Political correctness and cancel culture

[pmccarthy]

Political correctness literally means that a person is suitable for political office, or to be promoted in a corporation. If they made tweets or FB posts ten years ago or more that are not now acceptable to the mob, they cannot be considered. This has happened and is happening right now around the world. The solution, we are told, is to educate young people about what that can post in discoverable places. In other words, to shut down dialogue and freedom of expression for everyone, forever. In our brave new world, no one will speak out or stand out. If they do, they will never become influential. In history, they will cease to exist. Cancelled.

[nomadpete]

The worst aspect of all that, is that all too often, the censure is  not triggered by 'the mob'. If it did, at least it would be somewhat democratic. Too often it's triggered by one individual, or one line of text without context,  then a bunch of hangers-on get into a frenzy.

 

Yes, it is causing a fear of expression.

[gareth lacey]

I was always led to believe that the majority ruled not the minority, we have too many of these groups feeling hard done by, to many individuals think that the world owes them, 1 program that i watch is the drum,its now becoming a  farce,they drag up so called experts on every topic, one of my pet dislikes is the so called "aboriginal" persons for their take on issues,give me a break the ones that shout the loudest are mostly whiter than me ,but claim their rights as an indigenous person, ok lets say this I come from a an IRISH,Welsh,French background do i demand rights in these countries and do i identify as one of these NO, I am Australian, this is my country and my identity, the great actor Denzel Washington asked "why do you call me African American, I am American ,i was born here and have no affinity with Africa, political madness not correctness abounds , to many jump on the gravy train. end of rant

Cheers gareth

[Marty_d]

Isn't it simply an awareness that what you say online is available forever after by anyone digging into your past?

 

Think of your online posts as speaking to a large crowd of every age group, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation.  Would you say something that insulted or offended some of them?

 

I have some friends who've been friends for years, so there's a level of trust there that when we go out to lunch and talk sh*t, anything we say that may be considered offensive to other groups won't be repeated.  However when I'm online I (usually) take care not to say anything that I'm not 100% prepared to stand up for.

 

I agree in some ways with your original post - it's wrong that something someone wrote in their youth affects their career in later life (unless they're seriously wrong, criminal or show a pattern of behaviour which makes that person unsuitable for the role).  We all did and said silly things when younger and luckily for anyone over 45, there was no internet back then.

 

However you say 

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

In our brave new world, no one will speak out or stand out. If they do, they will never become influential. In history, they will cease to exist. Cancelled.

 

What sort of things do you think people will get cancelled for if they speak out?  Trump has just shown that you can hold a whole raft of factually incorrect, offensive and dangerous opinions, spout them to the world on a daily basis and still remain influential.

[octave]

I don't say anything publicly that I don't think I can defend.   In my work as a music teacher  I am keenly aware that for my younger students their parents are likely to check out my social media pages.     I am completely free to put on social media an anti Asian rant if that is the way I actually felt (I don't).   Even if I wanted to do this I would not.   The person who employed me may have fired me.     This is not political correctness gone mad it is a business owner not wanting to employ someone who was bad for business.

 

If I was standing for preselection in a conservative seat I am certain that someone would check out my social media and realize I was pro tackling climate change and then they would probably oppose my preselection.

 

I do think we need to cut people a little slack for things said a long time before people were more internet savvy although I would have misgivings about someone who in the past was a white supremist.   

 

Do people have examples of outrageous censorship?    

[old man emu]

It used to be that the sins of the father were visited on the child. Social media has changed that to the sins of the child are visited on the adult.

 

 

[facthunter]

 A conglomerate of freudian slips will often reveal some dark aspect of a persons nature. It's abundantly evident that ScoMo doesn't GET women and it's from his own mouth. Even I know I can't call some rat bag sheila, a silly moo anymore.  NOTE...the immediate preceding totally unacceptable sentence in the modern context, is used for the  sole and express purpose of educational illustration and is not to be quoted out of context ever.. Or I'll come back and haunt you..Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Isn't it simply an awareness that what you say online is available forever after by anyone digging into your past?

No, it's not just online remarks that can be used against an individual. It might be as simple as an individual who overheard a few words of somebody else's conversation. Later, the key phrase might be repeated without access to the preceding private conversation, and context is lost. Without the whole exchange to provide context, the meaning is lost. News media regularly use sound grabs for this purpose.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

when we go out to lunch and talk sh*t, anything we say that may be considered offensive to other groups won't be repeated

Nowadays, I wouldn't count on it. If a politician can be attacked as misogynistic for saying to a mayor,  "I've heard you're feisty"

I'm disappointed. If it was said to me, I'd take it as a compliment, and I didn't interpret any gender implications.

