|
|
Post by schadelreich on Aug 26, 2009 4:45:26 GMT -5
I work for the government, at least indirectly, and there is policy as to what we can/can't say. Is that not political correctness? I'll just say it again; when you enter the world of work you'll evidently be surprised at what occurs. It isn't political correctness as the myth of political correctness is that no one can say certain things in any situation due to government policy. Having limits as to what you can say in a place of work (even if you work for the police) is more something the employer has put in place due to a desire for efficiency. The government itself has no policies on political correctness. The head of your branch of the police could get rid of the rules that limit freedom of speech if he wanted as it is his decision, not the governments, however it would result in problems with efficiency, which is why they still are there. |
|
|
|
Post by ad on Aug 26, 2009 12:08:00 GMT -5
You seem to be obsessed with the government; I'd suggest what is being referred to as 'political correctness' by Billy etc is not specifically to do with government policy, rather it includes a much wider range of aspects.
|
|
|
|
Post by schadelreich on Aug 26, 2009 16:03:38 GMT -5
You seem to be obsessed with the government; I'd suggest what is being referred to as 'political correctness' by Billy etc is not specifically to do with government policy, rather it includes a much wider range of aspects. The reason I seem obsessed by the government is this: the title of "political correctness" is bestowed upon certain supposed regulations and plans by various parts of the government (including local and national government) to rename activities or censor people in the name of not offending ethnic minorities or the handicapped. What Billy is describing are work regulations enforced by private companies to avoid arguments in the work place and thus increase efficiency. Also, considering that Billy is in the police, there are extra, valid reasons for censorship in the work place. These include: 1. The police are supposed to be enforcers of the law. They cannot show any bias for or against any group no matter what as it can compromise their duty. 2. They are supposed to be working with communities. If a policeman goes into an Asian community and starts talking about "bloody pakis" or "dirty fuzzy wuzzy camelfuckers" he's going to fuck up any chance of a good relationship with the community. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Aug 26, 2009 16:31:39 GMT -5
Well like it or not, that's what most people would refer to as political correctness. It's political because it has implications in the political realm, after all, the personal is the political.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beatende on Aug 26, 2009 17:15:24 GMT -5
Then I guess the general concept of political correctness is a good thing and means that we don't allow for stupid attitudes towards people of ethnic minority, disability or differing sexuality from the norm.
I think what tends to happen is people get fed a line here and there by a group with a dodgy agenda, a la the BNP-types pushing rumours about Mosques bigger than St. Pauls cathedral being built and the supposed soon-to-be islamification of the UK. Granted it isn't always the right wing, but the tabloid newspapers really seem to suck this stuff down and regurgitate it for their avid paranoid readership.
The Right-wing press crow about the liberal media, whenever there is dissent from plans to go to yet another war, or when there's uproar over alleged police's heavy handed treatment of demonstrators. A simple examination of the structure of news companies and the system in which they operate shows that there's not a fat lot of room for such things, beyond the odd reports and giving voice to dissent or criticism here and there.
I'll admit that in terms of freedom of information and "political correctness", things are better now than they were, but I think this has more to do with the general awareness levels of the public about such things nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Aug 29, 2009 9:20:11 GMT -5
Hmmm, interesting one. I need to think about this more carefully and then I'll post something.
|
|
|
|
Post by schadelreich on Aug 29, 2009 12:28:19 GMT -5
Well like it or not, that's what most people would refer to as political correctness. It's political because it has implications in the political realm, after all, the personal is the political. It isn't political correctness though, as although it may end up having some political implications, the thing though is that the definition of political correctness is a set of policies set by the government and enforced on the public at large. It is just common sense. If anyone complains about the police not being allowed to be as openly racist as they were in the 80's and 70's, then they're most likely a fucking racist piece of shit who should kill themselves. Also, even if there was political correctness, generally those who complain about it are fucking idiots. No government is going to go as mad as the right wing hate mongers on the Daily Mail say they will (such as having all black coffee renamed as "without milk"), but even if they did ban certain words from being used for certain groups, all it really is is institutionalised politeness. |
|
|
|
Post by ed on Aug 30, 2009 11:02:20 GMT -5
Colin Firth being cast as Henry in Dorian Grey, and indeed the fact that the film looks so utterly awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 30, 2009 11:03:38 GMT -5
That the film is being made is an utter travesty. I hope everyone who goes to the cinema to see it gets a brain tumour.
