She was PM at the time.
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.
She was PM at the time.
Ah I got them the wrong way round. Darn unconscious sexism!
You mean that the people elect who they believe should represent them?
He means it is sad that we should elect such an utter scumbag when one of the things he is a scumbag about was on such open display.
You are worse than Hitler
There is no perfect politician . There is no perfect system. We all go into an election knowing who it is we're voting for. How Abbott was elected I'll never know, nor the current one who continually goes on about a none physical entity that I do not believe in. But it's all what the people voted for and that is a very important matter.
I believe in democracy even when I despise who we elect but I also believe in calling it out when we elect such despicable people. And don't get me started on Peter Dutton.
Shame nicer people don't go into politics, but until they step up and compete we'll continue to get those that like the serve their own needs first. There is a severe lack of decent politicians, but it's a job everyone wants to comment on, but few will actually take it on and make a difference.
There are quite a few good or great ones but the Murdoch propaganda mill chews them up and spits them out. Albo is a good man (and my local member) but not sure he has enough in the tank to take on the Livs and Murdoch..
My state member is a truly great local member but as he is a Green and a really decent bloke he won't get anywhere near government.
Last edited:
I am going to the village shop this morning, and will check to see if all the 80+ year old ladies are kicking out a leg as they reach for their pasta. All joking apart, sexism on TV here in Italy is pretty common.
There's a mattress and bed company that has been advertising constantly for about 6 months. The first ad was a middle-aged man, a middle-aged woman (wearing a short dress and very high heels) and an attractive young woman in skimpy nightwear - her job is to roll around on the beds (literally).
That ad's been scrapped, and now we just have the middle-aged man standing over the same young woman as she rolls around on the beds and smoulders at the camera. I assume the older woman was deemed surplus to requirements, when you have a model doing the rolling.
Remember the first time I ever saw him getting interviewed as leader of the opposition, I thought to myself, he'll never be the PM, surely the electorate aren't that stupid. But what do i know
Gillard had many good qualities as PM, shame she failed. Very happy to see Abbott out of politics, he was a dinosaur.
He now works for Boris as (from Wiki) 'an adviser to the British Government’s Board of Trade with the stated aim of providing "a range of views to help in its advisory function, promoting free and fair trade and advising on UK trade policy to the International Trade Secretary'.
Mines Mr Hastie, who only ever bothers when it's election time, otherwise too busy being the Liberal posterboy.
Last edited by a moderator:
The UK can keep the utter cnut.
More marginalisation of the straight, white male.
'Straight, white males can't win the Booker Prize today': Past winner John Banville slams 'woke' movement as 'a religious cult' after gay author scoops 2020 award and two women shared it last year
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ville-slams-woke-movement-religious-cult.html
Cambridgemummy, Cambridge, 1 hour ago
The backlash has started. At last.
RichJUK, England, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
It's good that people are finally beginning to wake up and, more importantly speak out against 'wokeness'. Hopefully there is still chance to undo the enormous damage that has been caused.
the editor1, Southampton, Spain, 1 hour ago
Well said and very sad but true
'Straight, white males can't win the Booker Prize today': Past winner John Banville slams 'woke' movement as 'a religious cult' after gay author scoops 2020 award and two women shared it last year
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ville-slams-woke-movement-religious-cult.html
Cambridgemummy, Cambridge, 1 hour ago
The backlash has started. At last.
RichJUK, England, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
It's good that people are finally beginning to wake up and, more importantly speak out against 'wokeness'. Hopefully there is still chance to undo the enormous damage that has been caused.
the editor1, Southampton, Spain, 1 hour ago
Well said and very sad but true
I'm pretty sure 90% of global usage of the term 'woke' is found on the DM site.
A couple of years ago I used to see crazy news articles about progressive kids hijacking their university and get a bit pent up about it. What I have realized after going down the rabbit hole is that there are some pretty intense opinions but they mostly come from a very vocal minority and it is shockingly easy to ignore it in day to day life.
The easiest way to describe it is that if you took most of your opinions from Twitter (stupid obviously) then you would think there is a brewing war between the genders, the races ect, ect. But as you actually go through your day you actually just get on with everyone as long as you are decent to them.
