Has political correctness actually gone mad?

hobbers said:
No just common sense.

Clothes manufacturers will only make their clothes in sizes that shops want to buy. Shops only buy what sells enough to turn a profit.

I'm sure depending on materials making some clothes in sizes XXXXL+ will cost far more to make than the regular size ranges. So why would these not be harder to find and cost more?
Click to expand...
Pretty much how I see it. I get it, it sucks if you can’t find anything in your size. But if your size is so big even XXXL stuff doesn’t fit you then I don’t think the problem is the manufacturer.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Did you read the tweet that started this discussion? It implied that being fat makes it harder to shop ethically (I think? Was hard to interpret). Surely the most ethical way of dressing at all is to skip fast fashion altogether?
Click to expand...
if reasonably priced clothing is made widely available for fat people, then yes.
 
2 man midfield said:
Pretty much how I see it. I get it, it sucks if you can’t find anything in your size. But if your size is so big even XXXL stuff doesn’t fit you then I don’t think the problem is the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
you also said this
You’d think at the point where you can’t reliably find clothes that fit, you’d have a look at yourself rather than the companies making the clothes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
which is what I was reacting to.
 
I mean I'm happy with the idea of judging people on their words and actions and making an active decision not to buy their books or whatever because I don't want to reward them financially. I'm also happy acknowledging when a piece of 'art' I've engaged with espouses sexism/racism or whatever and incorporating that into my overall view of it, as opposed to ignoring it for the sake of ease. I don't see any issue with content warnings and all that stuff, sometimes it's a bit precious but it's not really hurting anyone.

I think that's very different to say, refusing to engage with Shakespeare, or telling others not to, because his plays contain themes which don't line up with 21st century morality. I'd say that's pointless and counterproductive. One of the most fascinating things about reading Shakespeare for me as someone interested in history is what it says about the society it was written for and how it influenced later thought.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
I mean I'm happy with the idea of judging people on their words and actions and making an active decision not to buy their books or whatever because I don't want to reward them financially. I'm also happy acknowledging when a piece of 'art' I've engaged with espouses sexism/racism or whatever and incorporating that into my overall view of it, as opposed to ignoring it for the sake of ease. I don't see any issue with content warnings and all that stuff, sometimes it's a bit precious but it's not really hurting anyone.

I think that's very different to say, refusing to engage with Shakespeare, or telling others not to, because his plays contain themes which don't line up with 21st century morality. I'd say that's pointless and counterproductive. One of the most fascinating things about reading Shakespeare for me as someone interested in history is what it says about the society it was written for and how it influenced later thought.
Click to expand...

That applies to any novel not written in the present day, right? You don’t have to go back that far to learn about the society a novel was written for.
 
entropy said:
you also said this which is what I was reacting to.
Click to expand...
Yeah well you would, surely? Nobody who is so big that they can’t clothe themselves believes that they’re in tip top shape. They’re just shifting the issue onto someone else.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That applies to any novel not written in the present day, right? You don’t have to go back that far to learn about the society a novel was written for.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just went to Shakespeare because I saw it on the list in the tweet and it seemed an obvious example. To be clear though, I'm not saying the only valid reason for reading or watching Shakespeare is to study how it reflects on attitudes of the time. I was just giving an example of what I think I'd have lost if I'd avoided it altogether on political grounds. For someone else it might be an understanding of love or something.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
I mean I'm happy with the idea of judging people on their words and actions and making an active decision not to buy their books or whatever because I don't want to reward them financially. I'm also happy acknowledging when a piece of 'art' I've engaged with espouses sexism/racism or whatever and incorporating that into my overall view of it, as opposed to ignoring it for the sake of ease. I don't see any issue with content warnings and all that stuff, sometimes it's a bit precious but it's not really hurting anyone.

I think that's very different to say, refusing to engage with Shakespeare, or telling others not to, because his plays contain themes which don't line up with 21st century morality. I'd say that's pointless and counterproductive. One of the most fascinating things about reading Shakespeare for me as someone interested in history is what it says about the society it was written for and how it influenced later thought.
Click to expand...
Not exactly Shakespeare, but the five or so Agatha Christie novels I've read primarily for nostalgic reasons, have provided a stark reminder of social attitudes of the 1930s and it is fascinating. Anyone lower class or 'swarthy foreigners' immediately jump to the top of the suspects list, women are generally seen as flighty and frivolous, and maids etc...are considered automatons, mere extras defined by their uniform, not personality.
 
I see that Sky have now changed their “Man of the Match” award to “Person of the Match” :rolleyes:

Is this after the Souness thing?
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I see that Sky have now changed their “Man of the Match” award to “Person of the Match” :rolleyes:

Is this after the Souness thing?
Click to expand...

I think it was change a while ago. It's been done in a most sports which have a women's game. Cricket did it back in 2018 or something. There's one name for the award across the men's and women's games.
 
Person will be ok for a while.
Then someone will moan that they don't identify as a person, so it's discriminatory.
 
