It’s pathetic when Griffin goes on about the “leftist-elite” running the media, when the two biggest selling daily newspapers are The Sun and the Daily Mail. Or how white people are being discriminated against by other white people.

In fact, if what Griffin spouted wasn’t so vile, it would almost be comical.

I think you are partly right.

What appears (on polling evidence) to be majority opinion has certainly (rightly or wrongly) been *ignored* in policy terms, but the issue has certainly been discussed.

At the same time it is certainly true to say that a common response to opponents of the recent scake of immigration is to call them racists.
I think that is what is meant by “stifling”, and that would not be a wholly inaccurate description.

In other words there hasn’t really been much of a “debate” – rather both the proponents and opponents of immigration have been talking pretty much to themselves, but not to each other.

Thanks for writing this, Don.

The concept of ‘holding no truck with political correctness’ only seems to work one way, and I’ve noticed the tendency here; It’s fine for right-wingers to fill the comments threads with the most over-the-top bile, spite and lies they can summon, often at the expense of the original contributor. Yet any hint of sarcasm or (gasp!) rudeness in return is met with misplaced yelps of ‘ad-hominem! ad-hominem!’.

Basically, they’re allowed to call a spade a spade. But we’re not allowed to call an idiot an idiot.

Oh dear. Nice try but obviously you need to understand the phrases ‘discussion’ and ‘off limits’. From your list of newspapers and parties, do you notice which key organisation was missing from the list of those who have raised the issue in the past few years? Did you spot it? Did you? Well, in case you didn’t, the BRITISH GOVERNMENT is not on your list.

You see, in order to have a proper discussion about these issues, they have to involve the people who are in charge of immigration and family policy. All the newspapers and parties that you listed want the British government to come on TV, radio and the internet and justify what they have done to this country. Now, surely both supporters and critics of our immigration and family policies over the last decade would welcome this? A government talking to the public and having a discussion about what they do and why they are doing it?

Labour have presided over uncontrolled immigration on an epic scale, which has placed huge pressure on our public services and social housing. Our tax and benefits system incentivises couples with children to live apart in some circumstances. Don’t you want to see the government held to account on this? I mean, surely Labour aren’t afraid of facing the public about what they’ve done to this country – are they?…..

Basically, they’re allowed to call a spade a spade. But we’re not allowed to call an idiot an idiot.

I’m not sure that any site with comments featuring Sally can really complain at right wingers filling it up with “over-the-top bile, spite and lies”

…and here they come, as if to prove my point.

Spot on. I’ve lost count of the number of articles and blog posts I’ve read denouncing thin-skinned ethnic minorities, tetchy liberals who take offence at everything and nothing and so-called “grievance mongers”; all without the authors noticing that they themselves do little else but a) trawl the internet looking for things to get angry and shouty about then b) get angry and shouty about them.

If it wasn’t story (x) it’d be story (y), because the resentment and puerile sense of victimisation predates both. Point this out, and the most cogent answer you’ll get is that “They’re doing it, so why can’t we?”. That “they” are “doing it” is always, always taken for granted.

Everyone has the right to get their grump on now and then, and god knows I’m prone to it myself. There’s just nothing quite like watching gaggles of well-fed, well-educated and well-paid middle class right wingers dissolve into hysterics like they’re being marched into a rice paddy with a rifle in their backs.

It should be obvious that this is largely a result of the internet itself, and that Sarah Palin is the first true internet politician – nice packaging, but knows sweet FA on policy; thick as the day is long, but by God she knows what she hates and she isn’t afraid to condemn it at length, no matter how much of a dumbass it makes her look.

@5 You do know to immigrate to the UK, you have to jump through god knows how many hoops, including holding down a job and you are not eligable for social housing.

You could of course mean illegal immigrants, or perhaps asylum seekers (people on the right use these terms interchangably even though they are very different in nature), but if you actually looked up some facts (gasp) you would find out that the asylum seekers make up a very tiny proportion of the people living in social housing, and by their very nature, illegal immigrants can’t really go claiming benefits can they, you know, being illegal and that. Like people claiming benefits, the majority of people in social housing are ‘ethnically British’ as the BNP likes to describe them.

Typical Daily Mail rubbish.

