People who need somewhere to be listened to and supported meeting for an hour or two. There's not much else to it.
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.
Given that you could (presumably) walk around for an entire day in Mexico and not see a single sombrero, I'd argue you're not mimicking an entire country or culture there either. You're just wearing a hat that's synonymous with a particular country. Just like a kilt for Scotland, for example.
Anyway this is one of the reasons I don't go to fancy dress parties. The other one being that they're shit.
AA is the working of the twelve step program. If you are likely to get triggered by hearing about traumatic life events it is possibly the worst place you could go to as well.
Hats off to Mexico.
How very bizarre it all is.
And a bowler and umbrella for England or (if you watch Family Guy) terrible yellowing teeth. That's more offensive than a hat!
Sure, but beyond that that you're going to somewhere you won't be judged and where the people will understand your specific struggle. Even the people who don't buy into the whole 12 step thing can benefit from AA. It's exactly the for LGBT societies et al. And you have to remember different safe spaces serve different purposes, AA folk for example will more likely struggle if someone is walking around trying to give them a pint - as opposed to hearing about something that upsets them.
Another example of a safe space would be this reddit, now, most of us have zero use for it - but it serves as a helpful place people can go and share their experience with those who understand them.
And the truth is, when you see a safe space, or look into why those who opened it did - they suddenly make a great deal of sense. It's only the vague, non-specific ones that don't actually seem to exist that are absurd.
Last edited:
You're picking one item out of an entire outfit which only perpetuates stereotypes. It's not the sombrero in isolation, it's not the poncho in isolation, it's part of the entire set up.
Plus sombrero's are actually part of the stigmatisation that Mexicans are lazy - that's more likely part of the reason why you wont find Mexicans wearing them if you were to visit Mexico
What's the appeal in caricaturing an already marginalised group? This is what I don't understand.
Just wondering about this: do people object to folks (like, say, singer Adam Ant) using appropriated imagery & clothing-styles because of their respectful admiration for marginalised groups?
I object to Adam Ant more generally.
Yes, just like I get very offended by the Boston Celtics badge
Or Notre Dame negatively stereotyping us as violent thugs.
That's because you're too scared to mention
That he spends his cash on looking flash and grabbing your attention.
So long as they serve as a support group rather than a echo chamber for political ideology then I can't disagree.
There is no appeal to me but I don't quite follow why there is a difference in caricaturing a marginalised group or the dominant group so long as it isn't done in mean spirit.
You've just summed up EXACTLY the problem I have with this stuff, it's not about empathy towards everyone, it's about artifically enforced empathy by a self-selected group of enforcers towards certain groups who are deemed worthy of empathy, while those who fall outside it don't receive even a moments consideration or care.
If someone is deemed to hold opinions that don't satisfy the often ludicrously high (and occasionally extremely questionable) moral standards held by certain groups, they are treated as repellant evil caricatures who must not be listened to, allowed to present their own views, and certainly not engaged in any kind of intellectual debate. This kind of nonsense is absolutely anti-scientific, anti-intellectual and frankly authoritarian, and it's peddled by people who gain their apparent authority by little more than popular opinion amongst their equally self-important peers.
There certainly are times and places where a 'safe space' or equivilent is hugely valuable and indeed vital. There are equally plenty of times and places where protesting against abhorrent views is completely justified, but I'm damned if I'm going to support any individuals or groups that try to shut down discourse or debate, or create an environment where not conforming to the common group-think is enough to ruin reputations and careers.
I think he just reminds me a bit of Gary Glitter.
Blimey.
Trigger Alert
People who get their knickers in a twist over harmless cultural stereotypes really need to get over themselves. As do people over the age of 10 who attend fancy dress parties.
People who get their knickers in a twist over harmless cultural stereotypes really need to get over themselves. As do people over the age of 10 who attend fancy dress parties.
Because you are part of the dominant group so of course you don't see the difference.
For the record I don't think dressing up in a Mexican or any other outfit is normally done with the intention of being rude - however the question was raised on the validity of cultural appropriation and why some people take offence to it. This is why.
Dominant groups normally don't have such harsh negative stereotypes placed against them - yes you could say Brits are labelled as having bad teeth, tea drinkers, snobby, alcoholic etc. But I'm sure you'd prefer to have that than negative stereotypes such as lazy, rapists, criminals, thieves, maids, gardeners etc.
