Is political correctness just like a game of Top Trumps?

  • It seems to me that when it comes to political correctness and what people are offended by it's like a game of Top Trumps, in that certain "isms" and "phobias" out rank each other and score higher, from what I have seen Islamophobia seems to be top trumps it outranks all the others like anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc, so do we need to have a list compiled to enable us to know which ones take precedence?



    ( Please note I may or may not be being totally serious about this 8o)

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • Political correctness is just a way of concealing (or silencing talk of) the bad things that people do. Truth now takes second place to political correctness, because the truth can be quite worrying and is 100% guaranteed to offend someone (usually the cause or the perpetrators).


    It reminds me of Orwells 1984.


    Personally, I prefer people to say exactly what they think, rather than what is expected of them. You don't have to agree with what they say, but you can then decide whether they are honest and truthful and therefore make a fairer judgement of that person. If they just trot out platitudes and 'diplomacy' then you never know what they are thinking, or what they are likely to do. They could (and often do) lead you astray. We even have a new word for it, it's called 'spin', ie. half truths, or lies, intended to deceive.

  • By our law, thanks to our wonderfully liberal judges, thought crime is illegal too.


    Number one is racism and it's the one thing I will not tolerate on this site and there is no exception to that, as some have found out...


    Our law is now too skewed to the extreme left/liberal agenda. You cannot express certain opinions now, as the courts would deem them hate crimes. The number one "crime" these days is being offensive. We all grow up with, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." But the judges and the politicians who made the laws, see it differently. Being offensive under certain conditions is illegal by UK law.


    We have no freedom of expression laws in the UK and we do not have the right to air certain opinions, if they may offend certain people. Orwell was mentioned, well here's another one of his quotes, "we're all equal, but some are more equal than others." That just about sums it up and its not as if a certain politician from the past never foresaw such a situation, because he did.


    ====

    Note: If this topic strays into the subject of race, religion and immigration it will get merged into this thread:


    The Great Debate on Immigration, Race and Religion in the UK


    Please try to stay on the topic of political correctness, thank you.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • The problem nowadays, is that there is no distinction between the 'truth' and 'hate speech'.


    People are vilified and prosecuted for being truthful these days, eg. If grooming gangs are mostly Muslim, then that fact should be revealed without the threat of prosecution.


    The more the establishment (and liberals) try to silence us, the greater the fear. If what I have read is true, some EU countries are now prevented from mentioning the 'race' of criminals. In the UK, there are measures being taken to prevent schools recording the nationalities of their pupils, yet those who have a large majority of immigrant children are given more money to cope with having non-English speaking pupils. Rather contradictory, isn't it? How can they do one, without the other?

  • Baby, It's Cold Outside is one of those Christmas songs that's about as traditional as mince pies.

    But an American radio station's decision to pull it from playlists because it's seen as unsuitable in the #MeToo era has reignited a debate about the song, and raised questions about other potentially questionable Christmas classics.

    Wish I hadn't read this article now.X/


    I thought it was going to be about whether we're boring listening to the same old Christmas songs, but instead its about the ultra PC world we now live in.:thumbdown::sleeping:


    The argument about the song is that its about rape, should it be banned?


    I've listened to the song every Christmas and more so, and will continue to do so.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Oh for fuck sake, some people obviously have way much time on their hands if they can sit there and analyse the words of a song that much as to come up with that load of bollocks. 8|:rolleyes::thumbdown:

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • It seems to be common with these sorts of people, that they have loads of free time. I envy them. Actually, I take that back. They're corrosive and it needs to stop.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Alastair Campbell told to 'shut up' during Newsnight Brexit debate

    People's Vote campaigner Alastair Campbell and journalist Jenni Russell clash on Newsnight.

    Gosh!


    Someone tells the biggest mouthpiece in the world to shut up and it becomes big news on the BBC. I'm sure the BBC bosses must be having an emergency meeting on the matter as so much offence has been called.


    Imagine if she told him to F-off instead!^^

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • FYI I've noted the site software struggles when there's a comma in the URL. Clicking the link shows the image. Horizon, can you refer this back to the developers?

