I think the only person I knew back in the late 70's who did not know the Village People were gay was my Grandmother, she just thought they were nice boys dressing up to put on a show.
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.
I think the only person I knew back in the late 70's who did not know the Village People were gay was my Grandmother, she just thought they were nice boys dressing up to put on a show.
Mental isn't it? As @Cheesy pointed out, you'd think universities were massive safe spaces where you have to give a trigger warning before every sentence. Of course, reality doesn't match that at all.
This is where I interpreted what you were saying as being that Mexicans might feel foreigners wearing sombreros were calling them lazy.
Me too, I really couldn't believe it wasn't meant as satire when I first stumbled upon some of those sites. Really not sure about how 'new' the manosphere is. It does seem relatively new, but at the same time, one of the most populair news websites over here is called GeenStijl. They've been extremely popular for more than ten years now, by satirizing the political establishment and the main stream media, being very politically incorrect regarding pretty much every topic possible, in a way that used to be unheard of (and still is compared to nearly all other popular news sites around the world). Over the years they've become a bit more political, for example an organisation related to hem was responsible for our Ukraine-referendum (somewhat comparable to the Brexit-referundum).
When you read the comment sections of ten year old articles on there, they are very comparable to comments on manosphere and other alt right websites right now. So I guess maybe those attitudes have been around for quite some time now.
https://www.geenstijl.nl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeenStijl
Last edited:
The stereotype wasn't instilled by Mexicans though. It was used in imagery mostly in America and in media of a guy taking a nap on a porch or under a tree with a sombrero on top of his face. I think Taco Bell used something similar years ago.
That stems from Mexican culture implementing naps as part of their day (in the past, can't say if the same applies now), plus not placing as much importance to arriving to functions like birthday parties at the exact time of the invitation, in comparison to western culture where these can be portrayed as lazy. That's how it was explained to me.
So yes, some Mexicans may have upheld and shunned wearing sombreros unless it's for a particular function, but I don't believe the stereotype originated from Mexican people.
My bad if I didn't make the distinction clear, I'm typing on my phone.
It's not that by wearing a sombrero you're necessarily calling them lazy directly. It's part of the entire costume being made to mimic common Mexican stereotypes
The difference is that the ones in the real world are permament services set up to provide vulnerable people with help at times when those people may well be struggling to find anyone to help them through their pain and suffering. No that's not the same as some students deciding that because they disagree with a visiting lecturer, they need to provide a 'safe space' during the few hours of that lecturers visit where people completely unaffected by the visit can feel 'safe'. In fact it's a insult to the people who actually need and actually run those real services.
I'm talking about the whole move towards an extreme form of what is often (and annoyingly) called political correctness. It's not just in universities, the same pattern of behaviour appears on social media every time a celebrity or politician says anything that can even vaguely be construed as going against the neo-liberal grain.
I'm practically a fecking hippy in terms of my liberal beliefs, but then again I'm also anti-authoritarian, and in my eyes when you impose standards of speech and behaviour on people using a mob mentality and public shaming (with no right of reply) then you're not being liberal you're being authoritarian. Declaring that you're setting up a 'safe space' for sexual assault victims (a group that every decent person feels extreme sympathy for) during a lecturer's visit is nothing more or less than branding that visitor as an enemy to those vulnerable people. It's a form of public shaming, nothing more and nothing less.
I remember this guy
There are temporary services in the real world too. Be in it in the form of the temporary support group or extra staff and volunteers usually gather when a TV show covers a sensitive subject or during difficult parts of the year. There's nothing out of the ordinary about setting up an extra support group or using more resources during a particular time. It's fairly standard practice.
And you're conflating here. Safe spaces have nothing to do with a mob mentality or public shaming or authoritarianism. Those things exist by themselves, and always have. It just happens that they're no longer confined to the pages of the Sun and Daily Mail. Or religious leaders before them. All that's changed is public shaming has been democratised by the internet.
