want. It's up to you how much of your own inner corruption you want to reveal to the world. As for myself, i pretty early in life lost the taste for discriminatory humour.

 

This is not just because it's pretty obvious what it causes in both the objects of it and in those indulging in it, as it is self-evident that every act commited against another living being while knowing about its wrongness lowers our own self-image according to the hurt we cause by it; The hurt face of an overweight person when she comes upon a group of co-workers joking about "fat" people? It comes from feeling hurt. The instantly lowered voices, the faces as if caught with the hand in the cookie jar, the evasive looks of said group? That comes from the basic human emotion that it isn't right to cause hurt in other people. That aside i simply do not find it funny to hear the newest version of the one routine discriminatory humour ever came up with:

 

"Someone is different from me. I see that as cause for ridicule and laughter. That's why i share it with people more similar to me, as i excpect them to share my amusement about said difference."

 

The only new addition these days appears to be: "...and if the object of my ridicule, or anyone for that matter, feels offended, then that's simply due to them being PC-obsessed *enter derogatory term for people who try not to be the cause of hurt* who lack a sense of humour."

 

In that regard, it's funny how unfunny people like to blame their audience for not getting "it". But actually, it's not. It's pathetic, that's what it is. So, to spare you from that additional embarassment (to publicly not being funny), dear unfunny people of the world:

 

We do get "it". "It" simply fails to amuse us. Be it your edgy racism, your provocative thoughts about anyone receiving any kind of social benefits, your well-calculated sexual Offensiveness, your bold defense of free speech by the way of rape jokes; We do get what you believe to be funny about all that. We simply do not share that believe. In fact we actively oppose it by denying you the gratification (e.g. laughter) you seek, as what you deem "humour" looks to us like but a repetiton of prejudical stereotypes, designed to gather cheap laughs at the expense of the minority you think is most likely to let you get away with it. What we see is a display of cruelty, cowardice and misanthropy that is saddening to witness in a fellow human being. And while i have your ear; Please just stop being like that. It would be to everyone's benefit. First and foremost your own, as renouncing a hatred- and fear-based world view just feels f*cking great. And it has the added benefit that you become a viable love-(or sex-)interest to other people than those just seeking for someone they can hate more than they hate themselves. So again, please just stop. Your inner human and your sexual organs will appreciate it. I thank you on their behalf. And ours, of course. Which in this case stands for just about everybody, as just about everbody profits from less people propagizing hate and fear for entertainment purposes. Except people who enjoy hating and inducing fear. But they simply don't matter, as they are a bunch of f*cking wankers.

 

So yeah, i guess my answer to people complaining about how PC is is forced upon them is clear, but i'll just summarize again: Just be a decent human being ffs. And should you be unable to do so, at least stop blaming decent human beings for your feeling of inadequancy in their presence or in presence of their opinions. They are not the cause of that feeling, the decent human being inside you is, in a helpless effort to get through to your messed up ego. Maybe one of these days you just listen what it has to say. The first, not the later. Your ego has done enough talking for a lifetime. Thank you for your attention.

 

Sounds to me like you're just opposed to any kind of blue/black comedy, which is totally fine. But don't act like that makes you all high and mighty and an "enlightened" individual. The movie Dear White People is a pretty good example of a black-centered take on making fun of white people, and it's pretty f*cking hilarious. The idea that it's all majority groups making fun of minorities just isn't true. Learn to laugh at yourself, learn to be able to take a joke. You'll live longer and feel better, seriously.

 

 

 

 

Minority groups are at a social disadvantage due to minimal representation in the mainstream media, the use of humour which targets these groups with banal stereotypes is unfair because they have limited representation and cannot fairly dispel or shed these stereotypes. Also, if you have noticed, you are comparing jokes about nationality with jokes about genetics (racial minorities), and beliefs (ethnic minorities/religions) - Americans may be all prideful about their national identity, but I am pretty sure if you remark on the latter two you are trying to reduce somebody's entire existence down to the punchline of a joke

Oh please, give me a f*cking break. Minority groups don't have any representation in the media/comedy and can't defend themselves? I can rattle off more minority comedians than I can white comedians. And go ahead and reduce my existence to the punchline of a joke. I don't f*cking care, get the stick out of your ass and learn to laugh a little.

 

 

 

 

American false harmony nonsense. "We're all in this together, but I get more rights and money and cultural representation and also I'd see you hanging from a tree if I could."

 

lolwut

 

 

No seriously, what?

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

 

I'm saying that the underlying logic behind the concept of "privilege" is the presence of inherent superiority in anyone based on attributes they have from birth. I'm not saying I agree with that logic (Jesus, that was obvious from the start), I'm saying that that is what the concept of "privilege", in this instance, is.

But your attack on the very idea of privilege was based on the false notion that claiming it exists implies that there is actually an inherent superiority in those who are deemed to be privileged, which is, as far as I can see, a non sequitur argument. It's still not exactly clear what point you're trying to make; either you're claiming that the underlying principle of privilege is the belief amongst those people who are responsible for upholding the status quo that a particular subgroup of society are superior (either actively or passively), which doesn't in any way constitute an argument against the concept of privilege as it concedes that these views exist but in no way suggests that simply acknowledging them as a problem accepts that that inherent but not quantifiably superiority exists. Or you're claiming that the very existence of privilege as a concept requires you to acknowledge that some people are inherently but not quantifiably superior to others, which I fail to see the logic in.

 

 

Jesus wept. I'm saying that the logic or the ideas behind the concept of privilege are those which reinforce the idea that certain groups of people are superior than others.

 

What is so difficult to get about that? Privilege is the idea that certain groups of people are inherently superior to others based on attributes of the person which they had from birth, that one is inherently privileged from birth regardless of their actions. And to believe in privilege is to believe in the idea that certain groups of people are superior to others.

 

I really do not understand why it's so difficult to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Okay, that's much clearer. I still don't agree with the notion that accepting privilege the notion of privilege requires you to accept that certain groups are superior; as I said before, it's more a case of accepting that certain groups ate believed to be superior by some segments of the population even if they're not demonstrably so. Which I would argue is basically the definition of privilege in this context.