Don, on the subject of the article itself, you’re quite right that ‘political correctness gone mad’ is usually the argument of a loser, by which I mean someone who is not going to be able to win support for his position through argument.

But then, all ‘insurgent’ politicians are essentially trying to harness the loser vote to catapult them into power – Howard Dean, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin – they were all after the angry loser vote.

I also think that cjcjc has a point when he says that the labelling of your oponent as a racist is a way of shutting down debate rather than engaging it.

“From your list of newspapers and parties, do you notice which key organisation was missing from the list of those who have raised the issue in the past few years? Did you spot it? Did you? Well, in case you didn’t, the BRITISH GOVERNMENT is not on your list. ”

There was this thing called a “general election” a while back… You lost. Therefore, you don’t get to set the agenda for the government. That’s how it works.

There was this thing called a “general election” a while back… You lost. Therefore, you don’t get to set the agenda for the government. That’s how it works.

I have a feeling this line might get recycled quite a bit over the next decade…

No Tim, “labelling of your oponent as a racist” is, 99 times out of 100, simply stating a blindingly obvious fact. It would be ‘PC Gone Mad’ to pretend they are not.

@LFAT:

Labour have presided over uncontrolled immigration on an epic scale, which has placed huge pressure on our public services and social housing. Our tax and benefits system incentivises couples with children to live apart in some circumstances. Don’t you want to see the government held to account on this? I mean, surely Labour aren’t afraid of facing the public about what they’ve done to this country – are they?…..

‘Uncontrolled’ is wrong. It’s very controlled – but it’s geared as nearly everything else is to the needs of business. Businesses need labour to function. But they want to pay as little for it as possible. Immigrants therefore fit the bill quite nicely, as they are willing to work harder for (relatively) less money and less job secutity, particularly if they see their time in Britain as for the short to medium-term. It’s also useful for organisations such as the NHS who can use immigrant labour to keep nurses’ wages low, for example. Immigration policy has nothing to do with political correctness, whatever that clapped-out phrase for fools means today.

For what it’s worth, my immigration policy is simple:

1) Anyone who wants to come here can do so.
2) Immigrants waiting to be processed are allowed to work.
3) At the same time, a ‘fair wages’ policy is enacted, preventing employers from offering jobs with substandard renumeration. Minimum fair wage to be set by local authority or other accountable body.
4) It may piss off the EU, but tax immigrants at a slightly higher rate for, say, six months or a year maximum. The money raised per person is earmarked for local job creation/and or training schemes.

I also think that cjcjc has a point when he says that the labelling of your oponent as a racist is a way of shutting down debate rather than engaging it.

Indeed, and it’s often used fraudulently by hacks and idiots. On the other hand, lots of people are actually racist and aren’t shy about demonstrating it. How should we refer to those people?

I vote for “racist”, which is succinct and has a precise, commonly understood meaning. Does anybody feel we would be better calling these actually-existing racists “White English-born free-thinkers with unorthodox opinions on immigration, integration and miscegenation” or “Dissenters from the totalitarian left-liberal mindset?”

Because if so, there’s a phrase that describes that kind of creative nomenclature, and it isn’t “Calling a spade a spade”.

I have a feeling this line might get recycled quite a bit over the next decade…

I suspect you could well be right Tim. And you know what? Bastards that they are, they’ll still be right.

Me, I’m hoping for a hung Parliament.

Yes, what do you do if you genuinely believe your opponent is a racist? Or what if they’re not a racist, but you believe the ideas they’re recycling are? Are you supposed not to say so for fear that you’ll be accused of shutting down debate? Because that’s what happens.

#5

“Labour have presided over uncontrolled immigration on an epic scale, which has placed huge pressure on our public services and social housing.”

You see, we disagree on every statement within this sentence. Immigration controls have intensified under Labour more than under any previous government (sadly), so immigration is not uncontrolled. Immigration hasn’t happened on an epic scale by any measure, and pressure on housing has come from – surprise, surprise, a lack of available houses. Our public services have improved due to investment, and immigration has not put a strain on them.

So we can have a debate, but it will just consist of us disagreeing with each other on the basic facts, which is in fact what has happened.

But anyway, the government has raised immigration again and again in an attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and gone on all kinds of programme talking about it. Just google immigration and you’ll find quotes from ministers in news articles. I suspect what you mean is “the government doesn’t go on TalkSport very often”.