The easiest way to describe it is that if you took most of your opinions from Twitter (stupid obviously) then you would think there is a brewing war between the genders, the races ect, ect. But as you actually go through your day you actually just get on with everyone as long as you are decent to them.
Here's the winner of this years Booker prize and the guy who is stopping white males from winning
Isn't one of those pictures James Richardson?Here's the winner of this years Booker prize and the guy who is stopping white males from winning
It is haha.
Don't think so mate. Here James Richardson interviewing Pep. Looks completely different to that writer.
He said 'straight white males' and that guy only ticks two of those boxes, so he's still oppressed.Here's the winner of this years Booker prize and the guy who is stopping white males from winning
It's a horrid and all too common and even accepted view that any non-white hetero male winning anything only does so due to a box-ticking exercise though.
The only positive is that these reactionary pricks won't be around in the future.
Don't think so mate. Here James Richardson interviewing Pep. Looks completely different to that writer.
I bet our parents/grandparents said the same when women were finally allowed to vote. I reckon “reactionary pricks” will always be around. The only thing that will change is how they’re defined.
Political correctness goes mad when being courteous is more important than being factual.
Treating people with respect and dignity is one thing but to prioritise 'muh feelings' over facts is the hallmark of a society that has 'gone mad.'
I also don't think it is dignified towards and individual or groups to tell them what they want to hear, instead of being honest.
Treating people with respect and dignity is one thing but to prioritise 'muh feelings' over facts is the hallmark of a society that has 'gone mad.'
I also don't think it is dignified towards and individual or groups to tell them what they want to hear, instead of being honest.
DM readers admire bold and thought-provoking decision to cast a black actress to play Anne Boleyn in a new TV drama.
Jodie Turner-Smith plays Anne Boleyn in new Channel 5 drama that seeks to 'challenge conventions' by casting black actress as Henry VIII's executed wife and 'shine a feminist light' on her story
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...vention-busting-Channel-5-drama.html#comments
somewhere, USA, United States,
Can you imagine for a second what the uproar would be if a white woman was cast as, let's say, Michelle Obama in an Obama biopic? There would be a new wave of riots and looting. How can they get away with this? Oh never mind, I know why...
Me and my dogs, Chelmsford, United Kingdom,
Is this not cultural misappropriation or does that only happen when straight, white, people play the wrong parts???
eratruetalk, Tarrytown, United States,
How can a blac woman play a whyte woman? Such hypocrisy. If the situation was reversed all hell would break loose. The actress would be cancelled.
mb1202, New York, Ireland,
No sorry Anne Boleyn was a real person who was white. This is a total joke
snowwhite7777, New York City, Aruba,
Cultural appropriation much?
Jodie Turner-Smith plays Anne Boleyn in new Channel 5 drama that seeks to 'challenge conventions' by casting black actress as Henry VIII's executed wife and 'shine a feminist light' on her story
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...vention-busting-Channel-5-drama.html#comments
somewhere, USA, United States,
Can you imagine for a second what the uproar would be if a white woman was cast as, let's say, Michelle Obama in an Obama biopic? There would be a new wave of riots and looting. How can they get away with this? Oh never mind, I know why...
Me and my dogs, Chelmsford, United Kingdom,
Is this not cultural misappropriation or does that only happen when straight, white, people play the wrong parts???
eratruetalk, Tarrytown, United States,
How can a blac woman play a whyte woman? Such hypocrisy. If the situation was reversed all hell would break loose. The actress would be cancelled.
mb1202, New York, Ireland,
No sorry Anne Boleyn was a real person who was white. This is a total joke
snowwhite7777, New York City, Aruba,
Cultural appropriation much?
I'm all for it, if it's channel 5 she'll be getting her kit off left right and centre. In a feminist light sort of way, obviously.
Political correctness may now be killing people. The US seem to be prioritising vaccines for essential workers because they're more ethnically diverse than the elderly despite predicting that it'll result in more lives lost.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't know how anyone can read things like this and claim that the PC movement is harmless.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't know how anyone can read things like this and claim that the PC movement is harmless.