Sandikan said:
If they're going to mess, at least call it PLAYER of the match or something similar.
Person just sounds utterly annoyingly stupid.
Click to expand...

It's it not player of the match? I didn't notice that's what they'd written in their post. I agree person sounds crap, it's usually called player of the match.
 
mhsej3w.png
 
Why not have man of the match for the men’s game and woman of the match for the women’s? Am I missing something obvious?
 
The Corinthian said:
Why not have man of the match for the men’s game and woman of the match for the women’s? Am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
What if they don't identify as man or woman?

It's a little thing that costs nothing, offends no one, doesn't change the meaning of the award and is more inclusive.
 
The Corinthian said:
Why not have man of the match for the men’s game and woman of the match for the women’s? Am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
I don’t think there was anything wrong with man of the match, given that everyone on that pitch is a man. Obviously you’d want something else for women’s football .
 
The Corinthian said:
Why not have man of the match for the men’s game and woman of the match for the women’s? Am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
2 man midfield said:
I don’t think there was anything wrong with man of the match, given that everyone on that pitch is a man. Obviously you’d want something else for women’s football .
Click to expand...

Not everyone in the world that plays ‘men’ or ‘womens’ football will identify as a ‘man’ or ‘woman’. It is a small change that helps football become more inclusive on the biggest stage.
 
SilentWitness said:
Not everyone in the world that plays ‘men’ or ‘womens’ football will identify as a ‘man’ or ‘woman’. It is a small change that helps football become more inclusive on the biggest stage.
Click to expand...
It's also mostly a great point scoring change that doesnt actually chance anything in the ridiculously backward and conservative industry that is football.

No sane person should give a feck about them changing this, but neither should any sane person mistake this for football giving a feck about inclusivity. It's just PR. Like BP and their carbon footprint or Shell advocating for green energy.
 
SilentWitness said:
Not everyone in the world that plays ‘men’ or ‘womens’ football will identify as a ‘man’ or ‘woman’. It is a small change that helps football become more inclusive on the biggest stage.
Click to expand...
Surely it shouldn’t be called men’s football either then.
 
We should fight back. Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo? No, Man of the Year. Team of the Season? Men of the Season, thank you very much. Golden Boot? Golden Menswear.
 
Player of the Match is fine, surely? The morons online moaning about wokeness just need to shut the feck up for once, that would be great. They haven't got any good argument to make against the change so they just revert to a term they've heard Farage blurt out a few times anyway, but I love how they always assume that things have been done to annoy them.

Knowing the Premier League they've done it so that they don't have to print two separate production lines of award trophies or some other cost saving exercise, not because the elite Hollywood salad munching libs bullied them into it...
 
KirkDuyt said:
It's also mostly a great point scoring change that doesnt actually chance anything in the ridiculously backward and conservative industry that is football.

No sane person should give a feck about them changing this, but neither should any sane person mistake this for football giving a feck about inclusivity. It's just PR. Like BP and their carbon footprint or Shell advocating for green energy.
Click to expand...

It's also easier to just call it the same thing no matter who's playing. Same graphic, same wording on the little trophy etc.
 
2 man midfield said:
Surely it shouldn’t be called men’s football either then.
Click to expand...
I don’t know many people that go around calling it mens football, do you? If I’m talking about Everton I don’t usually reference what side I’m talking about etc. either way the majority of people that play ‘mens’ or ‘womens’ football will identify as that. This just helps that specific type of being more gender neutral and it’s really nothing major that needs to be called out as such.
 
SilentWitness said:
I don’t know many people that go around calling it mens football, do you? If I’m talking about Everton I don’t usually reference what side I’m talking about etc.
Click to expand...
No I don’t personally, but that’s what it’s called colloquially I guess. If someone who doesn’t identify as a man was to get offended by man of the match, they’d also be offended by men’s football, you’d think. I don’t think anyone has complained, it’s just sky getting out in front of it probably. It’s not a big deal either way.
 
2 man midfield said:
No I don’t personally, but that’s what it’s called colloquially I guess. If someone who doesn’t identify as a man was to get offended by man of the match, they’d also be offended by men’s football, you’d think. I don’t think anyone has complained, it’s just sky getting out in front of it probably. It’s not a big deal either way.
Click to expand...

I don’t think people need to be offended for us as a society to be more inclusive.
 
Should have changed it to MVP just for the hilarity it would cause from people losing their minds over Americanisms.
 
Withnail said:
It's also easier to just call it the same thing no matter who's playing. Same graphic, same wording on the little trophy etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, player of the match sounds fine to me. These pointless gestures just annoy me a bit with the Qatar world cup coming up and Qatar not exactly being an inclusive paradise of inclusivity.

We all love inclusivity, unless your misogynist regime gives us a giant bag of money.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Yeah, player of the match sounds fine to me. These pointless gestures just annoy me a bit with the Qatar world cup coming up and Qatar not exactly being an inclusive paradise of inclusivity.

We all love inclusivity, unless your misogynist regime gives us a giant bag of money.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really see the connection between the TV stations making this change and FIFA making corrupt decisions on the destination of the WC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.