 

You appear to be suggesting that merely acknowledging the existence of privilege requires you to accept that the people who support and enable it are correct in claiming superiority for those they favouritise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

But what about other contexts, such as sexuality, body weight and God knows what else tumblr will inevitably invent next week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

As far as I'm aware there doesn't really exist a privilege for or against those societal groups, with the possible exception of sexuality. The concept of preferential treatment for white middle class men in many sectors of society is well understood and documented; much of the attention on other factors like sexuality has been about dissuading violence and harassment rather than assessing whether their sexuality results in less positive treatment in wider society. Though I'd hazard it probably does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

 

-snip-

Sounds to me like you're just opposed to any kind of blue/black comedy, which is totally fine. But don't act like that makes you all high and mighty and an "enlightened" individual. The movie Dear White People is a pretty good example of a black-centered take on making fun of white people, and it's pretty f*cking hilarious. The idea that it's all majority groups making fun of minorities just isn't true. Learn to laugh at yourself, learn to be able to take a joke. You'll live longer and feel better, seriously.

 

 

i don't really want to add to my previous post, pretty much everything you brought up i already addressed right there, but since that apparently wasn't clear enough, i'll do so anyway.
Let's start by this; You misunderstand. Holding one self to the quite basic standard of trying to be a decent human being is not "acting like one is all high and mighty". If you really believe it is, i feel sorry for how little you must think of yourself. I refer back the last passage of my previous post.
Regarding "minority", exchange it (the one time i used it) with "members of a certain: social group/race/gender/class/whatever", the point remains exactly the same. The term "minority" bares absolutely no relevance to my argument, except that it accidentally just worked to reveal your bias towards all things "minority", as it triggered you to a comment on the subject lacking any connection to what i actually said, by matter of statement of your opinion.
And where in my post you got that i can't laugh about myself or can't take a joke, i just don't know. Make fun of my character, my looks, whatever, if the joke is funny i'll laugh about it. But if we are, for example, talking about old age, and you utter at me with a dirty grin: "You won't grow old anyway as you'll die of AIDS before your 40th birthday from all that cock you suck, you f*cking fa**ot!", then no, i won't laugh. I'll probably just stare at you in disbelief before i get up and wish you a good rest of your life.
I also don't know how one can misinterpret a post that simple in so many ways, unless it is willfully done. What's so unclear about "trying not to cause hurt is the decent thing to do, and we as human beings know that."? No need to answer though, it's as rhetoric a question as can be. Seriously.
Edited by S0lo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

 

American false harmony nonsense. "We're all in this together, but I get more rights and money and cultural representation and also I'd see you hanging from a tree if I could."

 

lolwut

 

 

No seriously, what?

 

Basically, where do you get off telling people that their airing of their grievances is "divisive" when they're marginalised and excluded from society, and get quantifiably less from society? America is one of those most stratified societies in history, so it's funny that Americans have a habit of talking about their society as if it's raceless and classless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

SOlo, where do you think that line (between a particular comment or joke causing genuine hurt, and it being laughed off as a piece of good humour) is drawn? If it's purely subjective (which it would be - a particular anti-Semitic joke may offend one Jew, whereas another might react with laughter and an appreciation for its wit or whatever, and this is assuming that both people share similar worldviews, lifestyles, social attitudes etc. so minimising biased reactions to jokes and comments), then wouldn't it be hard to enforce political correctness as some sort of objective measuring stick as to what is a socially acceptable view or not, given that, if anything, what is "politically correct" is merely a reflection of what society at a given point in time deems to be socially acceptable? I mean, I understand that as society progresses and develops, bigoted, irrational and flat-out repugnant opinions would desirably be replaced by ones which are more accepting and tolerant, but if this can be done simultaneously with humour existing without causing offence, then where's the harm? Obviously people should try and do their best to be decent human beings, but I think that that has more to do with how humans interact with each other on a basic, psychological and conversational level, and if anything has more to do with the personality defects of individuals who hold beliefs giving rise to flat out ridiculously stupid and bigoted jokes (like the one you listed).

 

--

 

Despite my belief that political correctness may sometimes be "over-used" as a card of criticism against a particular joke or comment or what-have-you (irrelevant, but for the record, I love Jeremy Clarkson and think he's hilarious), I think opposition to it is rather redundant and a bit melodramatic given that most politically correct views are frankly simple, basic moral ideas possessed by a society at any given time. I find that sometimes people act as if political correctness is being perpetuated by a small elite group of self-righteous wankers with no sense of humour who think that they're trying some wild, subvertive experiment in social engineering to expunge people from making sh*tty jokes at the expense of others for the sake of some New Wave socially progressive agenda. I find this to be bollocks, given that any actual example of political correctness being used to criticise a joke or comment would generally be considered to be merely a reflection of what people think. Political correctness simply wouldn't exist if people didn't believe in the moral grounding which gives rise to politically correct views in the first place. It's basically a group of people thinking your joke about Jews enjoying the sound of jiggling gold coins is a bit flat and stupid, rather than some egregious impingement on your civil liberties and free speech at the hands of some fascist police state.

 

Free speech and political correctness go hand-in-hand. If some celebrity makes some flat-out ridiculous comment about "fags" or "Chinks" or "Spics" or any sub-group of people and the public (i.e. f*cking people) react angrily to it, then how the f*ck are people expressing their own free speech in criticising such a joke impeding his free speech? Free speech is a mechanism which allows society to express views freely and openly; if people happen to suffer societal consequences because they make a comment, it becomes publicly scrutinised and the level of negative public reaction forces that person to lose his job or whatever, then that merely means that society has become progressive and tolerant and mature to the stage where such stupidity is rifled out. I'd hardly argue that this is a bad thing, I mean if people aren't free to express their opinions and displeasure, how else would progressive social ideas proliferate and spread? If a corporate executive goes on Twitter and makes a ridiculous comment such as, "Unless you're a white heterosexual Christian male you don't deserve to vote", and the public pressure resulting from that comment would force him to resign, would that really be an example of political correctness gone mad?

 

The only iffy thing, as I mentioned in my first paragraph, is that it's subjective. There are degrees of offence; it's not a black-and-white thing. The comment/viewpoint I mentioned in my last sentence would be widely considered to be more offensive than a comment about, I dunno, Asians being good at math. I mean, I know that stereotypes are stereotypes, bigotry is bigotry, but obviously the reaction to both comments would be far different given the degree of offence caused and I think that that's perfectly fine. It's a reflection that a society has the social awareness, maturity and a mild, healthy level of self-deprecation to react to comments proportionately and reasonably.

