Has political correctness actually gone mad?

SteveJ said:
5507.jpg


Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'
Manchester Art Gallery takes down work by J.W. Waterhouse and asks public to post reactions:

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...use-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation


Jesus H. Christ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The world's first feminists about to claim their first ever male victim.
 
:lol:
 
Manchester Art Gallery takes down work by J.W. Waterhouse and asks public to post reactions
Click to expand...
There's bound to be someone who writes: 'Does what it says on the tin'.
 
Grylte said:
My original question was why some people accuse you for being a racist, when you say something negative against a religion. - And used islam as an example.
I never said anything about treating, or discriminating anyone for anything. It's just that it seems that if you say anything negative about a religion, which i as an atheist often do, all of a sudden, you're a racist.
So my point was that it's not the same.
Click to expand...

People hardly get shit for saying negative stuff about christianity, its celebrated on this forum even, its saying stuff about islam that riles everyone up for some reason
 
Jippy said:
It is odd what people will get genuinely angry about. Can't see an issue with it. Also can't say I know more than the first two lines of our anthem.
Click to expand...

Our anthem has nothing to do with our country and should really be changed. Very odd situation, although national pride is a bit of an odd concept in itself anyway so maybe we should just scrap anthems altogether. The main purpose they serve for the general public is centred around sporting events, so may be we should change it to "God save the team"
 
Bill.s.preston said:
Our anthem has nothing to do with our country and should really be changed. Very odd situation, although national pride is a bit of an odd concept in itself anyway so maybe we should just scrap anthems altogether. The main purpose they serve for the general public is centred around sporting events, so may be we should change it to "God save the team"
Click to expand...
Some countries do have quite rousing anthems that are actually decent pieces of music though. Having a national tune is a bit of an odd concept I guess, I've never really given it much thought tbh.
 


I'm presuming there's some kind of ancient shrew we're related to that proves this as well.
 
What makes it so ludicrous as well is the idea of Jordan Peterson resorting to fisticuffs with someone he's having an intellectual debate with. I may be wrong but he doesnt look like he would win many fights. Maybe the next person who interviews him should just knock him out, thus conclusively winning the argument.
 
Jippy said:
It is odd what people will get genuinely angry about. Can't see an issue with it. Also can't say I know more than the first two lines of our anthem.
Click to expand...

The third line is "God Save the Queen"
 
Ubik said:


I'm presuming there's some kind of ancient shrew we're related to that proves this as well.
Click to expand...


I didn't think he said an intellectual debate, but a serious talk between two men. The underlying threat of violence should be enough to stop a man from being offensive enough / crazy, but if a woman is being offensive enough / crazy it is difficult for a man to handle the situation as both parties know that violence isn't an option.

Obviously violence should be the last resort, but for example, if I go up to a random man and start seriously verbally abusing him I would be very likely to get a smack in the mouth, but if a woman were to do the same the man will be forced to concede and get away from the situation, even if it's a prolonged exchange and turns violent the onus is still on the man to get away unscathed rather than protect himself.

Clearly women are less physically threatening than men but they can be equally vicious.
 
Archie Leach said:
Can you imagine a world where men exert power over women with violence? Spooky.
Click to expand...
Some would say they do. That the implicit possibility of violence that exists between men also exists between men and women, even if it does look a little different.

I havent gone back and looked but I think maybe it was @vi1lain who was talking a while back about always being aware of the possibility of being physically overpowered? (Apologies if I am remembering this wrongly, either in terms of poster or the point being made). I think its perhaps a bit of an oversimplification to say the possibility of violence exists between men but is non-existent between men and women. It may be less socially acceptable because it is less evenly matched, but it still goes on - and in fact is more threatening, precisely because it is not evenly matched.
 
Ubik said:


I'm presuming there's some kind of ancient shrew we're related to that proves this as well.
Click to expand...


That's the great intellectual thinker of our time we're talking about there!
 
Real equality is being able to threaten to batter women without the PC brigade getting on your back.
 
Adebesi said:
Some would say they do. That the implicit possibility of violence that exists between men also exists between men and women, even if it does look a little different.

I havent gone back and looked but I think maybe it was @vi1lain who was talking a while back about always being aware of the possibility of being physically overpowered? (Apologies if I am remembering this wrongly, either in terms of poster or the point being made). I think its perhaps a bit of an oversimplification to say the possibility of violence exists between men but is non-existent between men and women. It may be less socially acceptable because it is less evenly matched, but it still goes on - and in fact is more threatening, precisely because it is not evenly matched.
Click to expand...

It indeed was me.
I think i'd have to be mad/drunk to consider the possibility of violently engaging a guy
 
Adebesi said:
Some would say they do. That the implicit possibility of violence that exists between men also exists between men and women, even if it does look a little different.

It may be less socially acceptable because it is less evenly matched, but it still goes on - and in fact is more threatening, precisely because it is not evenly matched.
Click to expand...

I'd say the majority of it is behind closed doors.

Also heard that domestic violence against men is higher than against women, but the consequences of the violence is much more severe when the woman is the victim, which is hardly surprising really. IMO the figures for both are considerably higher than reported. Although, if someone reports their partner for domestic abuse and then decides to drop the case it is up to the prosecution to decide if the matter is dropped or not, to try and ensure that the victim isn't being forced to withdraw the case, but this gets very complicated in the event that the victim does genuinely want to leave it and move on, especially if there are children involved.

I don't know if Peterson was talking about domestic or social situations, or both, in this instance.
 
SteveJ 'sacked' after boring stories dismay CE General Chat readers
Manchester Gallery hangs Steve after accusations of rubbishness:

https://www.theguardian.com/feck-off-loser
 
That woman was just an out and out bigot. "Motherly love is going to save the world." What about fatherly love? As a father that was a real kick in the balls. Im glad he pulled her up on "peoplekind". Sometimes careless language hurts.
 
I know that it’s a big commitment but anyone who is interested in this whole thing will find this podcast episode a great listen. What makes it particularly worthwhile is the team behind it. This American Life is produced by NPR and as left-leaning and liberal as you’ll find. When they start to think political correctness is losing the run of itself then perhaps it really has?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.