Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Adebesi said:
True. Equality of opportunity is more of an ideal, an aspiration, rather than an actual state of being - certainly not a state we have achieved at this point. Though we've come a long way in that direction.

You can also make a case that it has its own downsides. That part of the reason some people feel so disaffected right now is because they are told we live in a meritocracy, and if their lives are shit its because they lack talent to get on in life.

Either way the point I was making was equalities of opportunity and outcome are very different, fundamentally different. And that true equality of opportunity would be a pure, unadulterated meritocracy.
Click to expand...
All right then, I think I get how you meant it. Only thing I'd add is that I understand both "equal opportunity" and "meritocracy" as merely fictive ideals that can't be actually reached in reality. To me, they are ideological representations of social conditions that work in a very different way.

The Mitcher said:
Yeah exactly, opportunity. We all have the SAME opportunity however it is up to us to actually achieve it. And as we've seen, it's up to society to make sure people have those oppurtunities and also the education and skills to actually achieve their fullest potential. It's not a fiction, what you've described is a fact.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't understand that part: The first half seems to disagree, the second half to agree with what I wrote.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
The report makes it sounds cheap enough that you can do both
Click to expand...
Yeah ideal we should have both and so we finally get around to doing a bit of communism but I think to get a usable UBI(And not something that keeps us alive for the sole purpose of buying amazon products)then we would need UBS, which isn't that difficult as lot this is in todays Labour Party.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Do I really have to tell an adult that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are different aims?
Click to expand...

No but you will have to explain it to Paz.

In fact don't waste your time as he always "argues" like this.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I'm coming more and more around to the idea of UBI. You can't get more equal than paying every citizen a grand a month. It also helps address the opportunity imbalance by giving a safety net for people who would otherwise be living hand to mouth to save some money to set up a business, get some more training/qualifications or just have some breathing space to work out what they want to do with their lives.
Click to expand...

It is a brilliant idea as long as we can transition to it without too much drama. It would also save multi-millions of dolars in the administration of social benefits - simplification of benefit types and no need to means test stuff. Also no need to investigate and prosecute people who claim $50 too much due to misreporting casual work while signing on and the like.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
I'm coming more and more around to the idea of UBI. You can't get more equal than paying every citizen a grand a month. It also helps address the opportunity imbalance by giving a safety net for people who would otherwise be living hand to mouth to save some money to set up a business, get some more training/qualifications or just have some breathing space to work out what they want to do with their lives.
Click to expand...
I'd be tempted to move to whichever country has this. I don't need it but I have young family members who might.
 
This concept of equality of opportunity v equality of outcome is quite interesting. A few years back there was a documentary on tv which showed, that despite being illegal, ageism, still exists in the recruitment industry. They set-up 2 people. One a young lady fresh out of university who graduated with the relevant degree for a certain position in marketing. & the other was a man in his mid 50's who also had the same qualification, but his cv showed a long history of success & achievements. The recruitment agency, who sought out professional people, not only invited the young woman for an interview, but she also got the job. The older guy didn't even get the chance of an interview. Is that unfair ?, or do some think it's just 'equality of opportunity' ?
 
redman5 said:
This concept of equality of opportunity v equality of outcome is quite interesting. A few years back there was a documentary on tv which showed, that despite being illegal, ageism, still exists in the recruitment industry. They set-up 2 people. One a young lady fresh out of university who graduated with the relevant degree for a certain position in marketing. & the other was a man in his mid 50's who also had the same qualification, but his cv showed a long history of success & achievements. The recruitment agency, who sought out professional people, not only invited the young woman for an interview, but she also got the job. The older guy didn't even get the chance of an interview. Is that unfair ?, or do some think it's just 'equality of opportunity' ?
Click to expand...

This is something that can go both ways though - quite often fully-qualified university graduates will struggle to find work because companies will want someone with experience. The caveat is, of course, it's incredibly difficult to get experience when companies are only wanting to hire someone who already has it. And getting unpaid experience isn't always an option for people from poorer backgrounds who can't afford to give up their time for free labour.

You could almost think of it like a football team - typically the older, more experienced and already talented player is the one who should be favoured, but sometimes a team will invest in the future, aware new players need to start somewhere. And a myriad of other factors could've affected this. Perhaps the guy had a tendency to jump from firm to firm. Perhaps the woman's interview was just genuinely very good.

Granted - I'll admit ageism is definitely still prevalent, and I've seen it happen on plenty of occasions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to try and eliminate it to the greatest extent we can though.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It really doesn’t. In fact it seems like an almost unworkable idea. Just an even more bloated version of the current welfare state. Communism by another name.
Click to expand...
Free healthcare for all, public housing, free education, free buses, nationalised railways and utilities is all part of the current UK Labour Party platform. It's hardly commusim but a more up to date social democracy.

