Political Correctness

[FridgeMagnet]

No, you didn't. You clearly don't understand the issue at all, or at least, if you do, you have cunningly decided not to display any indication in the slightest of understanding it. 2+2 is uh uh uh I already said it was 5! OMG if you are so clever why don't you tell me what it SHOULD be only don't use long words like "4".

 

[Gmart]

No, you didn't. You clearly don't understand the issue at all, or at least, if you do, you have cunningly decided not to display any indication in the slightest of understanding it. 2+2 is uh uh uh I already said it was 5! OMG if you are so clever why don't you tell me what it SHOULD be only don't use long words like "4".

I understand the issue fine as illustrated by my answers. If you have a problem with them then feel free to comment on what I actually said.

I suppose that Dotcommunist said it all by saying:

The dominant power group is unfortunately taken as 'fair game' for verbal potshots

And I thought that this might lead to a discussion about how to mitigate this. Yet actually people don't care and though it is blatant discrimination they imply that actually because some people in that group have it good, they decide to tar everyone with the same brush. Almost like saying that coz they're rich they deserve to get beat up.

But this is against the principles of PC which was invented to deal with people who judged people for being part of a group.

It's like letting some kid get bullied in the playground coz he's got a posh accent. It is seen as fair game by the kids often and by the rationale of this thread I can see that it is seen as fair game here too.

 

[rachamim18]

Political Correctness as a subject by itself is despicable. I cannot admit to having read the book although from the synopsis I see it is akin to a wealth of similarly themed articles and books. Fear of offending one or another demographic has stifled real discourse for far too long.

Dot is correct about the dominant group having "potshots" taken at it but as the dominant group it can well afford it. The minority groups are the ones that are ill equipped to absorb even facetious derison.

G speaks of "Stpupid White Men" by Moore and this is a perfect example. I can think of no other group that would be any more impervious to derison than they. No white of any gener is going to suffer because of the book and that is the real quesstion; Will said phrase, etc. more than offend, actually cause harm? In this case it could never happen as I see it.

 

[William of Walworth]

"PC commissars" is my absolute favourite rightwing fantasy. I just love the idea of a PC Commissar dispatching a platoon of armed Bolsheviki to shut down a bakery for the counterrevolutionary crime of selling gingerbread men!

I read the other day that the cheka banned piggy banks so that the muslims wouldn't be offended. You couldn't make it up!

Publish this if you dare! A wise man once said that Gordon Clown, Nu Liar Bore and the PC loon brigade have banned genocide because it offends ethnics and queers! Send them to Iraq - it's the only sensible choice?!

I read the other day that I can't even say or do things without there being consequences of varying degrees for saying or doing those things. Apparently judgement can be now be passed on judgmental statements or actions! The invisible hand of the PC Politburo is strangling my speech - AND YOURS! You couldn't make it up, you couldn't make it up.

Classic!!!!

 

[William of Walworth]

Very useful phrase, 'Political Correctness'

The more people use the phrase seriously, and the more they complain about 'PC' 'going mad', ideally with increasingly red faced and frothfoaming indignance!!!1!!!1!!!!1, the better.

Because in using such phrases and non-pisstakingly at that, they provide a very handy ultra-short-cut Instanto-Guide to exactly how much of a backward, reactionary, moronical, braindead, cliche-recycling, Telegraphesque, Littlejohnesque, Clarksonesque 100% gold plated wanker they are

It might take at least two or three minutes to be absolutely sure, otherwise ...

 

[butchersapron]

I understand the issue fine as illustrated by my answers. If you have a problem with them then feel free to comment on what I actually said.

I suppose that Dotcommunist said it all by saying:



And I thought that this might lead to a discussion about how to mitigate this. Yet actually people don't care and though it is blatant discrimination they imply that actually because some people in that group have it good, they decide to tar everyone with the same brush. Almost like saying that coz they're rich they deserve to get beat up.

But this is against the principles of PC which was invented to deal with people who judged people for being part of a group.

It's like letting some kid get bullied in the playground coz he's got a posh accent. It is seen as fair game by the kids often and by the rationale of this thread I can see that it is seen as fair game here too.

And did you know that the m/c are getting priced out of public schools too?