 

Now after reading back through the thread, in future I'll be more careful not to express anything too strongly.  Its getting too risky to express strong opinions in writing. My opinion might come back to haunt me.

[spacesailor]

ME TOO

Even thoe the wife keeps saying  "keep your mouth shut, your foot wont fit in then " ,

BUT

I still dislike the Europeans & Yanks,

And more, but l,ll try & keep my mouth shut !. LoL

spacesailor

[red750]

It's a sad day when you can't call someone a f*k*n eejit.

 

The language is becoming so bland.

[old man emu]

7 minutes ago, red750 said:

The language is becoming so bland.

When was the last time you heard of a member of the younger generations who had a nickname? I don't mean an abbreviation of given or surname, but a nickname like "Lofty", or "Bluey" or something that refers to the person's behaviours?

 

 

[red750]

I don't mingle with younger generations much, but I do know a woman who is 40 (former work colleague) who refers to herself and other redheads as Ranga.

[octave]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

No, it's not just online remarks that can be used against an individual. It might be as simple as an individual who overheard a few words of somebody else's conversation.

How often does this actually happen?  Where are the verifiable instances, not just vague anecdotes?   We have to distinguish between someone saying something and being challenged on what they have said and someone losing there job over a statement.     I feel there is a lot of hysteria around this and that it s probably less based on real experience and more based on getting to a certain age and feeling that the world you knew is changing.

 

I have worked in an area for around 30 years (teaching individual music students) over this time things have changed but that is no problem for me I just work at keeping up.  I have always worked with young women and men and have taught males and females between the age of 8 and 70.  I have never worried that I would be cancelled or accused of anything.   I just don't buy the  "oh I too thick to know what I can say without being criticized"   I don't believe this has ever happened but if one of my students felt uncomfortable I would know and be happy apologize and change my mode of communication. It is not rocket science.   The language I used in 1990 is different to my language now, times change.

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

33 minutes ago, red750 said:

refers to herself and other redheads as Ranga

I reckon that's a generic, like "Bluey". I'm talking about nicknames that are peculiar to the person, like the wharf labourer who was called "London fog" because he never lifted.

[pmccarthy]

I have read the comments attributed to Prince Phillip and can see no harm in them. An offended person would be one with no sense of humour. Whereas the sergeant in Full Metal Jacket was shot for good reason.

[octave]

32 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I have read the comments attributed to Prince Phillip and can see no harm in them. An offended person would be one with no sense of humour. Whereas the sergeant in Full Metal Jacket was shot for good reason.

 It is always easy to see the humour in a in a joke that is not made at our expense.    A joke about a dwarf is unlikely to offend you or I because we are not the target of it.    I went to see some stand up comedy a few years ago. This was at a time when some footballers were in some legal trouble.   The comedian said "footballers, or as I like to call them rapists in shorts"   now to me that was a funny line and I didn't find it offensive but a footballer might.      People bang on about "you cant say this or that these days.     You can say pretty much what you want short of inciting violence but people also have a right to criticize what you say.  The right to free speech also applies to critics.  Prince Phillip said what he said some people liked it some people didn't and said so.

 

When people say that free speech has been stifled, I ask them, "what is it they want to say that they cant say?". 

[Marty_d]

6 hours ago, red750 said:

It's a sad day when you can't call someone a f*k*n eejit.

 

The language is becoming so bland.

You CAN.

 

There's nothing in that phrase that's offensive to any particular group.

 

I'm pretty sure I've used similar terms to describe conservative politicians.

 

Let me turn this around and look at the restrictions on speech in the old days.  I wasn't around then, but my understanding is that in the 50's and 60's there were real restrictions on what you could say, in fact using your phrase above in public could probably get you arrested.  Added to this there were horrendous censorship on what could be published, taught and shown on film.  In terms of political speech, any hint that you held communist or socialist views, however mild, not only resulted in your opinions being censored but also ASIO having a good poke around in your life.

 

People talk about political correctness restricting their free speech now, but it's my opinion that speech (in secular Western countries at least) is more free now than at any time since people stopped killing woolly mammoths.

[old man emu]

11 hours ago, Marty_d said:

but it's my opinion that speech (in secular Western countries at least) is more free now than at any time since people stopped killing woolly mammoths.

