Has political correctness actually gone mad?

I'd be up for seeing an all female Saving Private Ryan.

Julia Caesar and The Last Temptation of Christine would also be pretty good. Possibliities are endless.
 
When did the word 'slave' become bad?
 
I thought of putting it here because that question seems to go out of its way to avoid using "trigger" words like slave, captive...
 
Kentonio said:
I did wonder if replying with "You're" would have qualified as cyber bullying.
Click to expand...

I think if you see the actual replies you'll be quite low down the list.

I also don't understand how looking at tweets = thought police - once you've typed and shared your thoughts, that defence is meaningless.
 
DFlOJF5XYAAw1vW.jpg
 
I can't even make sense of that article...it reads like the transcript of some drunk old man muttering gibberish to himself just before he falls asleep in his armchair
 
8.6% hiring privilege for minority females, and 22.2% for indigenous females... must be nice.
 
as this was a framed field experiment in which individuals knew they were part of a study, there is potential for subject reactivity or scrutiny bias. Even though this was a familiar task for participants, it is possible that they behaved differently than they would in a real recruitment situation.
Click to expand...
Yeah...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Wouldn't reactivity or scrutiny bias skew the results in the opposite direction? If you're conscious that your behaviour is being observed/analysed I'd have thought you'd be even more careful/rigorous than usual.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have thought so, no. I suspect it results in a desire to appear more progressive.

Hard to know, though. Would take some rather better conducted social science research than that to tell us.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I wouldn't have thought so, no. I suspect it results in a desire to appear more progressive.

Hard to know, though. Would take some rather better conducted social science research than that to tell us.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. They'll be more likely to choose the minority candidate, despite being blinded. Which would skew the results in the opposite direction to what was found

EDIT: Nope. Got that completely wrong. That would skew the results exactly in the way they were presented. Mind you, isn't that the whole point? People are biased in favour of selecting minorities. Whether that be a desire to be progressive or to be seen as progressive the end result is the same.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
That's what I mean. They'll be looking for ways to make it more likely to choose the minority candidate, despite being blinded. Which would skew the results in the opposite direction to what was found.
Click to expand...
I think I've gone wrong here...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
No. You were right. I was wrong! See edit above.
Click to expand...
If you say so. I'm tired!
Pogue Mahone said:
Mind you, isn't that the whole point? People are biased in favour of selecting minorities. Whether that be a desire to be progressive or to be seen as progressive the end result is the same.
Click to expand...
Only if sufficient scrutiny is applied to make those who desire to be seen to be progressive have to actually be so, to achieve that desire.

And then there's the "In particular, as participation in this study was voluntary, it is possible that it attracted participants who are more likely to support diversity and gender equality." part.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
If you say so. I'm tired!
Only if sufficient scrutiny is applied to make those who desire to be seen to be progressive have to actually be so, to achieve that desire.

And then there's the "In particular, as participation in this study was voluntary, it is possible that it attracted participants who are more likely to support diversity and gender equality." part.
Click to expand...

It does contradict the experiment which showed that all other things being equal, black-sounding names on CVs got worse outcomes than white-sounding names. I have no idea of the methodology of that study, sample size, or anything, so hooray for a rigorous internet debate.
 
Google being run by left-wing hipsters shocker
 
PedroMendez said:
Click to expand...


That's a very misleading snippet on the situation. He was fired because of his explicit and very public criticism of their HR practices ranging from training to progression to recruitment. The validity of his wider points are unimportant when placed in that context.

Rather than making a broad statement about his views on "diversity" programmes, he turned it into specific, pointed criticism of his employer and then chose to escalate the issue in a very public manner. Admirable in some senses but that kind of situation in placed in a context which had nothing to do with political correctness would inevitably have seem him fired.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't particularly like Google or corporations, nor do I agree with this approach. I just think it's incredibly insincere to put it solely down to "political correctness".
 
He wasnt fired because he criticised their HR practises (
So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo - such as the portions criticizing Google's trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all - are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics - we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
Click to expand...
)but because of:
However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't actually mind that. Just don't cry foul if someone is getting fired for holding other opinions.
 
Jippy said:
Faithful cry foul over scrapping of ‘men only’ Mass in Limerick

“We’ve been relegated to the second division, to shared Mass status”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...-men-only-mass-in-limerick-1.3168794?mode=amp
Click to expand...

This isn't quite what it seems. We're talking about elderly, isolated rural men. Who are have a risk of depression and suicide way above the norm. They need all the support networks they can get and it's shame if any of them get removed, for any reason.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This isn't quite what it seems. We're talking about elderly, isolated rural men. Who are have a risk of depression and suicide way above the norm. They need all the support networks they can get and it's shame if any of them get removed, for any reason.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of respect for you, and you know that, but wow these guys live in a different century.
 
Jippy said:
I have a lot of respect for you, and you know that, but wow these guys live in a different century.
Click to expand...

I don't know, muslims worship in seperate sexes in the UK, they even eat separately at weddings and so on. As do Hindus at some events. I'm not suggesting that's wrong in any way, just that it might be a bit unfair to single out some old Irish geezers.
 
712 said:
I don't know, muslims worship in seperate sexes in the UK, they even eat separately at weddings and so on. As do Hindus at some events. I'm not suggesting that's wrong in any way, just that it might be a bit unfair to single out some old Irish geezers.
Click to expand...
Probably goes without saying but it varies.

I went to one recently up in Scotland (bloody long drive up from the Midlands!) and it was held in the town hall of lovely, quaint little Paisley. Everyone was seated in one area, I think it was the main hall.

And it was also one of the only weddings I've been to where they got someone to do a supplication for the newly married couple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.