 

People have a right to be offended, and people have a right not to be offended. We're all individuals and I think it's everyone's prerogative as to how they should react. As such, if one person is not offended by a particular joke, I think it's a bit unfair to insinuate that they're some sort of out-of-touch dickwad who doesn't care about others or his own kind. He's just not offended. If someone is offended, it'd be similarly unfair to tell them to swallow a spoonful of concrete and harden up if they're genuinely, honestly hurt. I mean, it's not complex human psychology, we react differently to all external stimuli. If some person makes a comment/joke to me insinuating that I must love committing ethnic cleansing and committing war rape against Albanian women on weekends, I could choose to pass it off as a joke and be like "lol nice one you dickhead such original, such witty 11/10 go join the Comedy Store you balkan stephen colbert you", or I could choose to call that person up on it and call him an asshat, tell him that I'm offended and that I really don't appreciate my ethnicity being used in such an insensitive manner. He/she'd probably retort that I'm being "overly politically correct" and that I should "harden the f*ck up". Well, if I'm offended, I'm offended. That's my prerogrative. But at least I'm still less of an asshole than you, and I don't think that by choosing to ignore you and thinking that your humour is below toilet-level is causing some sort of societal harm whereby "political correctness has gone mad" and the world's about to end. Harden your ego and your sh*tty sense-of-humour the f*ck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

SOlo, where do you think that line (between a particular comment or joke causing genuine hurt, and it being laughed off as a piece of good humour) is drawn? If it's purely subjective (which it would be - a particular anti-Semitic joke may offend one Jew, whereas another might react with laughter and an appreciation for its wit or whatever, and this is assuming that both people share similar worldviews, lifestyles, social attitudes etc. so minimising biased reactions to jokes and comments), then wouldn't it be hard to enforce political correctness as some sort of objective measuring stick as to what is a socially acceptable view or not, given that, if anything, what is "politically correct" is merely a reflection of what society at a given point in time deems to be socially acceptable? I mean, I understand that as society progresses and develops, bigoted, irrational and flat-out repugnant opinions would desirably be replaced by ones which are more accepting and tolerant, but if this can be done simultaneously with humour existing without causing offence, then where's the harm? Obviously people should try and do their best to be decent human beings, but I think that that has more to do with how humans interact with each other on a basic, psychological and conversational level, and if anything has more to do with the personality defects of individuals who hold beliefs giving rise to flat out ridiculously stupid and bigoted jokes (like the one you listed).

 

--

 

Despite my belief that political correctness may sometimes be "over-used" as a card of criticism against a particular joke or comment or what-have-you (irrelevant, but for the record, I love Jeremy Clarkson and think he's hilarious), I think opposition to it is rather redundant and a bit melodramatic given that most politically correct views are frankly simple, basic moral ideas possessed by a society at any given time. I find that sometimes people act as if political correctness is being perpetuated by a small elite group of self-righteous wankers with no sense of humour who think that they're trying some wild, subvertive experiment in social engineering to expunge people from making sh*tty jokes at the expense of others for the sake of some New Wave socially progressive agenda. I find this to be bollocks, given that any actual example of political correctness being used to criticise a joke or comment would generally be considered to be merely a reflection of what people think. Political correctness simply wouldn't exist if people didn't believe in the moral grounding which gives rise to politically correct views in the first place. It's basically a group of people thinking your joke about Jews enjoying the sound of jiggling gold coins is a bit flat and stupid, rather than some egregious impingement on your civil liberties and free speech at the hands of some fascist police state.

 

Free speech and political correctness go hand-in-hand. If some celebrity makes some flat-out ridiculous comment about "fags" or "Chinks" or "Spics" or any sub-group of people and the public (i.e. f*cking people) react angrily to it, then how the f*ck are people expressing their own free speech in criticising such a joke impeding his free speech? Free speech is a mechanism which allows society to express views freely and openly; if people happen to suffer societal consequences because they make a comment, it becomes publicly scrutinised and the level of negative public reaction forces that person to lose his job or whatever, then that merely means that society has become progressive and tolerant and mature to the stage where such stupidity is rifled out. I'd hardly argue that this is a bad thing, I mean if people aren't free to express their opinions and displeasure, how else would progressive social ideas proliferate and spread? If a corporate executive goes on Twitter and makes a ridiculous comment such as, "Unless you're a white heterosexual Christian male you don't deserve to vote", and the public pressure resulting from that comment would force him to resign, would that really be an example of political correctness gone mad?

 

The only iffy thing, as I mentioned in my first paragraph, is that it's subjective. There are degrees of offence; it's not a black-and-white thing. The comment/viewpoint I mentioned in my last sentence would be widely considered to be more offensive than a comment about, I dunno, Asians being good at math. I mean, I know that stereotypes are stereotypes, bigotry is bigotry, but obviously the reaction to both comments would be far different given the degree of offence caused and I think that that's perfectly fine. It's a reflection that a society has the social awareness, maturity and a mild, healthy level of self-deprecation to react to comments proportionately and reasonably.

 

People have a right to be offended, and people have a right not to be offended. We're all individuals and I think it's everyone's prerogative as to how they should react. As such, if one person is not offended by a particular joke, I think it's a bit unfair to insinuate that they're some sort of out-of-touch dickwad who doesn't care about others or his own kind. He's just not offended. If someone is offended, it'd be similarly unfair to tell them to swallow a spoonful of concrete and harden up if they're genuinely, honestly hurt. I mean, it's not complex human psychology, we react differently to all external stimuli. If some person makes a comment/joke to me insinuating that I must love committing ethnic cleansing and committing war rape against Albanian women on weekends, I could choose to pass it off as a joke and be like "lol nice one you dickhead such original, such witty 11/10 go join the Comedy Store you balkan stephen colbert you", or I could choose to call that person up on it and call him an asshat, tell him that I'm offended and that I really don't appreciate my ethnicity being used in such an insensitive manner. He/she'd probably retort that I'm being "overly politically correct" and that I should "harden the f*ck up". Well, if I'm offended, I'm offended. That's my prerogrative. But at least I'm still less of an asshole than you, and I don't think that by choosing to ignore you and thinking that your humour is below toilet-level is causing some sort of societal harm whereby "political correctness has gone mad" and the world's about to end. Harden your ego and your sh*tty sense-of-humour the f*ck up.

