I deleted my post since I mis-read it. I thought for some weird reason she was talking about history classes, but yeah I think you’re right.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Of course white professors are stale, they've generally been doing the same thing for 20-30-60 fecking years. That's quite literally you how become a professor.
Don't like it? Well the brave souls at SOAS are there to cater for your sub-standard university education needs, for a nominal fee.
Don't like it? Well the brave souls at SOAS are there to cater for your sub-standard university education needs, for a nominal fee.
I talked with a person (with a MEng so the person was not the village idiot and should be able to read a newspaper) at a "pre-party" last year and we started to discuss politics. Just to test the water on how well informed this person was i asked: What do you think about this "insert political party"?
The answer was; they are racists and people who vote for them are racists.
Me: What policies that they propose makes them racists?
The person: I dont know.
Me: Then how can you say that they are racists?
The person: My friends say they are and "insert social media celebrity" does not like them.
People like these are not uncommon and more and more people get their opinions from social media and other institutions with a PC culture.
Has politically correctness gone mad?
I think mad is the wrong word here. The correct word would be "counterproductive". Allan Blooms book "The closing of an American mind" in 1987 was an "attack" on how the american higher education was becoming too PC thus being a barrier for discussion, critical evaluation etc... Not making up their own educated opinions, but the society/educations creates their opinion.
The same is the case in the modern western society today. Having opinions that are perceived as not "PC" is something you should not voice in a public forum (social media, news, schools and general education, politics, public discussions). And this is to some degree censoring opinions. People nowadays have prejudice towards either the left or the right, and this becomes a filter for what the other part is actually saying. Limiting opinions and voices in a debate (both left and right) limits the potential solution space. It is like in product developement: You do not want a team with people from one profession trying to find a solution. You want a team with people from different professions and specializations thus having the biggest possible solution space. PC today limits the "participants"/debate and is a hindrance to open discussion/Progress etc.
NB! I'm not saying that all opinions and people should be encourage to take part in discussions, as there are some opinions that have solid emperical evidence to support it or deny it.
The answer was; they are racists and people who vote for them are racists.
Me: What policies that they propose makes them racists?
The person: I dont know.
Me: Then how can you say that they are racists?
The person: My friends say they are and "insert social media celebrity" does not like them.
People like these are not uncommon and more and more people get their opinions from social media and other institutions with a PC culture.
Has politically correctness gone mad?
I think mad is the wrong word here. The correct word would be "counterproductive". Allan Blooms book "The closing of an American mind" in 1987 was an "attack" on how the american higher education was becoming too PC thus being a barrier for discussion, critical evaluation etc... Not making up their own educated opinions, but the society/educations creates their opinion.
The same is the case in the modern western society today. Having opinions that are perceived as not "PC" is something you should not voice in a public forum (social media, news, schools and general education, politics, public discussions). And this is to some degree censoring opinions. People nowadays have prejudice towards either the left or the right, and this becomes a filter for what the other part is actually saying. Limiting opinions and voices in a debate (both left and right) limits the potential solution space. It is like in product developement: You do not want a team with people from one profession trying to find a solution. You want a team with people from different professions and specializations thus having the biggest possible solution space. PC today limits the "participants"/debate and is a hindrance to open discussion/Progress etc.
NB! I'm not saying that all opinions and people should be encourage to take part in discussions, as there are some opinions that have solid emperical evidence to support it or deny it.
Yeah that’s quite a lot of generalising you’re doing, isn’t it.
Not really. Unless you're interpreting "the same thing" too literally. Point is that it takes decades immersed in a subject area to become a professor in it. And that's before you get on to the usual arguments of different groups of people generally having different interests.
I was more on about the fact you said “of course white professors are stale”.
Ah, well I was just assuming that rather than being racist and sexist by labelling professors stale, just because they happen to be white and male, that what they actually meant was "really knowledgeable about their subject and have made a big contribution to their field".
We can hope.
Is it “political correctness gone mad” that not enough people are interested in a dull lifestyle magazine/advertising catalogue for men with a lot of disposable income anymore?
To be honest, I’m always shocked that any print magazines are still going in 2019. Who’s buying them?
She’s right but she also married into one of the palest, stalest institutions in the world.
What sort of “woke kween” marries a fecking British royal?
That's a very politically correct thing to say. It's true that the word mad can cause offence.
Been said many times but the Pledge of Allegiance is so fecking outlandish. Why do they do it?
One that falls in love I guess. If you let your twitter opinions get in the way of who you have feelings for then you’re probably taking things a bit far
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/ten...ansphobic-comments/ar-BBTQqEG?ocid=spartandhp
Navratilova is not PC it appears.
Navratilova is not PC it appears.
I agree with her.
To be honest, the fact that anyone could disagree with her just shows how fecking removed from reality the world is getting on this particular issue.
I didn't mean cancelled as in it's shut down or anything. I was using it with the Daft Limmy meaning. It's said/done something that's given the ostentatiously righteous an opportunity to put the boot in. In this instance, it was publishing this article.