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • routemaster387   Heero Yuy


    This has been resolved. A recent update to the site's software was made to comply with European GDPR regs which blocked external images. I was unaware of this and the images have now been unblocked.:)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • OK.


    When the Russian Revolution occured in 1918, Marx sat back, expecting the oppressed workers of the other capitalist european countries to rise and overthrow the filthy capitalist running dogs. It didnt happen. So in 1925, he set up a think tank, called the Frankfurt School, to find out why.


    They came back some years later and reported to him. Basically, they said the workers of those countries didnt rise up because they wernt miserable enough. They may well be oppressed proletariate, but they are fed and clothed, and believe in god, whom they believe will one day improve thier lives.


    The Frankfurt School reasoned that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that this divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.


    To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution the School recommended (among other things):

    1. The creation of racism offences.

    2. Continual change to create confusion

    3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

    4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority

    5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.

    6. The promotion of excessive drinking

    7. Emptying of christian churches

    8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

    9. Dependency on the state or state benefits

    10. Control and dumbing down of media

    11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family


    One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:


    • attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.

    • abolish differences in the education of boys and girls

    • abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces

    • declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’


    Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’


    The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness, ie 'political correctness'’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.


    The EU adopted the plan wholesale. Look around you, Can you deny every single one of these points is being implemented?

  • Ok Political Correctness is far more seriosu and sinister than this.


    Hands up who knows what Cultural Marxism is? Or knows about the Frankfurt School ?

    I entirely understand and agree with your concern to look at the bigger picture. I have become almost obsessively immersed and mostly in strong agreement with the analysis and recommendations of Dr Jordan Peterson, which has inspired me to pursue interests down connected highways and byways.


    As for "Cultural Marxism" specifically, I sometimes get a bit weary of different name tags for what are variations on a theme and closely and causally correlated. I see how the fundamental concepts of communism and marxism have retreated but morphed into post-modernism and identity politics and even fine tuned itself into "cultural marxism" (as distinct from economic or anti-capitalist marxism)., all of these social-political diseases have now untapped all that is malignant in university academia and witless consumption by naive self-oppressed students.


    "Frankfurt School" is something I happened on a few months ago but didn't pursue because its incredibly long list of topics of interest, although mostly related to one another, requires more immersion than I have time for at present; and I'm also wondering if it is more of historical than current day interest, where we have moved on to better clarify the key issues that should be on today's agenda.


    As for your reference to world order vis a vis a suspected long-term aspiration of the EU, which you posted to see if anyone bites one way or the other: count me in! My view is that, yes, world order is deteriorating at a geometric rate but the kind of remedial world order that some are contemplating could easily lead to over-compensation, where the cure is worse than the disease. I think Henry Kissinger's book on World Order is excellent at analysing the problems but light or vague on effective solutions, where he fails to recognise or is reluctant to acknowledge that some fundamental radical changes are needed to produce a cure rather than just alleviate the pain. Saying it just needs the revival of a Westphalian approach to order between nations is I fear a rose-tinted period of history that cannot revive itself in the 21st century.


    I think there are degrees of world order (or world policing) which should be be considered before over-compensating with a science fiction version which could mutate into global totalitarianism. It is surely not beyond the wit of mankind to transform the United Nations into an organisation that fulfils its original vision. Possibly to do this needs a redefining of democracy as meritocracy which is really evolution rather than revolution. I think that meritocracy is needed to remove the stupidity, financial and moral corruption and partisanship which prevents word order and achieve the ultimate goal of world peace, harmony and a contented existence. The very last people to be entrusted to support those who can bring this about is an unfiltered electorate. In other words, meritocracy should apply to the electorate as well as to their elected representatives. If we're willing to prevent the world from being led by corrupt, selfish and idiotic governments then it surely follows that such governments cannot be selected by corrupt, selfish or idiotic voters. Defining these filters is the least of our problems.

  • Well i believe that the NWO alternative is going to be a ghastly as it can be for all sorts of reasons, and all backed with evidence. But it needs a whole book writing on it. I expect 6 billion humans to vanish before the NWo is complete.

  • Well i believe that the NWO alternative is going to be a ghastly as it can be for all sorts of reasons, and all backed with evidence. But it needs a whole book writing on it. I expect 6 billion humans to vanish before the NWo is complete.