 

i will give you a proper answer in a bit, don't wanna rush answering, it wouldn't do your post justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

 

 

S0lo, you just pretty much described the real problem here. Everyone can be made fun of except the minority groups, that's literally flat out what you said. It's ridiculous.

 

Oh, you can make fun of whatever you want. It's up to you how much of your own inner corruption you want to reveal to the world. As for myself, i pretty early in life lost the taste for discriminatory humour.

 

This is not just because it's pretty obvious what it causes in both the objects of it and in those indulging in it, as it is self-evident that every act commited against another living being while knowing about its wrongness lowers our own self-image according to the hurt we cause by it; The hurt face of an overweight person when she comes upon a group of co-workers joking about "fat" people? It comes from feeling hurt. The instantly lowered voices, the faces as if caught with the hand in the cookie jar, the evasive looks of said group? That comes from the basic human emotion that it isn't right to cause hurt in other people. That aside i simply do not find it funny to hear the newest version of the one routine discriminatory humour ever came up with:

 

"Someone is different from me. I see that as cause for ridicule and laughter. That's why i share it with people more similar to me, as i excpect them to share my amusement about said difference."

 

The only new addition these days appears to be: "...and if the object of my ridicule, or anyone for that matter, feels offended, then that's simply due to them being PC-obsessed *enter derogatory term for people who try not to be the cause of hurt* who lack a sense of humour."

 

In that regard, it's funny how unfunny people like to blame their audience for not getting "it". But actually, it's not. It's pathetic, that's what it is. So, to spare you from that additional embarassment (to publicly not being funny), dear unfunny people of the world:

 

We do get "it". "It" simply fails to amuse us. Be it your edgy racism, your provocative thoughts about anyone receiving any kind of social benefits, your well-calculated sexual Offensiveness, your bold defense of free speech by the way of rape jokes; We do get what you believe to be funny about all that. We simply do not share that believe. In fact we actively oppose it by denying you the gratification (e.g. laughter) you seek, as what you deem "humour" looks to us like but a repetiton of prejudical stereotypes, designed to gather cheap laughs at the expense of the minority you think is most likely to let you get away with it. What we see is a display of cruelty, cowardice and misanthropy that is saddening to witness in a fellow human being. And while i have your ear; Please just stop being like that. It would be to everyone's benefit. First and foremost your own, as renouncing a hatred- and fear-based world view just feels f*cking great. And it has the added benefit that you become a viable love-(or sex-)interest to other people than those just seeking for someone they can hate more than they hate themselves. So again, please just stop. Your inner human and your sexual organs will appreciate it. I thank you on their behalf. And ours, of course. Which in this case stands for just about everybody, as just about everbody profits from less people propagizing hate and fear for entertainment purposes. Except people who enjoy hating and inducing fear. But they simply don't matter, as they are a bunch of f*cking wankers.

 

So yeah, i guess my answer to people complaining about how PC is is forced upon them is clear, but i'll just summarize again: Just be a decent human being ffs. And should you be unable to do so, at least stop blaming decent human beings for your feeling of inadequancy in their presence or in presence of their opinions. They are not the cause of that feeling, the decent human being inside you is, in a helpless effort to get through to your messed up ego. Maybe one of these days you just listen what it has to say. The first, not the later. Your ego has done enough talking for a lifetime. Thank you for your attention.

 

Sounds to me like you're just opposed to any kind of blue/black comedy, which is totally fine. But don't act like that makes you all high and mighty and an "enlightened" individual. The movie Dear White People is a pretty good example of a black-centered take on making fun of white people, and it's pretty f*cking hilarious. The idea that it's all majority groups making fun of minorities just isn't true. Learn to laugh at yourself, learn to be able to take a joke. You'll live longer and feel better, seriously.

 

 

 

 

Minority groups are at a social disadvantage due to minimal representation in the mainstream media, the use of humour which targets these groups with banal stereotypes is unfair because they have limited representation and cannot fairly dispel or shed these stereotypes. Also, if you have noticed, you are comparing jokes about nationality with jokes about genetics (racial minorities), and beliefs (ethnic minorities/religions) - Americans may be all prideful about their national identity, but I am pretty sure if you remark on the latter two you are trying to reduce somebody's entire existence down to the punchline of a joke

Oh please, give me a f*cking break. Minority groups don't have any representation in the media/comedy and can't defend themselves? I can rattle off more minority comedians than I can white comedians. And go ahead and reduce my existence to the punchline of a joke. I don't f*cking care, get the stick out of your ass and learn to laugh a little.

 

 

 

 

American false harmony nonsense. "We're all in this together, but I get more rights and money and cultural representation and also I'd see you hanging from a tree if I could."

 

lolwut

 

 

No seriously, what?

 

Dear White People is about ridiculing cultural appropriation and racial insensitivity, but to some extent intra-communal racism in minority groups regarding self-identification i.e. notions of "Blackness". It is not laughing at White people, it is laughing at ignorant people, but it is nice that you would conclude something is racist only if it offends White people (pretty racist - good job there).

 

You, a single person, being able to - or simply choosing to - list more black comedians than white (and not to forget Hispanic or Asian minorities) does not mean there is even close to fair representation. Furthermore, a person that's livelihood is based upon public approval unlikely to be so avid a campaigner for increased minority representation especially if they play for mainstream audiences because comedy is not the best platform for social change - you tend not to be taken seriously. Also, your last point here doesn't negate what I was saying at all, whites have the majority rule, if you think just because you can take a joke, and this automatically means you have a free pass to insult, belittle, denigrate and otherwise injure every damn minority you can think of I can only say get a f*cking life.

 

Lastly, he is arguing that you are content in the belief that everything is fine, because for you it is, but when people expose to you the hardships that minorities face you argue it is dividing American harmony. Wrong, it is dividing 'white' harmony because you are exposed to the inequality of society which it is so easy for you to ignore. Just because it is unfavourable for you to see something, doesn't mean it should be oppressed, that is political correctness taken to the extreme, denying the existence and experiences of the populace. Clearly you are no more than a white male with an inferiority complex and a false sense of entitlement, derived from the freedoms you have to explore through homo-social relationships your 'perfect' world, and the desire to ignore any imperfection or flaw that makes the world less than perfect in your eyes.