Flying Rodent – obviously I agree. If someone is demonstrably a racist, then call him on it. I’ve seen it used more often in cases where it means ’someone I don’t agree with’.

Don – good piece, and that quote about Palin is absolutely spot-on.

In a similar vein, the BNP have adopted many of the worst caricatures of what ‘identity politics’ aims to achieve and tried to apply them to white British people, for example the comical idea of ‘White History Month’.

You can see the same tendencies amongst some Christian groups or with the likes of Stephen Green or Mediawatch, all of whom clearly think they’re going to be thrown to the lions live on Channel 4 if those evil atheists have their way.

PS: Neil @ 3: Can I refine your explanation? I suggest a lot of right-wingers think they’re allowed to call a a black person a spade. But we’re not allowed to call an idiot an idiot – or a racist.

PPS: Tim J @ 12 – well, a lot of the 1980s and 1990s felt like that too – that’s democracy for you.

I’ve seen it used more often in cases where it means ’someone I don’t agree with’.

So have I, generally by idiots and hacks, as noted above. We’ll just have to use our judgement to decide whether it’s merited.

However, I think that the vast majority of the Woe is me, the liberal tyrants don’t allow racial epithets on Radio 4 backlash wibble in the UK’s press is bollocks, and that the amazing pretence that immigration is somehow an undiscussed taboo is a poorly-disguised attempt to appeal to prejudice and non-existent victimhood at best, and an attempt to rehabilitate racism itself at worst.

If that’s the case, it does imply heavily that Don is correct in his analysis.

(BTW, this kind of Boo hoo, what’s racist about hating the blacks? stuff has at least a century-long pedigree in the United States. Coded promises to bludgeon minorities into sitting still and behaving got Nixon elected, for a start, and I find it pretty depressing that the same arguments are still going in the 21st century).

Much of the problem stems from the fact that opposition to immigration is seem by some to be *by definition* a racist view.

Immigration hasn’t happened on an epic scale by any measure, and pressure on housing has come from – surprise, surprise, a lack of available houses.

It rather depends on what you mean by “epic”.
The numbers have certainly risen dramatically.

Now I know that some people consider Frank Field to be a racist, but I assume he has his facts right? There is a link to the offical sources anyway.

http://www.balancedmigration.com/briefingPapers/Update2.pdf

The projections may be wrong, but the history so far is clear.

It can be quite amusing to express the following opinions on conservative websites, and see an example of conservative commitment to civillised debate and free speech:

1. immigration has positives
2. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians hasn’t been entirely satisfactory.
3. Some members of the armed forces may not be completely nice people.
4. Fidel Castro’s regime produced a few positive results as well as negatives.
5. American foreign policy has, at times, been counter-productive and helped rather than hindered the growth of islamic terrorism.
6. The BBC has been a positive force in informing the country about current events.
7. Some women in abusive relationships are better off ending these relationships and bringing up their children on their own.
8. Sometimes employers have been guilty of discrimination against women and ethnic minorities.
9. The british empire wasn’t entirely positive for the people under its control.

and my favourite….

10. Sometimes it is justified for the state to tax wealthy people in order to fund essential services used by poor people.

When people have been called racists it has often been used to describe a broad range of opinions and not just those of the BNP, National Front , Combat 18. An example is Migration Watch ( run by a former ambassador to Saudi arabia and Syria ) . 10 years ago calling people racists when they raised doubts about immigration invariably closed down debates but now far more people are prepared to stand their ground and dispute this labelling.

An example of PC has been the unwillingness to discuss treatment of women in some of the Muslim community especially the issue of forced marriage, honour killings and wearing the veil. Both Anne Cryer MP and Yasmin Al Brown have raised these issues and often been heavily criticised or doing so. Another example of PC could have been the unwillingness of how the opening up of borders in Europe would make it easier for criminals from the former Jugoslavia , Bulgaria and Romania to enter the UK. In particular the opening up of EU borders would make it easier to smuggle people, especially women for forced prostitution and guns, by criminals into the UK.

Another example of an issue not being discussed could be slavery in the Muslim World in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first black man to eat in the Waldof Hotel in New York was the food taster for Abdul Azziz al Saud, who was a slave. There are still slaves in Mauritania and in the Sudan.