True, however when those things are becoming common in the day to day life at universities, then we have a real problem. Institutions designed to broaden minds and educate cannot be allowed to become places where discussion and debate are stifled.
Say a visiting lecturer was delivering a bigoted viewpoint, what is likely to be the most effective means of countering that? Trying to prevent the debate happening in the first place (in which case those with sympathetic views on campus will just retreat into a feeling of victimhood) or raising strong counter arguments in the questions section demolishing the basis of the bigotry?
If we keep trying to push bigotry and bad ideas into the shadows, then they'll just fester and grow. Bring them into the light, expose them to full scrutiny and take them apart from the foundations. Then people who are feeling they need a safe space might actually start to live in a society that IS safe.
You're conflating again. Attempting to prevent certain speakers from giving talks at universities is a distinct issue from providing safe spaces for students who might be upset by the content of the talk, should it go ahead. FWIW, I have no sympathy with the former but some with the latter.
Perhaps, but I think they're parts of the same overall picture. By tying a safe space to a certain event based on one persons political opinions, you're politicizing that space.
Why does the space have to be apolitical? You can't tell LGBT groups they have to have separate organisations for support and campaigning. Why does any other support group or safe space have to be apolitical if it doesn't want to be? And surely you're the one assigning political leanings to it? From what I can see it just a few students deciding they're going to use the time to try and help others.
And surely any time you have someone who works with a politically aligned think tank giving a lecture it's going to be inherently politicised, by virtue of the speaker having politicised themselves.
Last edited:
The lecture itself is certainly politicized, which isn't itself a bad thing at all. Groups campaigning on a political issues again not in any way a bad thing. The very nature of a safe space though is surely to provide vulnerable people with a space they can feel safe within, no? If that safe space is for survivors of sexual assault, then politicizing it creates divides within an issue that should be apolitical. Is a right wing survivor of sexual assault welcome in that group? Are supporters of the lecturer who are also strong supporters of supporting sexual assault survivors supposed to support the aims of that group, despite it being set up to suggest that the lecturer herself is somehow an enemy?
"safe space"
"safe space"
I didn't get the idea of safe spaces either, until I had a chat on another forum with a gay American guy who described how his entire family, everyone in his town, his school etc were virulently anti-gay. It was something he'd had to hide from everyone for fear of being completely cut off from everyone around him and facing massive bullying and likely physical violence. For him the idea of having a space where he could genuinely feel safe and talk about things he'd never been able to put into words before was more valuable than he could imagine. After that I understood why they can matter.
Yeah, I guess it is different for us over here. If you are virulently anti-gay around our neck of the woods then you are the outcast, not the gay one. Same goes for anti abortion lunatics, and if you are overly religious you are seen as some novelty.
Just two whole different worlds I guess.
Yes.
If they want to.
Keep it apolitical and then these things wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Seriously, some things should be beyond politics.
Nothing is beyond politics. And it's only a issue because you're (not just you) making it into one.
Last edited:
Ah the old 'its only a problem because you're making it a problem' argument. Always a sign of a strong position.
I think there's a balance - this hateful stuff where people feel physically at risk is obviously not acceptable. And picking on social groups, or whatever, in a hateful and inciteful way is obviously not good either. But I do think political correctness has morphed into something quite stale and sanitary and misses the point really.
Comedy for me is a good example, when a comedian is clearly not attacking a certain group, but makes a joke that involves that group in some way - people seem to feel like they need to object, groan or get offended; but in a pre-programmed way rather than actually thinking about what it is that might be offensive. This is clearly a grey area, but societally we seem to be moving to the point of the nonsensical where any mention of anything vaguely close to a sensitive topic becomes off limits. It's one of the things I like about 'The Last Leg' on Channel 4 - the jokes are funny, often because they stick their finger up at P.C.
Here's Cleese talking about P.C. in terms of comedy.