Edited by Share Sharqi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

-snip-

Sounds to me like you're just opposed to any kind of blue/black comedy, which is totally fine. But don't act like that makes you all high and mighty and an "enlightened" individual. The movie Dear White People is a pretty good example of a black-centered take on making fun of white people, and it's pretty f*cking hilarious. The idea that it's all majority groups making fun of minorities just isn't true. Learn to laugh at yourself, learn to be able to take a joke. You'll live longer and feel better, seriously.

 

 

i don't really want to add to my previous post, pretty much everything you brought up i already addressed right there, but since that apparently wasn't clear enough, i'll do so anyway.
Let's start by this; You misunderstand. Holding one self to the quite basic standard of trying to be a decent human being is not "acting like one is all high and mighty". If you really believe it is, i feel sorry for how little you must think of yourself. I refer back the last passage of my previous post.
Regarding "minority", exchange it (the one time i used it) with "members of a certain: social group/race/gender/class/whatever", the point remains exactly the same. The term "minority" bares absolutely no relevance to my argument, except that it accidentally just worked to reveal your bias towards all things "minority", as it triggered you to a comment on the subject lacking any connection to what i actually said, by matter of statement of your opinion.
And where in my post you got that i can't laugh about myself or can't take a joke, i just don't know. Make fun of my character, my looks, whatever, if the joke is funny i'll laugh about it. But if we are, for example, talking about old age, and you utter at me with a dirty grin: "You won't grow old anyway as you'll die of AIDS before your 40th birthday from all that cock you suck, you f*cking fa**ot!", then no, i won't laugh. I'll probably just stare at you in disbelief before i get up and wish you a good rest of your life.
I also don't know how one can misinterpret a post that simple in so many ways, unless it is willfully done. What's so unclear about "trying not to cause hurt is the decent thing to do, and we as human beings know that."? No need to answer though, it's as rhetoric a question as can be. Seriously.

 

There's a difference between what you're suggesting and what I'm talking about. It seems like we both are misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying that it should be socially acceptable to walk up to a homosexual and say "HAHAHA MAN YOU'RE GONNA DIE OF AIDS". What I'm saying is, this recently propagated idea over the past few years that even talking about race or ethnicity in a humorous way is absolutely and totally unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear White People is about ridiculing cultural appropriation and racial insensitivity, but to some extent intra-communal racism in minority groups regarding self-identification i.e. notions of "Blackness". It is not laughing at White people, it is laughing at ignorant people, but it is nice that you would conclude something is racist only if it offends White people (pretty racist - good job there).

What are you even on about here? I never said that the movie was racist. I said it was funny and it made fun of white people and white mannerisms, just like people joke about black people and black mannerisms. I never said the movie was racist...

 

 

 

 

 

You, a single person, being able to - or simply choosing to - list more black comedians than white (and not to forget Hispanic or Asian minorities) does not mean there is even close to fair representation. Furthermore, a person that's livelihood is based upon public approval unlikely to be so avid a campaigner for increased minority representation especially if they play for mainstream audiences because comedy is not the best platform for social change - you tend not to be taken seriously. Also, your last point here doesn't negate what I was saying at all, whites have the majority rule, if you think just because you can take a joke, and this automatically means you have a free pass to insult, belittle, denigrate and otherwise injure every damn minority you can think of I can only say get a f*cking life.

For f*ck's sake, nobody is saying it's ok to belittle and denigrate minorities. I'm saying we need to take a few steps back and learn to laugh at ourselves, and yes, even laugh at our racial and ethnic makeup because it's pretty funny sometimes. If you can't find humor in that, then you are just a sad, boring person.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, he is arguing that you are content in the belief that everything is fine, because for you it is, but when people expose to you the hardships that minorities face you argue it is dividing American harmony. Wrong, it is dividing 'white' harmony because you are exposed to the inequality of society which it is so easy for you to ignore. Just because it is unfavourable for you to see something, doesn't mean it should be oppressed, that is political correctness taken to the extreme, denying the existence and experiences of the populace. Clearly you are no more than a white male with an inferiority complex and a false sense of entitlement, derived from the freedoms you have to explore through homo-social relationships your 'perfect' world, and the desire to ignore any imperfection or flaw that makes the world less than perfect in your eyes.

Sure, I really love living in my homo-social world, in my city that is 51% African-American and there's a different language spoken on every street corner. Boy oh boy there's just so much homo-socialness to my life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, where do you get off telling people that their airing of their grievances is "divisive" when they're marginalised and excluded from society, and get quantifiably less from society? America is one of those most stratified societies in history, so it's funny that Americans have a habit of talking about their society as if it's raceless and classless.

Because it is divisive. The notion that we need to paint issues by race is by definition racist and yes, divisive. It isn't just black people who live in entrenched poverty. There are people of all races that face it. Making it into a race issue is just aimless and unproductive. Let's not talk about how we can pander to people by pitting them against one another, but instead let's discuss how we can actually fix entrenched poverty.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi
Dear White People is about ridiculing cultural appropriation and racial insensitivity, but to some extent intra-communal racism in minority groups regarding self-identification i.e. notions of "Blackness". It is not laughing at White people, it is laughing at ignorant people, but it is nice that you would conclude something is racist only if it offends White people (pretty racist - good job there).

What are you even on about here? I never said that the movie was racist. I said it was funny and it made fun of white people and white mannerisms, just like people joke about black people and black mannerisms. I never said the movie was racist...

 

You, a single person, being able to - or simply choosing to - list more black comedians than white (and not to forget Hispanic or Asian minorities) does not mean there is even close to fair representation. Furthermore, a person that's livelihood is based upon public approval unlikely to be so avid a campaigner for increased minority representation especially if they play for mainstream audiences because comedy is not the best platform for social change - you tend not to be taken seriously. Also, your last point here doesn't negate what I was saying at all, whites have the majority rule, if you think just because you can take a joke, and this automatically means you have a free pass to insult, belittle, denigrate and otherwise injure every damn minority you can think of I can only say get a f*cking life.

For f*ck's sake, nobody is saying it's ok to belittle and denigrate minorities. I'm saying we need to take a few steps back and learn to laugh at ourselves, and yes, even laugh at our racial and ethnic makeup because it's pretty funny sometimes. If you can't find humor in that, then you are just a sad, boring person.