An apsect of PC culture was to accuse white Britons of being the only people at fault and not assessing the faults of other cultures, religions and ethnicities with the same rigour. A the Yiddish saying goes ” Half a truth is a whole lie”.

When it came to mulitculturalism the left always assumed it was good. But what if the Singhalese carried on their dispute with the Tamil , or the Bosnian Muslim with the Serb? What about Tamils raising money for The Tigers in Sri Lanka , was that good? After all, The tigers murdered the moderate Tamil mayor of Jaffna.Or raising money for Hamas? Why was not the view point ” When in Rome do as the Romans do ” not promoted?”Surely if people voluntarily came to this country, they are saying Britain is preferable to all others and therefore they should learn the language, history, geography , customs and cultures of this country and adapt where appropriate. There is a saying in French ” To be loyal one must be loyal with the stomach and the heart”. Multiculturism seemed to promote loyalty of the stomach but not of the heart. Part of the success of the USA and Rome have been in promoting loyalty of the heart of the new citizens over allegiances to their country of origin. Anyone who served in the roman legions for 20 years and survived would become a citizen and given land . The placing of the right had over the heart is a physical gesture which reinforces the oath of allegiance to the USA.

The problem is that too often those, utterly uncontentious, views are expressed as:

1. People who oppose immigration are bigoted racists
2. Israel is like Apartheid South Africa/Nazi Germany
3. The army is full of murderous torturing scum
4. Castro’s Cuba is ‘better’ than the US/Britain/the West
5. America is the greatest enemy to peace in the world
6. People who think the BBC are not always neutral are morons
7. ‘Heteronormative marriage’ is misogynist, and children are no better off
8. There is institutional sexism/racism in british society
9. The British Empire was evil
10. The rich should always be taxed more, and opposing this is selfish.

And in those circumstances, are going to cause fights.

@22 / 24 – both brilliant

@22 – yes, the crowd at Biased BBC or the Guido commenters are pretty dreadful
@24 – yes, Guardian Comment is Free is a cesspit

that’s why LC is (with one or two exceptions) very civilised

[19] But we’re not allowed to call an idiot an idiot – or a racist.

I’m not sure I agree with this.

Racism is a term that gets bandied about a bit too frequently nowadays.

Nontheless, racism is an extremely serious allegation, at least in a professional context and potentially traumatising for the different protagonists (albeit for different reasons).

I note here, for example, that complaints of racial discrimination doubled.
http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2008/08/surge-in-race-discrimination-claims.htm

Does this mean we are now twice as ‘racist’?
Does it mean that we are are more confident about making complaints (perhaps driven by the consumer fantasy that we can have it all)?

I can accept that racism is a significant issue but I am doubtful that people are reluctant to use the phrase – any blog thread on the topic usually proves this point.

Brilliant post, Don. I’d offer to marry you, but instead, let’s set up a non-traditional family together and raise fabulous queers.

#18

Can we also be grown-up and accept that different people have different understandings of what racism is, so it doesn’t necessarily mean “someone I don’t agree with” when you don’t think the accusation of racism is fair, it might just reflect those different understandings? In which case there’s nothing wrong with standing your ground and pressing people on why something is considered to be racist, but accusing people of solely trying to shut down debate might be inaccurate.

I believe that opposition to immigration IS fundamentally based on racism (both in the practical sense that it usually is if you dig deep enough, and in an a priori way). That doesn’t mean I think everyone who has opposition to immigration is a conscious racist, just that we’re all influenced by prevalent racist ideas, and that opposition to immigration is essentially racist.

Of course, I’m careful about calling someone “a racist” because it’s not nice to be called a racist, and it implies there is something much more severe about the way they assimilate and express the ideas we’re all influenced by than the rest of us. But in answer to Charlie, the idea that Migration Watch is not racist is nonsense, when people running it have been involved at the highest level with the Eugenics Society and when they have the reputation for distortion that they do. Just because someone has been an important figure like a ambassador or advisor to Margaret Thatcher does not mean they can’t have been racist. Powell was an MP, after all.

I believe that opposition to immigration IS fundamentally based on racism (both in the practical sense that it usually is if you dig deep enough, and in an a priori way). That doesn’t mean I think everyone who has opposition to immigration is a conscious racist, just that we’re all influenced by prevalent racist ideas, and that opposition to immigration is essentially racist.