    Thanks for your expert prediction. Relieved to hear it's all backed by evidence. I think I've now got the message, that you expound and lesser mortals like me just take it as gospel, as a Sermon on the Mount. With you around, Jordan Peterson should watch his back. Ignore my pathetic comments in posting #18. Keep up the good work!

  • Thanks for your expert prediction. Relieved to hear it's all backed by evidence. I think I've now got the message, that you expound and lesser mortals like me just take it as gospel, as a Sermon on the Mount. With you around, Jordan Peterson should watch his back. Ignore my pathetic comments in posting #18. Keep up the good work!

    I post what i believe, based on the evidence ive accrued over 30 years. Take it or leave it, in mot bothered either way, i not here to change your mind or convert you. . The truth is out there, you have to prove it to yourself. Dont believe anyone else. Its too much hard work trying to persuade other people , so i dont bother, i just post my views for you to absorb or ignore.... and like I said, i arrived at my position by a long and winding road. The justification for my view above would take far far too much typing, and i cant be arsed.

  • OldUKNerd Thanks for posting that info yesterday. As I said, I'd never heard of the Frankfurt School at all.

    What the EU has done is look at previous totalitarian states and why they failed, and pinched the 'best' bits - marxist political correctness, the nazis Coudenhove Kalergi Plan, and Goebels use of propaganda. What they have is New Improved Totalitarianism Version 2.0, which has learned from the mistake of the old.

  • The crazy thing is that nine out of ten people (at least) believe political correctness is a daft concept and has gone much to far. However, as the UK's snowflakes, and the BBC think otherwise, we continue to get more and more PC by the day. It's fashionable for a certain generation to become offended on another persons behalf, but when asked they try and convince you they are offended themselves. Sorry, but they are lying bastards. I tried to bring my son up as a right wing bigot, very much like myself, but failed badly. In fact, I was doing quite well until he went to university. As well as being brainwashed by the uni establishment, he met a rather plain looking girl who was obviously brought up in a Guardian reading household. Twelve years down the line he still lives with her, and still thinks multiculturalism is a great idea, and uses the word "diversity" on a regular basis. Whilst I love him, any more than a few hours of his company and I want lock him in his room. For anyone who actually thinks PC is a good thing, please let me say this. I do not condone bad behaviour, and I do not condone being rude or impolite to anyone unless they deserve it. In short, not being PC does not mean you are either uncourteous or open minded.

    Don't make me angry

  • Agree. Manners and PC are totally separate things. Although I would add that those who are falsely being PC, are actually being rude, because they're being dishonest.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • The problem with political correctness is everyone has their own definition of it. My lefty liberal son believes that if you are not PC your not being civil. which is just daft. I am civil and polite to everyone, but I am the least PC person you will ever meet. I use words on a daily basis that I wouldn't use on a public forum, and you can probably guess some of them. I really don't care if people get indirectly offended, because to be offended on someone else's behalf is stupid. For example, I will happily use the "N" word when talking to white friends, but wouldn't use it when talking to a black person. In my mind to avoid the former is being PC, and to do the latter is courteous.


    We are constantly being told that everyone is equal, but anyone with half a brain cell knows this complete rubbish. The fact is that people of various sexes, races, and whatever are different, but to state an opinion that one is better than another is now forbidden. Fortunately I live in an area which is typically little Britain, and have friends who think very much like me. There is very little that can ever be said that will offend me, so I speak to others presuming they are as thick skinned as me, and if they aren't, I don't really care.

    Don't make me angry

  • Not sure what I think about this. :/


    Farage has complained. He had a milkshake thrown at him recently and Brand's joke said that it shouldn't have been a milkshake, but acid on the BBC radio show.


    Politicians can be attacked, think about the Labour MP that was killed, but this was meant as a joke. The prime minister has asked the BBC to intervene which they did and removed Brand's joke from the BBC radio show. Meanwhile, the police are investigating this as incitement to violence.


    If we now say that the current prime minister should be hung over her Brexit inaction, are we committing a criminal offence?


    At what point does a joke turn into a criminal offence?.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.