 

Lastly, he is arguing that you are content in the belief that everything is fine, because for you it is, but when people expose to you the hardships that minorities face you argue it is dividing American harmony. Wrong, it is dividing 'white' harmony because you are exposed to the inequality of society which it is so easy for you to ignore. Just because it is unfavourable for you to see something, doesn't mean it should be oppressed, that is political correctness taken to the extreme, denying the existence and experiences of the populace. Clearly you are no more than a white male with an inferiority complex and a false sense of entitlement, derived from the freedoms you have to explore through homo-social relationships your 'perfect' world, and the desire to ignore any imperfection or flaw that makes the world less than perfect in your eyes.

Sure, I really love living in my homo-social world, in my city that is 51% African-American and there's a different language spoken on every street corner. Boy oh boy there's just so much homo-socialness to my life.

 

Firstly, the film ridicules idiocy of cultural appropriation and self-identification, the most hollow characters just so happen to be white, it is not a film about white people and white mannerisms; I would not like to be classed as having the same mannerisms of cultural insensitivity and boorishness of someone like you for example.

Secondly, why should a trait that we are gifted by virtue of birth be considered as being hilarious? People like you make me sad, not bored, but aggrieved.

Thirdly, you don't know the definition of homo-social, and Google was apparently too complex for you to use: homo-social means social interactions with members of the same gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Dear White People is about ridiculing cultural appropriation and racial insensitivity, but to some extent intra-communal racism in minority groups regarding self-identification i.e. notions of "Blackness". It is not laughing at White people, it is laughing at ignorant people, but it is nice that you would conclude something is racist only if it offends White people (pretty racist - good job there).

What are you even on about here? I never said that the movie was racist. I said it was funny and it made fun of white people and white mannerisms, just like people joke about black people and black mannerisms. I never said the movie was racist...

 

You, a single person, being able to - or simply choosing to - list more black comedians than white (and not to forget Hispanic or Asian minorities) does not mean there is even close to fair representation. Furthermore, a person that's livelihood is based upon public approval unlikely to be so avid a campaigner for increased minority representation especially if they play for mainstream audiences because comedy is not the best platform for social change - you tend not to be taken seriously. Also, your last point here doesn't negate what I was saying at all, whites have the majority rule, if you think just because you can take a joke, and this automatically means you have a free pass to insult, belittle, denigrate and otherwise injure every damn minority you can think of I can only say get a f*cking life.

For f*ck's sake, nobody is saying it's ok to belittle and denigrate minorities. I'm saying we need to take a few steps back and learn to laugh at ourselves, and yes, even laugh at our racial and ethnic makeup because it's pretty funny sometimes. If you can't find humor in that, then you are just a sad, boring person.

 

Lastly, he is arguing that you are content in the belief that everything is fine, because for you it is, but when people expose to you the hardships that minorities face you argue it is dividing American harmony. Wrong, it is dividing 'white' harmony because you are exposed to the inequality of society which it is so easy for you to ignore. Just because it is unfavourable for you to see something, doesn't mean it should be oppressed, that is political correctness taken to the extreme, denying the existence and experiences of the populace. Clearly you are no more than a white male with an inferiority complex and a false sense of entitlement, derived from the freedoms you have to explore through homo-social relationships your 'perfect' world, and the desire to ignore any imperfection or flaw that makes the world less than perfect in your eyes.

Sure, I really love living in my homo-social world, in my city that is 51% African-American and there's a different language spoken on every street corner. Boy oh boy there's just so much homo-socialness to my life.

 

Firstly, the film ridicules idiocy of cultural appropriation and self-identification, the most hollow characters just so happen to be white, it is not a film about white people and white mannerisms; I would not like to be classed as having the same mannerisms of cultural insensitivity and boorishness of someone like you for example.

Secondly, why should a trait that we are gifted by virtue of birth be considered as being hilarious? People like you make me sad, not bored, but aggrieved.

Thirdly, you don't know the definition of homo-social, and Google was apparently too complex for you to use: homo-social means social interactions with members of the same gender.

 

You can argue what the film ridicules all day with me, but at the end of the day, it's called Dear White People, and makes fun of white people. Just as many jokes about black people don't refer to all black people, the jokes in that movie also don't refer to all white people.

 

Because those traits can sometimes be funny. I am a Catholic and I find child molestation by priest jokes funny. I'm Irish and I find Irish drinking jokes funny. It's too bad that you can't find humor in that stuff, but don't allow your own personal belief give you a superiority complex. The idea that in order to be an enlightened individual, you need to not enjoy risque jokes is f*cking stupid.

 

I don't know the definition of homo-social, thanks for pointing it out. But I don't see how that reflects your point. In fact what the f*ck does that have to do with anything? For the record I interact with girls plenty often, in fact you'd be interested to know that having a sense of humor and not having a stick up your ass helps you in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

Because those traits can sometimes be funny. I am a Catholic and I find child molestation by priest jokes funny. I'm Irish and I find Irish drinking jokes funny. It's too bad that you can't find humor in that stuff, but don't allow your own personal belief give you a superiority complex. The idea that in order to be an enlightened individual, you need to not enjoy risque jokes is f*cking stupid.

 

I don't know the definition of homo-social, thanks for pointing it out. But I don't see how that reflects your point. In fact what the f*ck does that have to do with anything? For the record I interact with girls plenty often, in fact you'd be interested to know that having a sense of humor and not having a stick up your ass helps you in that area.

 

Clearly you have a perspective on the film so I shall let that be a moot point and move on. I'm pretty certain that what you are suggesting is that there is nothing inherently funny about race, but rather, the culture surrounding it is what you find worthy of ridicule; so this is not even a subject of race at all. However, you still maintain that just because you can 'take a joke' everyone else should be fair game to you, and if not they have sticks up their asses and no humour..

In fact it would seem your only retort to anything I have to say is to argue I have a 'stick up my ass'. Could you explain that expression for me?

I prefer wit to banal observations, you must be a pretty poor comedian for society to have written all your jokes for you (in terms of pejorative stereotypes).

How many female friends would you say you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

Because those traits can sometimes be funny. I am a Catholic and I find child molestation by priest jokes funny. I'm Irish and I find Irish drinking jokes funny. It's too bad that you can't find humor in that stuff, but don't allow your own personal belief give you a superiority complex. The idea that in order to be an enlightened individual, you need to not enjoy risque jokes is f*cking stupid.