I don’t think this is necessarily a PC or un-PC thing, is it? It’s just...well, a fact.
That’s the whole reason male and female sports are separate in the first place. How blinkered do you have to be to ignore that and just shout prejudice anyway?
To promote national solidarity, I presume. It's like playing the Star Spangled Banner at everyday sporting events. Just something Americans do and have done for a long time. It's a part of who they are.
Put them in the category they most align with physically (feck knows the threshold here
). Or give them their own category....Wait what!? A 60 year old white lesbian feminist appears to have transphobic views, well I'm truly shocked.
Dental surgeries.
My only thought was waiting rooms but in a world where everyone has a phone and no longer has to pass the tedious time browsing through 18 month old editions of Woman’s Own, I don’t know why they’d bother either.
How an earth is having an opinion on fairness in sports transphobic?
Should Lukaku and Herrera not be allowed to compete against one another because one has a “biological advantage” over another? How about Serena Williams and Justine Henin?
How transgender athletes should be categorised in non-mixed gender sporting competition is a worthwhile debate but to pretend it’s all down to physiology doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny when all sporting competitions see physical mismatches taking place on a regular basis.
The difference between Serena and Henin is miniscule compared to the difference between Serena and male tennis players.
People calling them cheats IS based on physiology, it's simply unfair.
To consolidate tribal loyalty and discourage dissent, I'd say. Authoritarian 101.
Completely disagree with this tbh.
Basing things on the average biological male and average biological female is always going to be nebulous when there is such physical variation between people of the same biological sex within sports.
I’m not convinced that Juninho Paulista would have a physical advantage over his colleagues if he were play in women’s football.
And if we’re talking about hormones, then you’d have “unfair advantages” in many sports where pubescent teenagers compete against fully grown adults too.
The difference in performance between men and women is huge. Of course there are exceptions, and I'm sure you can find a female athlete that's stronger than some male athletes, but that's an exception and definitely not the norm.
If you're against separating sports between sexes that's fine, but shite male athletes who become world beaters after changing sex is cheating.
The difference between the AVERAGE biological male and female are huge but when you look at the enormous variation in physiques of footballers, I don’t think it’s as big a deal as you make out.
Obviously everybody should be against blatant sex “cheating” (which I’d love to see actual evidence of having happened because as far as I’m aware it just seems like a TERF scare story). But I also don’t believe in excluding genuine transgender people from competing as the gender they have transitioned to.
How do you feel about people who transition prior to puberty for example? Most of the physiological arguments would not stand in that case so are they able to compete as their chosen gender? Think about how messy that would become if you ban some trans people but not all.
Well if you think male vs female biological advantages can be lumped in with biological advantages held by people of the same sex, then the only logical conclusion is to do away with male and female categories altogether. Just get people of all sexes and genders to compete for the same trophies, in the same competitions.
Which is a shitty and unfair thing to do to women athletes but there you go. Apparently objecting to shitty and unfair things happening to women athletes can get you called transphobic. Who knew?
If that indeed means that they have no physiological advantage than that's completely fine with me. As I said, it's purely the advantage they have that I'm opposed to. It has nothing to do with rights.
It does seem pretty transphobic to exclude transwomen from certain female spaces, yes.
The idea that transwomen who compete in female sports are just men who decide to be women so they have a better chance of success is also transphobic and totally disrespectful to genuine transgender athletes.
Maybe in your head it doesn’t but in reality of course it would.
You’d have a billion dollar discrimination suit on your hands if such a distinction was made in professional sports.
Neither I nor Navratilova (as far as I know?) have ever made that claim.
Nobody should second guess the reasons behind any individual who decides to transition. That's entirely their own business and completely irrelevant to issue of whether or not someone with a cock and balls should be allowed to compete against women in an event that excludes men.
Anyway, you've evaded the main point of the post you quoted. If being a biological male provides no significant advantage over being a biological female, surely men and women (cis, trans, whatever) should compete together in every sporting competition? Just do away with the whole idea of different categories for men and women in sport. If not, why not?
I’m not saying that you or Martina have ever made that point but I’ve seen it floating around a lot. One of the posters above even used the word “cheats” when referring to transwomen competing in female sports.
Will probably be considered “political correctness gone mad, Stew” by some but even those arguing in good faith should be cautious about inadvertently feeding arguments based on transphobic tropes.
Are you not agreeing that males are generally physically bigger and stronger than females?
It's an often repeated story that Serena Williams and Venus Williams both lost heavily to the 203rd placed men's tennis player who played after drinking a can of beer and smoking a cigarette.
The average male athlete is far, far better than the best female athletes. I randomly googled results of Hungarian 100m runners: in 2016, a 14-year-old finished with a time of 10.59. That would be the second best result in the entire history of the female 100m competition.
Well, I was giving my opinion on the matter, so yes, in my head it does, that was the point. What other people think of it, is theirs to decide.
This reminds me of a conversation I had involving advanced prosthetics and sports. It's going to be an interesting conundrum. Just like this one...