 

[fogbat]

The actual story rather than the fela version appears to have been that the DoH decided not to use the word "obese" as research had indicated that it was more likely to make parents think "my child's not obese! how dare they!" and alienate them over saying "very overweight", thus reducing the effectiveness of sending letters with health reports in the first place.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7541279.stm

The language used is actually very important to consider with this sort of thing. Oh, and the connection with schools is that the data is gathered at school - the letters are sent out by PCTs, I don't believe the schools ever get the results at all.

The best bit is that the snorting, anguished howling made by halfwits believing the gutter press version often finish their complaint with "You couldn't make it up!!!"

 

[Fozzie Bear]

One of the stories he uses is that the infection of AIDS is down to African Immigrants coming over here and being diagnosed with AIDS, thus adding to our infection stats. He recognises that this could be used by the BNP, but states that this fact should not distract us from the facts. If AIDS is really being spread by African Immigrants then surely this should be advertised and damn political correctness.

And I am with him on that. Being PC shouldn 't distract us from the facts, whatever the consequences.

I just want to return to this for a minute, because it pisses me off.

In the real world there are limited resources available for public health awareness campaigns.

The objective of those concerned with AIDs/HIV is clear - to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness. The most effective way of doing this is promote safe sex.

In my view racialising the issue is not helpful, as well as being distasteful.

What is being suggested is that resources which are spent on promoting safe sex are diverted into advertising the fact that some african immigrants may be HIV+ or have AIDs.

What message does that send, and will it help promote public health? It confuses the issue by suggesting... what?

That people should not have casual sex with black men?

That you should use a condom, but don't worry too much about it unless you are fucking someone from Africa?

What would those posters look like?

How is this helpful? Why is it so important to advertise "whatever the consequences"?

What do we think the consequences might be?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Similarly it is worth mentioning that the QCA discourages Black History Month being taught in schools.

The teaching of black history is often confined to topics about slavery and post-war immigration or to Black History Month. The effect, if inadvertent, is to undervalue the overall contribution of black and minority ethnic people to Britain’s past and to ignore their cultural, scientific and many other achievements.
History: 2004/5 annual report on curriculum and assessment (QCA)​

It is, however, worth remembering where Black History Month came from.

As someone who was at school from the mid 70s to mid 80s I can honestly say that I was not taught any history whatsoever which involved black people (and that includes my 'O' level).

As a response to this many black activists and community groups organised their own community based and self-funded Black History events. This gradually became more established with some local councils seeing the wisdom of funding black community groups at a time when society was unbelievably racist and black people were excluded from many areas of "British life".

These sort of initiatives coalesced around Black History Month, which continues in many areas to this day. Some events are funded by local govt, some are not.

In my view there is still a need for these events as many people like myself are still knocking around who were not taught black history at school.

The fact that upthread people are discussing not being mean to privileged white men suggests we also have some way to go until we reach the point where black people are not disadvantaged in any way. Perhaps at that point jettisoning Black History Month will be an option.

 

[Gmart]

The objective of those concerned with AIDs/HIV is clear - to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness. The most effective way of doing this is promote safe sex.

How do you know this? I don't, I am merely stating that according to the study below, African Immigrants have a significantly higher chance of having the virus then this should be communicated to the population as the most effective way of meeting our shared objective above.

I appreciate that the safe sex message of always wearing a condom is a good basic campaign, but this disease needs to be controlled. It is already a problem (for example) that the moralists insist that prostitution is illegal, thus encouraging the disease in that industry.

In my view racialising the issue is not helpful, as well as being distasteful.

Not helpful in the fight against racism? If it saves one life, then it would have been worth it.

What is being suggested is that resources which are spent on promoting safe sex are diverted into advertising the fact that some African immigrants may be HIV+ or have AIDs.
What message does that send, and will it help promote public health? It confuses the issue by suggesting... what? [...] That people should not have casual sex with black men?

Or rather it satisfies the first duty of government, to inform the population of the risks they face; in this case that, as a group, African Immigrants have a higher percentage chance of having the virus.

Think of it as positive discrimination for the sake of saving lives.

How is this helpful? Why is it so important to advertise "whatever the consequences"?

You answered this yourself because we share the objective to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness.

What do we think the consequences might be?

Any authoritarian would be sure to use public safety as an excuse to prevent the UK population from being informed of the risks they face.