 

I don't know the definition of homo-social, thanks for pointing it out. But I don't see how that reflects your point. In fact what the f*ck does that have to do with anything? For the record I interact with girls plenty often, in fact you'd be interested to know that having a sense of humor and not having a stick up your ass helps you in that area.

 

Clearly you have a perspective on the film so I shall let that be a moot point and move on. I'm pretty certain that what you are suggesting is that there is nothing inherently funny about race, but rather, the culture surrounding it is what you find worthy of ridicule; so this is not even a subject of race at all. However, you still maintain that just because you can 'take a joke' everyone else should be fair game to you, and if not they have sticks up their asses and no humour..Sure, and that's what it comes down to. It is about making fun of the cultural aspects surrounding race moreso than just "lol you're dark you don't get sunburnt cause biology". I'm not saying they have sticks up their asses if they don't enjoy the humor. I'm saying when people are militantly opposed to it, there is likely a stick in the rectum that needs removal. Not sure if that's you because it seems we initially misunderstood each other, but I digress.

 

Could you explain that expression for me?

Basically means excessively uptight.

 

prefer wit to banal observations, you must be a pretty poor comedian for society to have written all your jokes for you (in terms of pejorative stereotypes).

And that's totally fine for you to not enjoy the humor. Just don't judge those who do. As for me being a poor comedian, I am not one but I suppose you think Chris Rock and pretty much any other comedian who uses race/culture and societal observations as the baseline of their act is just a sh*t comedian.

 

How many female friends would you say you have?

I don't see where this is going, but by friends do you mean like totally platonic? I have two female friends that are totally platonic and I would never even consider having sex with and 5 who are very close friends but the relationship has gone more than friendly before. Are you writing a biography of me? Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

Quote: I don't see where this is going, but by friends do you mean like totally platonic? I have two female friends that are totally platonic and I would never even consider having sex with and 5 who are very close friends but the relationship has gone more than friendly before. Are you writing a biography of me?

 

It's nice that you jumped to the thought of sex right away, but I just meant friends with, in general. I was just wondering if you had ever had a conversation on a subject like this in the past(political correctness), or any non-trivial issue really (pay inequality, LGBT issues etc.). I mean I can't presume to know what you might bond over - and honestly I'm not sure if I want to know - but for some reason I suspect you wouldn't actually like to converse with women in the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

What makes you think that? I know Irviding far better than you and I can categorically say that he's not sexist (I've seen him advocate the emancipation of women in poor countries on numerous occaisons). The reason he responded as he did was because you were clearly insinuating that he is. This discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you keep presuming things about Irviding. It's obvious at this point that you want him to be a raging bigot just so you can knock him down and condescend him. The fact is that he's anything but a bigot and personal attacks or questions about his personal life aren't pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

OT: I generally don't care much for jokes based on culture, but I know how to laugh at myself. As I said before in this thread, I think it's great that society is becoming more aware of people's feelings, but there are issues with political correctness that need to be addressed. For all their talk of social justice I've not once heard PC advocates speak up against antisemitism despite the fact that it's a growing concern and several incidents involving Jews being killed for their background have occurred over the past few years in Europe. Similarly I've never heard PC advocates speak up against bigotry directed at Romani, Irish travellers and Catholics, but I've seen casual racism dished out to the first two groups and you'd be naive to think that everything's fine between Catholics and Protestants now. The point I'm trying to make is that political correctness in its current form fosters divisiveness. It's a diktat which says that some groups are deserving of protection but others aren't; it disregards how pervasive and nuanced bigotry can be and naively divides society into two categories: white and not white, resenting the former and infantilising the latter.

 

The UK does have some issues with racism. Groups like the EDL are abhorrent and have no place in a diverse society. Many primarily black areas of the UK suffer high rates of unemployment and are stricken by poverty. Much needs to be done to remedy this situation and some areas of the UK probably could do with better education regarding minorities. However, based on my own experiences in this country, the situation regarding racism in the UK has improved manifold over the last few years. This is probably why a lot of people take grievance at the PC crusade--they don't like to see the effort which has gone into curtailing racism be undermined.

 

The way I see it, genuine action needs to take place to help people of all backgrounds get out of poverty. I mentioned predominantly black areas earlier but many primarily white and Asian areas of the UK are similarly afflicted. Schools need to ensure proper education about minorities at the primary level, albeit not at the expense of literacy and numeracy. These are genuine ways to reduce bigotry and ignorance in society.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

What makes you think that? I know Irviding far better than you and I can categorically say that he's not sexist (I've seen him advocate the emancipation of women in poor countries on numerous occaisons). The reason he responded as he did was because you were clearly insinuating that he is. This discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you keep presuming things about Irviding. It's obvious at this point that you want him to be a raging bigot just so you can knock him down and condescend him. The fact is that he's anything but a bigot and personal attacks or questions about his personal life aren't pertinent to the discussion at hand.

I wasn't actually going that way at all, I was just wondering if he was more expressive of his opinions in front of men or women - who is jumping to conclusions now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

This just takes us further from the discussion at hand. See my edit. It's obvious what you were aiming to do but let's leave that now.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

What makes you think that? I know Irviding far better than you and I can categorically say that he's not sexist (I've seen him advocate the emancipation of women in poor countries on numerous occaisons). The reason he responded as he did was because you were clearly insinuating that he is. This discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you keep presuming things about Irviding. It's obvious at this point that you want him to be a raging bigot just so you can knock him down and condescend him. The fact is that he's anything but a bigot and personal attacks or questions about his personal life aren't pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

OT: I generally don't care much for jokes based on culture, but I know how to laugh at myself. As I said before in this thread, I think it's great that society is becoming more aware of people's feelings, but there are issues with political correctness that need to be addressed. For all their talk of social justice I've not once heard PC advocates speak up against antisemitism despite the fact that it's a growing concern and several incidents involving Jews being killed for their background have occurred over the past few years in Europe. Similarly I've never heard PC advocates speak up against bigotry directed at Romani gypsies, Irish travellers and Catholics, but I've seen casual racism dished out to the first two groups and you'd be naive to think that everything's fine between Catholics and Protestants now. The point I'm trying to make is that political correctness in its current form fosters divisiveness. It's a diktat which says that some groups are deserving of protection but others aren't; it disregards how pervasive and nuanced bigotry can be and naively divides society into two categories: white and not white, resenting the former and infantilising the latter.