I scanned through that twitter thread but it went over my head. They really going for the diversity angle?
It also says that the differences between the strategies are 'minimal' and the CDC has not taken a final decision on its approach yet.
It's probably better to read the document than read characterisations of it from someone with a political agenda, in fairness. It's available here and reas quite differently to whatever that characterisation is.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-11/COVID-04-Dooling.pdf
Those Science = Implementation = Ethics "figures" are hideous to look at.
It looks like an undergrad sociology project. Not a serious medically and scientifically-driven document dictating how best to save lives.
It looks like an undergrad sociology project. Not a serious medically and scientifically-driven document dictating how best to save lives.
Also best not to read the comments by his followers who largely seem to be pedaling conspiracy theories that the vaccine is actually going to sterilise anyone who takes it, and they suggest that proves there's no point giving it to the elderly.
I'd suggest this has been a better lesson in not getting your facts from some twitter commentator rather than how political correctness is somehow going to kill us all and have its way with our still twitching corpses.
Those Science = Implementation = Ethics "figures" are hideous to look at.
It looks like an undergrad sociology project. Not a serious medically and scientifically-driven document dictating how best to save lives.
Luckily, it is a serious medically and scientifically-driven document dictating how best to save lives. Have you read many of those?
Sure and here is a more balanced analysis which suggests that my larger point stands. The entire ethical lens they're using just seems subjective (or even unscientific). From a public health perspective surely the primary goal of a vaccination rollout should be to save the most lives (like the UK's policy) and not to promote justice?
There are two key variables within the ethical criteria: general health inequities and the wider effects of this specific pandemic. They are quantifiable and based on very reliable evidence. It's not just a bunch of people's opinions.
In any case ethics, which includes subjective evaluations, is an absolutely fundamental part of science. A history of unethical practices that have helped create those inequities is largely based around subjective decisions. To remove the ethical lens would be unscientific. They've just made it explicit in a different way.
How you weigh up those criteria and decide on the priorities is to some degree subjective, not just the ethical criteria but the other two. That's the nature of working with limited evidence on an urgent timescale with variable objectives.
The primary goal should be to minimise harm. Even exclusively from a medical perspective that requires your own evaluation of harm. Minimising death therefore means you are not minimising the spread which exposes potentially more people to more harm. You have to make judgments about what those knock on effects will be. We don't actually have a concrete answer to that, just estimates based on a set of assumptions and limited assessments, including the effect the vaccines will have.
There is debate over who to vaccinate first in the UK too, btw. Which involves that same component of what is fair and appropriate, with different views and displeasure about the current set of choices from one side.
In other words, characterising that as PC gone made is a bit silly. Yes you can criticise the decisions, but tarring it with that label is a bullshit politicisation of the process.
In the deck you shared, they outline three key variables actually (the third being 'promoting justice') but none of them has been quantified. If you just look at the deck in isolation, these ethical factors have been given more weightage over the CDC's own models without any evidence which does suggest it's driven by a bunch of people's opinions.
Yes, your definition of justice and theirs is different. You think it is a bullshit PC word, but it is a concept validated with quantitative data, explained in their commentary at various points. They've just used one word which triggered people, so I gave you the actual meaning of it; it relates to the wider effects of this specific pandemic. Those things have been distributed unequally, and there's correlations between the historial medical inequities and the current non-medical inequities of this particular pandemic, which demonstrably apply to some groups more than others. The data on that front is really straightforward.
And conclusively their analysis does not say that non-medical reasons take precedence over medical reasons. They've said that on the "science" side of things, both groups are on essentially an even footing, so the other factors then help decide how to split them. The reason for that is because minimising harm is not a binary choice, what you think is the right medical priority and what others - experts - think is the right medical priority is different. That is not PC gone mad that is a normal part of evaluating compliated situations with imperfect evidence and a variety of fast-moving external factors that influence the forecasting.
It's all good to disagree with their opinion but no it doesn't fit into that little box that the Twitter commentator would like it to.
Had to be italian ... ok, i guess they are not in the "don't say a bad word about them" list.
They must be all white privileged male. Even the ones that live under a bridge.