|
|
|
|
Post by ed on Aug 30, 2009 11:05:54 GMT -5
The full trailer is actually an awful lot worse than the TV trailer. I believe Dorian turns into a CG monster at the end, from the look of it. It gave me full body torrettes for several minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 30, 2009 11:20:50 GMT -5
I've not even wasted my time watching the trailer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Sept 7, 2009 8:06:02 GMT -5
Colin Firth being cast as Henry in Dorian Grey, and indeed the fact that the film looks so utterly awful. I don't suppose the people who made the film thought they could improve on Wilde - they just thought they could make a tonne of cash out of it - but the stance I'm taking is, "how dare those miserable bastards even attempt to modernise and, by implication, improve on Oscar Wilde." I'm also hugely disappointed that the executors of Wilde's estate would allow this. Then again, perhaps the film is sufficiently different from the book for this to be a non-issue, e.g. Dorian Gray's appearance in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? True to form, Jess said it looked "quite good fun" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Sept 7, 2009 8:17:16 GMT -5
They are supposed to be working with communities. If a policeman goes into an Asian community and starts talking about "bloody pakis" or "dirty fuzzy wuzzy camelfuckers" he's going to fuck up any chance of a good relationship with the community. I think you could have used a much more subtle example here, as the line between civility and racism has nothing to do with "political correctness". I think people consider "political correctness" to be the sort of thing you hear about when a Council sends a memo around instructing workers to use "Winter festival" as opposed to "Christmas", so as to be more inclusive. That's not based on anything specific that I can recall, it's just an example that seems to fit the bill. Now, the problems people have with it a numerous. One, it supposes that people of a non-Christian background will be offended by the word "Christmas". Two, over the long-term, it makes causing offence a capitol crime. Nothing happens when you get offended. Christ, my best friends offend me on a regular basis. Three, it seems that every time something like this happens, another nail is hammered into the coffin of common sense. Nobody likes being condescended to. Four, I think that rather than promote inclusion, these sorts of moves are intrinsically divisive. Joe Skinhead isn't going to blame the Council for this - he'll blame the nearest "raghead." The big problem I have with it is that it's a little too Orwellian in nature for my tastes. Anyway, I also hate using the word Orwellian in the wrong context, or discribing anything vaguely dystopian as "being a bit like 1984". |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Sept 7, 2009 10:30:41 GMT -5
I despise this thread. I'm going to stop reading it in protest.
|
|
|
|
Post by schadelreich on Sept 7, 2009 14:57:39 GMT -5
I think people consider "political correctness" to be the sort of thing you hear about when a Council sends a memo around instructing workers to use "Winter festival" as opposed to "Christmas", so as to be more inclusive. That's not based on anything specific that I can recall, it's just an example that seems to fit the bill. Exactly. THIS is more what "political correctness" actually is, not codes of conduct for the police (which are around as they serve an important purpose in keeping the peace). Now, the problems people have with it a numerous. One, it supposes that people of a non-Christian background will be offended by the word "Christmas". Two, over the long-term, it makes causing offence a capitol crime. Nothing happens when you get offended. Christ, my best friends offend me on a regular basis. Three, it seems that every time something like this happens, another nail is hammered into the coffin of common sense. Nobody likes being condescended to. Four, I think that rather than promote inclusion, these sorts of moves are intrinsically divisive. Joe Skinhead isn't going to blame the Council for this - he'll blame the nearest "raghead." The big problem I have with it is that it's a little too Orwellian in nature for my tastes. The thing though is that no Council has really tried anything of the sort. Most of the stories printed in the Daily Mail and the Sun are distortions of real life events, such as with the Winter Festival thing. What happened is that there was something around 20 years ago or so when some businesses were appealing to the Birmingham Council to possibly rename Christmas celebrations "Winter Festival" or something along that line to try and make some money (nothing really mentioned about ethnic minorities in their appeal). The council voted it down heavily. Then around 20 years later some tabloid picked up this story and edited it, saying that the Council was planing on changing the name to avoid offending Muslims. This is what all these things are like and they all cause the effect you described in that one paragraph. It is part of the reason why parties such as the BNP are gaining greater popularity, ever since daily tabloids (read by a large amount of the British public) are pumping out stories about political correctness (which doesn't exist in reality but only as an untrue truth); illegal immigrants stealing jobs (distorting the actual picture); illegal immigrants committing benefit fraud (complete and utter fabricated bullshit with no evidence, yet unfortunately widely believed) and Muslims being out to destroy our freedoms (bullshit). Ultimately, this results in people becoming more and more racist and for racism to become more and more acceptable and is part of the reason why in some areas of Britain race attacks have increased by 500% (even using police statistics). The scapegoats are being sacrificed so that the capitalist elite can carry on fucking over the people of Britain and the masses of the world. |
|