I suspect (hope) that isn’t a universal view. There are perfectly rational grounds to be opposed to specific elements of immigration, without there being any racism involved. Unless you’re talking about absolute opposition to immigration tout court, which is a) pretty damn rare and b)deranged.

I oppose immigration controls absolutely and believe that immigration controls are fundamentally racist. That’s a minority view (only about 1 in 50 people believe that according to consistent polling) but it doesn’t mean it’s irrational, and it certainly doesn’t mean when I say something’s racist I’m trying to shut down debate – that would be daft as currently only a small minority of people support my views, so I’d rather open up debate on the issue! However, I don’t want to hijack the thread here, which is about what political correctness means and how it’s used as a label to shut down debate by some right-wingers; this is just an example.

Tim f-

“I believe that opposition to immigration IS fundamentally based on racism (both in the practical sense that it usually is if you dig deep enough, and in an a priori way). That doesn’t mean I think everyone who has opposition to immigration is a conscious racist, just that we’re all influenced by prevalent racist ideas, and that opposition to immigration is essentially racist.”

Haven’t you nullified the whole post with this comment by showing that one cannot discuss being apposed to immigration without being called a racist?

@31 – no, what he’s proved is that if you want to have a debate about immigration, you have to follow a speech code that forbids the use of the word ‘rascist’.

[30] yes, what does political correctness mean?

What about this bit of nonsense – illustrious authors are now being subjected to ‘police checks’ if they wish to continue promoting literature amongst school children.

This from Anthony Horowitz
“In essence, I’m being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile.
“After 30 years writing books, visiting schools, hospitals, prisons, spreading an enthusiasm for culture and literacy, I find this incredibly insulting.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153251.stm

That’s more “‘elf and safety gone mad” than “PC gone mad”…or maybe a mixture of the two.

The perfect picture of modern Britain!

Well, it’s not much of a debate really is it, if one side holds that any position opposed to any form of immigration is intrinsically racist.

‘But more seriously, this whining appears utterly impervious to the actual evidence. The Conservative Party fought the entire 2005 election campaign on the subject of immigration.’

But you won’t see them running a campaign under the slogan ‘If you want a n***** as a naighbour, vote Labour’. Is it really progress that they can’t say what they mean?

‘the media gives a massively disproportionate amount of coverage to the BNP’

Ahem, pots & kettles? The blogosphere – including LibCon – devoted almost all it’s coverage of the election, before and after, to the BNP’s (miserable) performance and all the main parties ran their election campaigns on the ‘vote for us to keep the BNP out’ ticket.

tim f: ‘ That’s a minority view (only about 1 in 50 people believe that according to consistent polling) but it doesn’t mean it’s irrational, and it certainly doesn’t mean when I say something’s racist I’m trying to shut down debate’

Actually, it does. You’ve just characterised – using your own statistics – more than 50,000,000 people in this country as racist and you expect them to debate with you?

‘This from Anthony Horowitz
“In essence, I’m being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a ‘paedophile’.’

I’d have put him on a register for writing the piss-poor ‘Crime Traveller’.

More seriously, even the New Statesman has woken up to the fact you can’t get men to work with children any more without them being suspected of being paedos.

More seriously, even the New Statesman has woken up to the fact you can’t get men to work with children any more without them being suspected of being paedos.

I’d say that’s at least as much the fault of the ‘crusading tabloids’ as it is of the Govt.

“Well, it’s not much of a debate really is it, if one side holds that any position opposed to any form of immigration is intrinsically racist.”

Why not? You can still debate the issue. Or will your feelings be too hurt to continue?

@A&E – Police checks

I think that would be “Trying to look tough in the face of hysterical right-wing tabloid pressure” and not “political correctness” at all. After all, PC is mainly about language – if this incident is PC, it means that “PC” means “Things I don’t like”.

I can imagine the response that will ensue – lots of enraged Tories complaining about the PC totalitarianism inherent in a terrible policy that’s been put in place to counter… Public fear whipped up by the fearmongering of the right-wing press.

Bad news to those Tories, by the way, since the same fearmongering fools will try to bash the next government into submission on issues like this too. I’d like to think that the Tories won’t be quite as spineless, but who am I trying to kid?