Comedy for me is a good example, when a comedian is clearly not attacking a certain group, but makes a joke that involves that group in some way - people seem to feel like they need to object, groan or get offended; but in a pre-programmed way rather than actually thinking about what it is that might be offensive. This is clearly a grey area, but societally we seem to be moving to the point of the nonsensical where any mention of anything vaguely close to a sensitive topic becomes off limits. It's one of the things I like about 'The Last Leg' on Channel 4 - the jokes are funny, often because they stick their finger up at P.C.
Here's Cleese talking about P.C. in terms of comedy.
Reading some of it, I think it's got a real cult-like feel to it. A lot of the manosphere ones kinda start off soft and throw in some light ideas regarding relationships that don't seem ridiculous: if your gf cheats on you, don't mope over it, move on, and work on improving yourself, and don't let others get in the way of it. For a lot of disillusioned young guys, that seems like a pretty solid idea. Then it gets progressively worse till those same young guys are getting indoctrinated in calling all women evil, believe that the liberal left is out to get them and that those same people are their enemies, that society should return to the way it once was and that equality for women is unnatural and incorrect. From whenever I saw such groups on places like Reddit I kinda saw them as smallish, fringe groups...but as time goes on it appears they're getting bigger, and Bannon's potential involvement with Trump gives them a real voice.
The irony, though? It's essentially the same sort of safe space they lament...only in a nastier, more twisted form. It's a place for these people to air their abhorrent views without question, one where those people will vent about groups they dislike without being challenged, allowing them to demonise those groups. And that's the sort of thing they're supposed to be against!
I'm beginning to think that for all the accusations of the left being a hivemind unwilling to have their worldview challenged, the right are just as bad, if not worse...in generally speaking terms. They lament their inability to say what they want about liberals/minorities and other such groups they feel are too heavily protected...but if you dare call one of them racist, or sexist, or any other term that could be construed in a negative manner then they lose their shit and become equally outraged.
2 issues get conflated here:
1. The expectation to "temper" comedic routines or serious academic discussion to cater to the sensitivities of certain groups. I think that is unacceptable, and that is why this thread was created; to lightly mock students who expect their teachers to leave out references to the Holocaust or other tragedies, or shut down discussion of issues in a setting where they are meant to be discussed.
2. The belief from historically dominant groups that marginalized demographics and communities are not still suffering and impacted disproportionately by past injustices; and any reference to how these should impact policies and behavior going forward is political correctness; and shunning said advice is prudent. No, it is foolish.
I'm here for 1, but not for 2.
1. The expectation to "temper" comedic routines or serious academic discussion to cater to the sensitivities of certain groups. I think that is unacceptable, and that is why this thread was created; to lightly mock students who expect their teachers to leave out references to the Holocaust or other tragedies, or shut down discussion of issues in a setting where they are meant to be discussed.
2. The belief from historically dominant groups that marginalized demographics and communities are not still suffering and impacted disproportionately by past injustices; and any reference to how these should impact policies and behavior going forward is political correctness; and shunning said advice is prudent. No, it is foolish.
I'm here for 1, but not for 2.
As in, you're imagining it's something it's not, and creating an issue that doesn't exist anywhere but your imagination.Ah the old 'its only a problem because you're making it a problem' argument. Always a sign of a strong position.
I don't actually think that's true. I think it's more the fact that the negative stereotypes of dominant groups don't matter so much because they're not contributing to active persecution/oppression, as they may do with minority groups.
For example, Americans are stereotyped as stupid, ignorant, loud and trigger happy. Probably about as offensive as it gets - imagine if those were the commonly repeated stereotypes of an oppressed people... However, stereotyping Americans in such a way doesn't really matter so much because they're not really oppressed as a group in general. To be fair, America shouldn't have elected Donald Trump if they were uncomfortable with this stereotype.
Last edited:
Same for me
what about the latest outrage in the US? A woman in W Virginia is glad Michelle Obama is leaving the White House; "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967
Christ it should be an Ape, not a Ape. Stupid woman.