Also I'm no sure where your getting this bloated welfare state from as at least in the UK(Although I'm pretty sure it's worse in Ireland)the welfare state is today at it's weakest it's ever been.
 
Cheesy said:
This is something that can go both ways though - quite often fully-qualified university graduates will struggle to find work because companies will want someone with experience. The caveat is, of course, it's incredibly difficult to get experience when companies are only wanting to hire someone who already has it. And getting unpaid experience isn't always an option for people from poorer backgrounds who can't afford to give up their time for free labour.

You could almost think of it like a football team - typically the older, more experienced and already talented player is the one who should be favoured, but sometimes a team will invest in the future, aware new players need to start somewhere. And a myriad of other factors could've affected this. Perhaps the guy had a tendency to jump from firm to firm. Perhaps the woman's interview was just genuinely very good.

Granted - I'll admit ageism is definitely still prevalent, and I've seen it happen on plenty of occasions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to try and eliminate it to the greatest extent we can though.
Click to expand...

I found, that as someone who was in a profession, a lot of the recruitment agencies who dealt with professional people were/are run by young people. Now I remember quite vividly when I was in my late 20's/early 30's thinking that anyone in their 50's was knocking on death's door & should be put out to grass. It does make me wonder therefore whether there is a kind of subconscious discrimination that plays a part in the thought process in the minds of these younger folk. So whilst ageism is illegal in much the same way it's illegal to discriminate based on things like gender, colour etc, it's very difficult to actual prove it exists. Of course, the big curve ball for those who do lean heavily towards their young counterparts when making a decision on who's most suitable for a certain job, is that one day there's a good chance they could be in a position when they're in their 50's & competing with people who are right out of university. Be interesting to see how that turns out for them.

My response to your first point would be to say that the older guy was probably also once in a position whereby he didn't have the experience when he applied for a lucrative job. Maybe he lost out to someone who had the experience he lacked, which meant he might have had to take a lesser job & build up his experience & reputation that way. It's something I had to do. Besides, the one big advantage the young girl had over the older bloke was time. She had plenty of it, he didn't. Me personally, I don't believe equality of opportunity exists for certain sections (the older generation) of society.
 
prath92 said:
Saw this on twitter


To which the top reply seems to be


Click to expand...


31k likes on the original, 18 (not 18k) likes on the stupid reply...

Edit - a positive reply has 100 likes, many others have 50. A contradictory one to this has 380.
 
berbatrick said:
31k likes on the original, 18 (not 18k) likes on the stupid reply...

Edit - a positive reply has 100 likes, many others have 50. A contradictory one to this has 380.
Click to expand...

My point is that there are people who seem to be offended by this. Not the only comment along these lines as well
 
prath92 said:
My point is that there are people who seem to be offended by this. Not the only comment along these lines as well
Click to expand...

But when the ratio of people offended to people not is 0.0007, I wonder if PC has indeed "gone mad".
 
Last edited:
To be honest you could rename a lot of this thread to "Some idiot says something stupid on twitter"
 
Bear statue to be banned from Welsh town after motorist thought it was real and crashed

WNS_220618_Is_Bear_Necessity_05xJPG.jpg


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bear-statue-banned-welsh-town-14822155
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s actually illegal to pay men and women differently to do the same work. The gender pay gap is calculated as the difference in median salary between the sexes (or is it genders now? feck knows) for all jobs in a company or country.
Click to expand...
Jordan Peterson argued this in that infamous interview with Cathy Newman
 
Sweet Square said:
Free healthcare for all, public housing, free education, free buses, nationalised railways and utilities is all part of the current UK Labour Party platform. It's hardly commusim but a more up to date social democracy.

Also I'm no sure where your getting this bloated welfare state from as at least in the UK(Although I'm pretty sure it's worse in Ireland)the welfare state is today at it's weakest it's ever been.
Click to expand...
In the UK, we had most of that in the 60s and 70s, maybe not free buses. Life was not very rosy for most. Add in the union domination and you could hardly get a job unless you became a member, so it became like a protected club. You also find there is less income in the Government, so the people providing the national services are poorly paid, houses are maintained poorly. You only have to look at national health. Lovely people, paid shit in comparison to other jobs, no government has enough balls to pay into the health system the money that is needed for both good service and adequate pay. So you end up with fairly poor service (which is not a reflection on the people providing it). Tend to find that politicians are not particularly good at running citizen services so you end up with a lower quality of life.
 