Why not? You can still debate the issue. Or will your feelings be too hurt to continue?

No, think about it. Tim f is opposed to any restrictions on immigration because they would be intrinsically racist. Any argument you make counter to his position will be dismissed as being because, knowingly or otherwise, you are racist.

Neil, you can use the word racist if it applies. So far the other 49 in 50 people cannot see where it applies so Tim F tells them to dig deeper, maybe to their unconscious and they will find it. How irritating is that?

Tim J, Lilliput – you’re assuming the term ‘rascist’ is pejorative. I’m suggesting you should embrace it as a technically-accurate description and move on. You’re suggesting you’ll just take your ball away the moment the word is uttered.

‘Why not? You can still debate the issue. Or will your feelings be too hurt to continue?’

It renders the debate pointless: anything your opponant says will be dismissed as racist, anything you say will make you look like a self-riteous prick trying to mask your own, deep seated racism, by hiding behind dogmatic platitudes.

‘Tim J, Lilliput – you’re assuming the term ‘rascist’ is pejorative.’

I hope you accept the label ‘retard’ as simply descriptive and not a criticism of your worth as a human being.

you’re assuming the term ‘rascist’ is pejorative

I think that’s a reasonable assumption. You’d certianly struggle to find it used in anything other than a pejorative sense.

I think you might need to brush up on logical fallacies – try ‘poisoning the well’.

[40] it is a poor show to blame the Mail/Sun et al (if that is what you are saying, FR) for a policy adopted by the education authorities designed to make celebrated authors prove that they are not paedophiles in order to promote their love of literature amongst school children.

On my son’s first day at school I tried to film him walking into the playground – a horrified teacher soon came racing over ordering me to stop filming (because I had not sort prior permission).
Presumably the risk to other children being inadvertently caught on tape was simply too much for the sensitivities of some parents – perhaps I had even infringed their human rights in some way?

On the other hand it could be that the school, or local education authority had not bothered to discuss this type of unilateralism with the local community, in other words the people who pay for the service?

What sort of belief system acts as a catalyst for such disproportionate and oppressive behaviour amongst teachers?
For me it brought to mind the type of pointless ‘team-building-days’ that I imagine teachers must be sent on, and that Ricky Gervais tends to parody so accurately.

Okay, what word do you suggest we use instead?

For what, not being in favour of immigration in all circumstances? Why do we need a word for that?

Neil, use the words required to debate the pros and cons of immigration – no descrptive words need to be used for those doing the debating. Is that a difficult concept to understand?

Shatterface – thanks – you made me laugh!

No, what word should be used in place of the word racist, so as not to offend your sensibilities.

‘Differently tolerant’, perhaps?

I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse, or are just too stupid to follow the argument clearly. Either way, I don’t think it would be particularly useful to pursue the point.

Oh, and shatterface would do well to look up the words ‘racist’ and ‘retard’ in a dictionary. You might learn something.

Most discussions on ‘immigration’ tend to end up as racist rants. You have never heard complaints about the number of Americans, Australians, New Zealanders or South Africans coming to the Country.

EU immigration? When was the last complaint regarding the number of French coming here and stealing jobs? The daily Hate never comment on the Number of Americans coming here nor are they EVER going to demand a cap on Visas going to Americans, but surely Americans take ‘British jobs’ and drive on ‘over crowded roads’ often with the biggest cars and buy bigger houses, causing misery in the process?

I’m being deliberately obtuse because you won’t answer my question, Tim. If I can’t describe your position as racist without causing offence, what other word should I use?

Neil, I assume that’s what you’ve done, and is the reason you can now spell it properly. Education is always valuable.

Don P: “The Conservative Party fought the entire 2005 election campaign on the subject of immigration…”

I wouldn’t have put it that strongly, but the point has merit. It is also worth recalling that the Tories played the immigration card in parliamentary by-elections prior to 2005. Without success. In a by-election, immigration smears are addressed by frequent leaflet drops and personalised letters, and with that information (lots of it), voters are exposed to balanced arguments and vote small liberal.

The thing about smears is that they operate on gut feeling, rather than logic. We are gentically tuned to distrust outsiders; we care about our children and fear abductors. Those are gut feelings about risk, and human beings are lousy at assessing risk. Social tuning makes us more rational, so we let our children play with the neighbours’ kids, but genetic tuning forces us to look out of the window.