 

The UK does have some issues with racism. Groups like the EDL are abhorrent and have no place in a diverse society. Many primarily black areas of the UK suffer high rates of unemployment and are stricken by poverty. Much needs to be done to remedy this situation and some areas of the UK probably could do with better education regarding minorities. However, based on my own experiences in this country, the situation regarding racism in the UK has improved manifold over the last few years. This is probably why a lot of people take grievance at the PC crusade--they don't like to see the effort which has gone into curtailing racism be undermined.

 

The way I see it, genuine action needs to take place to help people of all backgrounds get out of poverty. I mentioned predominantly black areas earlier but many primarily white and Asian areas of the UK are similarly afflicted. Schools need to ensure proper education about minorities at the primary level, albeit not at the expense of literacy and numeracy. These are genuine ways to reduce bigotry and ignorance in society.

 

am i a "PC advocate" according to your definition? and if so, how in the world would you know about my views on antisemitism or Roma (Gypsy is in itself already an offensice term, which you might want to regard when calling for a more conscious approach to their issues), except that i in no way excluded any specific groups in my call for some common decency? These issues so far haven't been part of the discussion, using them to discredit "PC advocates" is just nonsensical and tells more about what are the issues you concern yourself with than about anyone elses convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

This just takes us further from the discussion at hand. See my edit. It's obvious what you were aiming to do but let's leave that now.

Yeah okay so much for avoiding condescension, Mr.IAmSoPerceptive

Still incorrect though.

 

However, I fully agree with your point about the under-representation of Semites and Romany/Irish traveller (is that the right word, idk, hopefully) communities in dialogues on race and ethnic representation.

 

Bradford and Manchester not doing us any favours here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Solo: In sixth form a friend of mine identified herself as "Romani gypsy" and I was under the impression that the term wasn't deemed offensive by people of that community. I'll avoid the term in future. The point I was making, which you conveniently sidestepped, is that people who regard themselves to be paragons of social justice are systematically ignoring certain communities, in particular the Jews against whom bigotry is alive and growing. I use this point to underscore that political correctness is far from perfect since noxious views against Israel are often at the heart of why people avoid openly sticking up for Jews today, but those aforementioned paragons of social justice are calling for wholesale social equality. It stinks of double standards, lack of awareness and outright ignorance, the same kind of thing PC advocates campaign against.

 

I'll say it again: I admire how passionate people are about social justice, but it just comes off as disingenuous when the same people who demand a fair society are themselves blind to certain forms of prejudice.

 

Sharqi: I'm pretty sure I've seen the term "New Age Traveller" somewhere but I dislike the term as many travelling communities are Christian and would probably not like to be labelled "New Age" with its pagan connotations. That video is bloody depressing by the way. I said it on the last page of this thread, the rudiments of Jewish history and religion need to be made standard in UK schools (Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are so this is is only fair).

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

Sharqi: I'm pretty sure I've seen the term "New Age Traveller" somewhere but I dislike the term as many travelling communities are Christian and would probably not like to be labelled "New Age" with its pagan connotations. That video is bloody depressing by the way. I said it on the last page of this thread, the rudiments of Jewish history and religion need to be made standard in UK schools (Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are so this is is only fair).

I just meant traveller as being the pc counterpart to gypsy, although a few of my friends at my previous school also self-identified as 'gyspies' and 'travellers' and didn't discriminate the use of either term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain VXR

 

This just takes us further from the discussion at hand. See my edit. It's obvious what you were aiming to do but let's leave that now.

Yeah okay so much for avoiding condescension, Mr.IAmSoPerceptive

Still incorrect though.

 

However, I fully agree with your point about the under-representation of Semites and Romany/Irish traveller (is that the right word, idk, hopefully) communities in dialogues on race and ethnic representation.

 

Bradford and Manchester not doing us any favours here.

 

There have been some good things to come out of Bradford, for example:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/129013/interfaith-boost-bradford-synagogue-recruits-muslim

 

A synagogue in Bradford has co-opted a Muslim representative to sit on its ruling body.

It is believed to be the first time a Muslim has held such a role.

Jani Rashid has joined the council of Bradford Reform Synagogue and will help make decisions about the day-to-day running of the building.

The move reflects the strong community links between Jews and Muslims in the west Yorkshire city.

Mr Rashid, head of a diversity department at Bradford City Council, said he was delighted to be joining the synagogue. He said: “I already work with other faith communities across Bradford. This will complement my activities in fostering links within all the communities.”

Mr Rashid helped raise funds to repair the roof of the Grade II-listed building last year when subscriptions paid by the 45-strong congregation could not cover the cost.

Rudi Leavor, the synagogue’s 87-year-old chairman, said: “We’ve been helped by the Muslim community for a few years and we wanted to cement our relationship further so we asked Jani to join our board.

“I’m pretty sure it’s the first time a synagogue has had a Muslim on its council, but why not? He has been a great supporter.

“When there is so much strife in both communities we wanted to show there is no animosity in Bradford. Jani is a nice man and has had a close relationship with us. We want to show the two religions and communities can and will stick together.”

Mr Rashid’s association with the synagogue began when he was a young boy in the 1960s — he would walk past on his way to prayers at a nearby mosque.

He said: “I walked in out of curiosity as a child and was welcomed and shown around. I guess that positive experience has influenced me.

“It is a unique building and it is located right in the heart of the Muslim community. With only 45 of its own members, it is the Muslim community who help protect it and look after the building.

“We’ve never had any graffiti or anything like that. It’s a treasured and respected part of our community and we want to make sure it stays.”

Bradford Synagogue was set up in 1880 and is the oldest Reform shul outside London.

According to the 2011 census, Bradford’s Muslim community, outnumbers the city’s Jews by 129,041 to 299.

A synagogue, saved by a Muslim. A product of human decency, not political bickering about 'pc'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

A product of human decency on his part, and on the part of those who welcomed him into the synagogue as a boy. That must have been an experience which humanised the Jews in his eyes (an experience many sorely need) and gives credence to the notion that educating the young is the best shield against further ignorance and hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

We just had a great example in this thread of PC going too far and being needless. Gypsy isn't a derogatory term or a slur. Gyppo, gyp-hog or pikey are generally considered as such, but gypsy isn't. Not all of them use it, and some prefer other terms, but a lot do use it and prefer it. And no not in the same way that black people call themselves niggas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.