SalfordRed1960 said:
In the UK, we had most of that in the 60s and 70s, maybe not free buses. Life was not very rosy for most. Add in the union domination and you could hardly get a job unless you became a member, so it became like a protected club. You also find there is less income in the Government, so the people providing the national services are poorly paid, houses are maintained poorly. You only have to look at national health. Lovely people, paid shit in comparison to other jobs, no government has enough balls to pay into the health system the money that is needed for both good service and adequate pay. So you end up with fairly poor service (which is not a reflection on the people providing it). Tend to find that politicians are not particularly good at running citizen services so you end up with a lower quality of life.
Click to expand...
Not being funny but this is how many decades later? I'd hope we'd have a better idea about how and what to implement to make this work in present times.
 
afrocentricity said:
Not being funny but this is how many decades later? I'd hope we'd have a better idea about how and what to implement to make this work in present times.
Click to expand...
Think it still largely holds true today. The cost of providing those things (however warranted) is not insignificant. All parties have bottled it when it comes to raising taxes to cover the costs, largely because they think they will lose the next election, so keeping power is more important than serving the population. It was true then and has been true ever since. I don't follow NI contributions, but when was there a real hike in it. Also have to take into account that the advances through medical research has now increased the number and quality of services that can be provided. Increasing the costs, because they never seem to able to do anything cheaper. It will take a very bold party to stand in front of the electorate and say, I will prioritise, housing, education, health and safety over everything else and I will be raising taxes to x% to ensure they are kept to the highest standard. They will then probably have to say and that means x,y and z will get less help from us for near time future. It will cause all sorts of conflicts as people look at their individual needs, rather than the needs of the population.
 
Somewhat on topic...Only learned today that Paul Joseph Watson (infowars), Carl Benjamin (Sargon) and that feckwit who taught his dog how to do a nazi salute all have joined UKIP.

Really drilling home on that Youtube Anti-SJWs != Racist/Xenophobic thing.

That last fecking guy as well makes me laugh considering all the defenders he got saying it was just a joke. :lol:

Full Story
 
Animal rights campaigners 'misinformed' about live piglet and lamb racing at pub


ANIMAL rights campaigners who launched a campaign against what they thought was pig and lamb racing at a Dorset event have discovered it's all porkies.

The online campaign attracted almost 15,000 signatures – but protesters were "misinformed" and the actual racing will involve people dressing up as animals.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...e_piglet_and_lamb_racing_at_pub/?ref=mr&lp=17
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


You’d expect students to be far more open-minded and willing to listen to diverse ideas than the general public. That’s the sort of thing that university should be about. My main take home from that survey is how depressingly close-minded contemporary students seem to be. Over half of them don’t think someone who would argue that religions should be banned shouldn’t even be allowed express that opinion?! Fecking hell...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You’d expect students to be far more open-minded and willing to listen to diverse ideas than the general public. That’s the sort of thing that university should be about. My main take home from that survey is how depressingly close-minded contemporary students seem to be. Over half of them don’t think someone who would argue that religions should be banned shouldn’t even be allowed express that opinion?! Fecking hell...
Click to expand...

What's the practical side of this though? You think they deserve a platform to speak at Universities or is this supposed to be some gestapo rounding people up for having the wrong thoughts? Pretty sure 99.9% of people don't approve of the latter.
 
Minimalist said:
What's the practical side of this though? You think they deserve a platform to speak at Universities or is this supposed to be some gestapo rounding people up for having the wrong thoughts? Pretty sure 99.9% of people don't approve of the latter.
Click to expand...

Practically speaking, I don’t think anyone should be denied a platform to speak just because they express an unpopular or controversial opinion (e.g. all religions should be banned). Whether they deserve that platform is another thing entirely.

Practical issues aside, it’s the mindset that survey reveals which would be my major concern. As I said, I always thought/assumed that students were open-minded and curious people. Shutting down opinions they disagree with - without even hearing them out - seems to be the antithesis of what student life is all about. It’s certainly very different to my own experience of debates on campus, when we regularly heard outrageous opinions from total gobshites and took great pleasure in pulling them apart. If anything, denying them a platform just gives those ideas more power.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
You’d expect students to be far more open-minded and willing to listen to diverse ideas than the general public. That’s the sort of thing that university should be about. My main take home from that survey is how depressingly close-minded contemporary students seem to be. Over half of them don’t think someone who would argue that religions should be banned shouldn’t even be allowed express that opinion?! Fecking hell...
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's true (frankly, I think your take requires a twee assumption that the majority of students actually care about anything else than having fun and checking out of university with a 2:1 in whatever subject they picked), but the argument has been that Universities are worse than the general public so it seems a some what odd take to take a poll that shows that that's not the case, and then continue to attack Universities for it anyway.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Perhaps that's true (frankly, I think your take requires a twee assumption that the majority of students actually care about anything else than having fun and checking out of university with a 2:1 in whatever subject they picked), but the argument has been that Universities are worse than the general public so it seems a some what odd take to take a poll that shows that that's not the case, and then continue to attack Universities for it anyway.
Click to expand...

I honestly haven’t heard that argument. The argument I have heard a lot is that Universities are way less tolerant of challenging/controversial opinions now than they were in the past. “Generation snowflake” and all that stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.