We need to talk about the online radicalisation of young, white men
With the appointment of Breitbart News’s chair to Trump’s staff we need to be clear about the links between misogyny, racism and neofascism on alt-right websites
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart
With the appointment of Breitbart News’s chair to Trump’s staff we need to be clear about the links between misogyny, racism and neofascism on alt-right websites
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart
What the feck are you talking about? Who do you think runs so called "legitimate" support groups? It's not elected officials you know. It's just random people who've decided they want to help out. The only difference between student run ones and ones in the so called real world are that the student ones are run by students.
"Empathy enforcers"? Jesus Christ dude.
The safe spaces you seem to be railing against don't actually exist. They're a figment of your imagination.
Just read that. I've found the "manosphere" morbidly fascinating for a while. They're all so fecking repellent and the whole thing does seem to be a fairly significant movement that doesn't get much coverage in the (oh yes) MSM. Really makes me despair knowing turds like that exist. Feels like a new phenomenon but maybe it's just a forum for attitudes that have been round for ages?
What about the Indian in the group The Village People, he was in fact part native American, but the costume he wore was certainly stereotypical complete with war paint. Be tough to accuse him of cultural appropriation I guess, but was it okay for him to promote a stereotype for profit?
In the overall discussion this is a minor thing, but it just popped into my head when I saw the Adam Ant reference. Even if we think it is okay for him to do, it doesn't mean it is okay for everyone to do.
So you are saying that Mexican people associate non Mexican people dressed in stereotypical Mexican attire with Mexican's being called rapists, criminals etc?
I've been to Mexico actually and there was a street vendor on pretty much every corner selling sombreros to gullible tourists. The last time i went to Oktoberfest, some Germans felt (jokingly) insulted if you didn't wear a lederhosen.
Hell, go to pretty much any country and there will be street vendors and souvenir shops trying to sell you stuff (cheap knock offs mostly) that has some cultural significance to the indigenous people.
Not trying to insult anyone here, but i just have a hard time grasping why people find this so upsetting. Now i am from Norway, if someone from abroad decided to dress up as a viking or dress up in a "bunad" (traditional folk costume) i could not imagine being insulted by that. I remember last 17th May (our National day) a Muslim girl had sown her own bunad/hijab crossover. She did get some abuse, but that was from racist thugs and right wing nutters, as most people (me included) found it great that she embraced Norwegian culture whilst showing her own.
Now obviously there is a stuff like dressing up in black face, an SS solider or a member of the Klan that is offensive. But dressing up as a mariachi, a samurai, a viking or a cowboy i don't really see the issue with. I think that if a culture is strong enough to have developed such identifiable traits, then it's strong enough to survive some kids running around with sombreros and maracas and having a good time.
I just find this mindset of: "This is mine, your a foreigner, you can't have it" confusing coming from the left side, as it' usually something you would expect from the polar opposite. Just because you use something from a different culture does not mean you seek to belittle or mock said culture. I don't know man. In this day and age with the resurgence of the far right and an escalation of conflicts between ethnic/social groups i think this mindset does more harm than good.
I guess complementing the band's image (i.e. stereotypical 'tough guys') was more important to him than respect.
It's usually a bit of both. The last few pages of this thread are a great example - people who likely held those opinions before having them reinforced by what are demonstrable lies. i.e "safe spaces for people don't can't handle opposing opinions" turning out to be nothing of the sort.
That's where I'm at. The only way to expand the appeal of the liberal left is to pick our battles a bit more carefully. Even if there's some sense to our arguments. Because we're sure as shit not winning hearts and minds over the last few years!
Hehe. Come on, Steve. They were camp as a row of tents. Their image was 100% queer. It was quite funny how such an obvious thing was so widely overlooked at the time.
You're telling me that those macho men were gay?!?!?
Freezers H. Christ...
Tbf it's not really "the left". Every story about non-egregious ones (which you made a good distinction between) seems to be the newly emerging brand of twitter journalism, where someone on a clickbait farm copies tweets and tries to make them seem like a massive moment - when it's usually a dozen people on a forum or social network chatting shit.
I'm sorry, dude. Are you rethinking the arseless chaps and leather cap you wore to your 18th birthday party?
Yes, mate - I'm a chapless arse.No, not even close.
Brietbart is a very disappointing publication, it is so puerile and offers nothing more than petty point scoring against the left.
Numpties like Lena Dunham just fuel the whole movement though. Breibart go to town on her and she keeps offering them ammunition. Hilary had her as a surrogate for her campaign too, dumb move.
Define the insult then.
It seems to be working though, the public perception seems to be leaning more and more towards what the alt right is preaching.
You said you see no difference caricaturing a dominant group and a marginalised group. So I used two examples and listed the differences between stereotypes of one vs another.