Feel free to peruse the study which started this:

In this article it states:

In the United Kingdom (UK) Africans and gay men are the two largest social groups affected by HIV. Over 90% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2004 were probably acquired in high prevalence countries of origin, mainly sub-Saharan Africa [1]. This trend is also being observed in Germany (60% of all heterosexual cases), Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries [2,3].

 

[butchersapron]

Uh, isn't it the case that this is the first time that link hs been mentioned in the thread? And more to the point it doesn't appear to back up your ridiculously formulated and circular claim in the OP that

the infection of AIDS is down to African Immigrants coming over here and being diagnosed with AIDS,

and that there is a politically correct consipracy to hide higher levels of infection amongst african men. On the contrary your link lists a whole series of public campiagns to raise awareness of this fact. It doesn't mention any politically correct campaign or naything even approaching your OP paranoia, in fact you've provided nothing whatsoever to support your argument as far as i can see.

 

[Gmart]

Sorry Butcher I have you on ignore, one of only two posters with such a dubious honour!!

 

[El Jefe]

Uh, isn't it the case that this is the first time that link hs been mentioned in the thread? And more to the point it doesn't appear to back up your ridiculously formulated and circular claim in the OP that

the infection of AIDS is down to African Immigrants coming over here and being diagnosed with AIDS,

and that there is a politically correct consipracy to hide higher levels of infection amongst african men. On the contrary your link lists a whole series of public campiagns to raise awareness of this fact. It doesn't mention any politically correct campaign or naything even approaching your OP paranoia, in fact you've provided nothing whatsoever to support your argument as far as i can see.

for gmarthews benefit

 

[Gmart]

for gmarthews benefit

Cheers

The question is whether we should inform the population of such a risk. If the report is right in suggesting that African immigrants have an infection rate of 90%, then would you tell a friend this if they were thinking of going out with one? And if they contracted the disease after your decision not to do so on the basis that it would be "unhelpful" in the fight against racism, how would that make you feel?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

How do you know this? I don't, I am merely stating that according to the study below, African Immigrants have a significantly higher chance of having the virus then this should be communicated to the population as the most effective way of meeting our shared objective above.

How do I know this? What are you after, a CV?

If you know of a more effective way of promoting public health, then please let me know - I'm all ears.

Perhaps an alternative approach would be to put up big posters of African men with the word "unclean" on them in big block caps?

I appreciate that the safe sex message of always wearing a condom is a good basic campaign, but this disease needs to be controlled. It is already a problem (for example) that the moralists insist that prostitution is illegal, thus encouraging the disease in that industry.

And how do you propose to control it?

Let me put a scenario to you... feel free to come up with alternatives!

We could:

a) Put all african immigrants in camps and force them to be tested?
b) Divert existing resources which promote safe sex into a special campaign devoted entirely to promoting african men as harbingers of disease?

Not helpful in the fight against racism? If it saves one life, then it would have been worth it.

Racism is not the issue here. Needlessly complicating the message is the issue. If you go down that route you end up with several messages rather than one.

Reinforcing safe sex at every opporunity is my approach.

Yours seems to be producing a list of types of people who may (or may not!) have the virus. Perhaps we could find that stats on people in Uganda vs people in Ethiopia and have leaflets saying:

Person A is from country X
Person B is from country Y

A is 8% more likely to be HIV+ than B.

So if you are thinking of getting it on with someone tonight, please bear this in mind!​

Or rather it satisfies the first duty of government, to inform the population of the risks they face; in this case that, as a group, African Immigrants have a higher percentage chance of having the virus.

Think of it as positive discrimination for the sake of saving lives.

I don't agree that is the first duty of government or that your approach will save lives, quite the reverse in fact.

You answered this yourself because we share the objective to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness.

Except, for you, the issue of race seems to trump all?

Any authoritarian would be sure to use public safety as an excuse to prevent the UK population from being informed of the risks they face.

All sorts of public health legislation is "authoritarian", is it not? For example the smoking ban?

Feel free to peruse the study which started this:

In this article it states:

I've read it, thanks.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If the report is right in suggesting that African immigrants have an infection rate of 90%

It says absolutely nothing like that.

I think we should get fela in on this thread again, and it would probably benefit from having Dravinian here too.

 

[Gmart]

It says absolutely nothing like that.