You don't have to go far from this place to find that your opinion is not always a reflection of fact. I posted what I thought was is simple comment in the thread  about a fatal at Canberra in the sister forum. Basically I said that no matter how experienced a person was, one day something would happen and lead to something bad. There was an almost immediate reply accusing me of jumping to conclusions. So I replied that if i was bad to do that, then the whole discussion should be put on the back burner for a couple of years until the  results of the investigation were published. Both of my posts have disappeared.

[octave]

20 minutes ago, old man emu said:

You don't have to go far from this place to find that your opinion is not always a reflection of fact. I posted what I thought was is simple comment in the thread  about a fatal at Canberra in the sister forum. Basically I said that no matter how experienced a person was, one day something would happen and lead to something bad. There was an almost immediate reply accusing me of jumping to conclusions. So I replied that if i was bad to do that, then the whole discussion should be put on the back burner for a couple of years until the  results of the investigation were published. Both of my posts have disappeared.

 

OME I read your post and I could see nothing wrong with it.  It could be that it was not necessarily your individual post but replies to your posts and therefore the whole interaction was removed (only guessing)

 

In terms of free speech, there is never an absolute right to unbridled speech.   Most places have things that you cant say for example if you are a teacher there are things you cant say to your students.   The old saying goes free speech does not mean you can yell "fire" in a movie theatre (unless of course there is a fire).

 

 

[onetrack]

Make a comment about any major aviation accident on any forum, involving fatalities, and you will immediately break the internet world into two passionate, vocal, and/or abusive sections.

 

1. Those who believe that your statements are uncalled for speculation, shameful to the memory of the deceased, and totally at odds with the entire world - and you need to hang your head in shame, and to "wait until the investigation is fully completed by the real experts".

 

2. Those who believe that discussion centred around the crash, involving speculation, pondering, common piloting errors, and basic failures that appear to have been part of the crash, are a good way to ensure that someone learns something from the disaster - no matter how small the knowledge gain.

 

The first group seem to enjoy seeing posters being pilloried, and shaming online posters from an anonymous position of superior knowledge. They seem to relish the power and ability to shut down online discussion. I ignore them, they're trolls.

 

The second group is generally a lot more sociable and are prepared to put up with a fair bit of nonsensical speculation, which can be countered with posts addressing the reasons that the speculation is considered nonsensical.

 

Of course, it's important, that when refuting other peoples opinions, that you stick to facts, and don't become exceptionally aggressive, indulge in personal attacks, or try to belittle the person involved.

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by onetrack
spellink....

[facthunter]

Personal attacks have no place here as that was decided long ago as a good rule. Prune is full of it to the extent you'd question the mental stability of our professional aircrew if they were typical.. Perhaps they are. Egos feature pretty strongly with Pilots.

 Racism.... Near the end of our Rule over PNG ( UN protectorate)  Mainland carrier TAA  operated B 727's into Moresby. This resulted in overnight Crew stops normally at the Beachside " Davara" Hotel  some distance out of town to the West.  One particular fitness fanatic  in the crew did runs along the beach and  a local gentleman said "Run white man Run". as he passed by. Maybe he was encouraging him for the Olympics or more likely making a clear political statement appropriate to the time and circumstances. If it had been me I probably would have broken the world record for the rest of the length of the beach. There was a well known  local group known as the "Rascals" and white expat enclaves were protected by "BOY wire". This was fairly well known so running on the beach alone was not in my view, a good move.. Horses for Courses. There was plenty of overt racism in a notorious local  Paper the name of which eludes me at the moment to balance it out. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon there is a lot of racism directed against whites. The recent stuff about "sorry" is a good example. Neither me nor any of my ancestors were involved in any way. They arrived in Australia well after the events. In any case, I think it racist to blame me for any faults of my ancestors.

So what have I to feel " sorry" for?  In fact, the opposite is the case and they should be saying "thanks".

[facthunter]

Care to elaborate on what they should be saying "thanks" for? Nev

[old man emu]

24 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Care to elaborate on what they should be saying "thanks" for? Nev

The opportunity to access more effective medical attention. 

 

I was going to say, "access to education and access to regular food supplies", but on second thoughts, they had an education system attuned to their place in the environment, and that attuning with the environment assured regular food supplies. They also had a cultural system that I hope would have lead to peaceful co-existence. Obviously there were the occasional skirmishes, but no clan went out of its way to conquer other clans in the way that the rest of the the peoples of the world did as their cultures developed.

 

All in all, the First People got bugger all in the way of improvement, did they?