I'm not sure that can be widely applied to most western/dominant groups and it doesn't take into effect historical contexts of certain stereotypes and why they can be considered harmful (Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims etc)
Being stupid, ignorant, loud and trigger happy is better than being lazy, thief, criminal, rapists (most of these said by the president-elect) I don't think its as offensive as it gets, but I guess its subjective, i'd rather be considered stupid than a criminal for sure.
Plus a lot of those American stereotypes are still applicable to negative stereotypes for marginalised groups also such as being stupid, ignorant and loud.
besides the statement; that looked weird to me too.Why are you ok with her capitalizing ape?
Why are you ok with her capitalizing ape?
No, I'm not. I might not be a good judge though, I always capitalise email subject headings, which looks a bit odd, but then it looks a bit odd if I change it, so I'm not sure. Except where ape's concerned, that's open and shut.
I think its OK to capitalise titles and subject headings. But random words in the middle of sentences, not so much.
Oh god, when we had our last mag redesign, the argument about whether headlines should be capped up or down was tortuous. Capped down won thankfully- saying 'the US' when your headline is all upper case looks weird.
I don't know but it is irrelevant. It is insulting and stupid even if mildly so.
Well a) they were Mexican, you aren't and b) they were making a living pandering to the stereotype.
So? Does that make all stereotyping ok? I'm thinking not.
. So? That isn't making fun of people by dressing up as a racial stereotype.
I don't find it at all upsetting, just wrong and at best impolite and rude. You are a white bloke who comes from a wealthy country that has a national costume and you can't imagine why other people who have been traditionally insulted and discriminated against don't enjoy being mimiced and made a figure of fun?
That doesn't sound like anything or anyone was being made fun off and it was a message of inclusion- the opposite of most ethnic fancy dress.
It is just a matter of degree and who are you to tell people that they shouldn't be insulted? If Mexican or Indian or aboriginal people (or whatever) find fancy dress insulting why would you not accept that and stop it?
Except that isn't the mindset at all. It is about people adopting patronising and sometimes insulting stereotypes for people to laugh at. Who would like that especially if you experience discrimination on a daily basis.
http://blackpeopleloveus.com/
I'm not sure I can bring myself to adopt casual racism though. Which is what we are talking about with this fancy dress thing. It isn't like there are a million things that you can dress up that don't involve making fun of another culture or race. I also don't think that this has anything to do with Brexit or Trump. Political failure by all sides of politics does.
https://www.facebook.com/oustars/ - this is where the latest debate began and the examples shown there are commonly seen at fancy dress parties and range from casually racism to WTF.
Last edited:
It is amazing what you can get away with depending on your background though. Me and my technically muslim deputy -she's from a mega-liberal family, eats bacon, smokes, drinks and has tattoos- said she didn't want to hire a muslim. One applicant ran an Islamic women's faith group on the side.
I'd be crucified for saying the same.
I'd be crucified for saying the same.
Lots of Mexicans on my course last year and can confirm they did not give two shits about people wearing sombreros at Halloween. They would have laughed at the very idea of Mexicans finding it offensive.
Frankly, even if there is that if 1 in 1000 who is mortally offended, I don't care. Same goes for a ginger wig and a kilt. Same goes for a kimono. Same goes for Lederhosen. Same goes for braided hair.
I don't accept that argument that wearing a costume at Halloween is by definition making fun of the subject of the costume, or the stereotype it might represent. Why don't we just outlaw standup comedy while we're at it? Since most of it comes at some group or other's expense and is definitely for the sake of poking fun.
Frankly, even if there is that if 1 in 1000 who is mortally offended, I don't care. Same goes for a ginger wig and a kilt. Same goes for a kimono. Same goes for Lederhosen. Same goes for braided hair.
I don't accept that argument that wearing a costume at Halloween is by definition making fun of the subject of the costume, or the stereotype it might represent. Why don't we just outlaw standup comedy while we're at it? Since most of it comes at some group or other's expense and is definitely for the sake of poking fun.
'Tarts and Vicars' parties are alright though, aren't they?