You must have missed the first sentence of the quote, here it is again for your benefit

In the United Kingdom (UK) Africans and gay men are the two largest social groups affected by HIV. Over 90% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2004 were probably acquired in high prevalence countries of origin, mainly sub-Saharan Africa [1].

 

[butchersapron]

Brilliant!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Have a think about that the difference between what that bit you quoted means, and what the bit I quoted that you said means.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In the United Kingdom (UK) Africans and gay men are the two largest social groups affected by HIV. Over 90% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2004 were probably acquired in high prevalence countries of origin, mainly sub-Saharan Africa [1].

In other words, African immigrants are scarcely responsible for the spread of HIV in the UK at all. The virus was acquired in the country of origin.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Quite aside from GM's inability to understand his own quote, this statistic doesn't tell us anything we would not expect to hear. It really is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

In fact the only thing of note in it, for me, is the relatively tiny number of people acquiring HIV heterosexually in the UK.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

In other words, African immigrants are scarcely responsible for the spread of HIV in the UK at all. The virus was acquired in the country of origin.

Certainly, though that wasn't quite the particular point I was trying to make there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Certainly, but that wasn't quite the particular point I was trying to make there.

Yeah, I know. I took this point as a given. GMarthews will realise his mistake at some point.

 

[Gmart]

If you know of a more effective way of promoting public health, then please let me know - I'm all ears.

I have made my case.

Perhaps an alternative approach would be to put up big posters of African men with the word "unclean" on them in big block caps?

Slippery slope fallacies are just that.

Let me put a scenario to you... feel free to come up with alternatives!

How about a document which states the infection rates of the major groups in our society.

Racism is not the issue here. Needlessly complicating the message is the issue. If you go down that route you end up with several messages rather than one.

Reinforcing safe sex at every opportunity is my approach.

It is a good basic campaign.

I don't agree that is the first duty of government or that your approach will save lives, quite the reverse in fact.

Feel free to expand on this. What would your first duty of a government be?

Except, for you, the issue of race seems to trump all?

I am merely interested in properly informing the population of the risks in our society. Such a high percentage is remarkable. And if it saves lives it would be worth it; so no! it is saving lives which trumps all.

Authoritarianism

I tend to be against this without an individual victim, but the world is a complex place, with many different issues to consider. At the moment there is a progressive movement to eliminate risk which is probably a bit idealistic, still probably another issue...

How about another quote, this time from the Lancet:

Migrants from countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, notably sub-Saharan Africa, bear a disproportionate and increasing share of HIV throughout western Europe and, in most countries, account for the majority of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in recent years.

Seems quite straightforward that we should watch this issue closely.

 

[Gmart]

*penny drops*

Whoops!

That makes a difference, in that it means that most of the growth in infection rates are down to already infected people coming here and being diagnosed here.

Apologies for the misrepresentation

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Being PC shouldn 't distract us from the facts, whatever the consequences.

You are getting closer to the facts, but still have a way to go. Please reread what Fridgemagnet is saying as well.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

How about a document which states the infection rates of the major groups in our society.

You mean like a league table? So people can make an informed choice about who they have sex with and warn their friends if they happen to be attracted to someone from Africa?

It's an innovative idea, but to my mind you always run the risk of some absolutely retarded anti-pc merchant completely misinterpreting the stats.

So I prefer the simple approach.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fair enough, so why did you say the above. Do you believe that it is impossible to take being PC too far?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[DotCommunist]

Political Correctness as a subject by itself is despicable. I cannot admit to having read the book although from the synopsis I see it is akin to a wealth of similarly themed articles and books. Fear of offending one or another demographic has stifled real discourse for far too long.

Dot is correct about the dominant group having "potshots" taken at it but as the dominant group it can well afford it. The minority groups are the ones that are ill equipped to absorb even facetious derison.

G speaks of "Stpupid White Men" by Moore and this is a perfect example. I can think of no other group that would be any more impervious to derison than they. No white of any gener is going to suffer because of the book and that is the real quesstion; Will said phrase, etc. more than offend, actually cause harm? In this case it could never happen as I see it.

I nearly added a picture of the worlds smallest violin next to my comment, but I hadn't expected it to be taken quite so seriously.

 

[Gmart]

Just because i am white and male doesn't give everyone the right to take potshots at me.

The same principle applies to any simplistic grouping.

It's best to deal with the world as individuals.