Logical arguments about anything that is not gut instinct are inevitably long and complex. When a youth abuses a younger child, gut instinct demands revenge; after a break, liberals instinctively think about care for the survivor and rehabilitation of the offender.

It will never be easy to be a liberal. Often, the best thing that we can achieve is to contradict a work colleague or friend in real life, so that they think before spouting.

If you want to avoid causing offence? Try not accusing people of basing their arguments on racial prejudice. The point of this, as maybe you understand, is that if you characterise one entire side of the immigration debate as racist ab initio, there is no possibility of having a debate.

Not because being called racist is offensive, but because it makes it impossible to debate the point. Racism is, by its nature, irrational. Debate pre-supposes the exchange of rational views and opinions. If you deny, a priori, that your opponent is being rational then you cannot then have a rational debate with him.

That’s not to say that certain arguments against immigration aren’t racist, clearly there are, or that certain people are racists, and therefore not worth debating, clearly there are too. But it is to say that Tim f’s position on immigration makes debate impossible. Got it this time?

@flyingrodent

The comedian Stewart Lee has this, very articulate, um, thing, to say on the subject of political correctness. Key quote: “there is a generation of people who have confused ‘political correctness’ with ‘health and safety legislation’.

Enjoy. Especially the final punchline…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro

Let’s take a couple of examples.

Would it be “racist” for an English working class white parent to be concerned that her child would not get as much attention as would otherwise be the case if a large number in the class do not have English as their first language, and indeed have a range of different first languages?

Would it be “racist” for an English tradesman to be concerned that his rates were being undercut by immigrant tradesmen?

it is a poor show to blame the Mail/Sun et al (if that is what you are saying, FR)

That is what I’m saying and I’m saying it because it’s correct. The formula goes like this – Mass media paedo panic >>> Public’s fear increased >>> Public tell pollsters about their fears >>> populist Government orders general security crackdown >>> Teachers take your camcorder off you.

Contrary to public expectation, teachers do have plenty to be getting on with in their average day without suddenly inventing paranoid security measures – that stuff comes from Government, and Government does it because it senses electoral advantages in pleasing the public. Where do the public get it? Well, not from the New Statesman, at any rate.

perhaps I had even infringed their human rights in some way?

Can you give an example – any will do – of a way in which it would be possible for you as a private citizen to breach somebody else’s human rights? Because it looks a lot like PC and human rights are essentially the same thing in your mind, which they aren’t.

‘On my son’s first day at school I tried to film him walking into the playground – a horrified teacher soon came racing over ordering me to stop filming (because I had not sort prior permission).’

I remember one school banning parents filming their Nativity play in case paedophiles got hold of the footage.

My first thought was ‘well don’t get the kids to perform it in the nude then’.

Simple solution to a no-brainer.

Okay, so I’m not allowed to use the word racist. What, then, is your speech code’s permitted euphemism for discriminating on the basis of nationality?

Look, if tim f and Neil are correct then they represent a democratically insignificant 2% of the population which the rest of the country can simply ignore, or point at and laugh; that leaves them with two choices: to continue their onanistic course of ideological self-gratification, or to engage with the other 98% by recognising what terms like ‘racism’ mean in public discourse, not on wikipedia.

Simply lumping everyone else with the BNP might make you feel better about yourselves but it isn’t going to win anyone over.

Sorry FR [61] I’m not really following your second point (about the blurring of human rights and political correctness).
I merely highlighted a personal anecdote and a recent news story about some of the things that go on in schools nowadays – I did not offer a fully developed exposition on what such incidents mean, although I do find them rather creepy.

If you are interested in semantics (this time concerning racism) then here is a more developed piece that illustrates some of the ‘binds’ than arise when we try to unpack layers of action and meaning (following the murder of Stephen Lawrence).
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_otbie-racism.html

@Shatterface – you’re right, it’s wank.

But what this little to-and-fro has proved is that our resident right-wingers don’t like having their style of rhetoric thrown back at them, not one little bit.

Yes, I seem to remember that sorry incident, Shatterface – the question is how much blame should be attached to the Mail and Sun for it?

“Would it be “racist” for an English working class white parent to be concerned that her child would not get as much attention as would otherwise be the case if a large number in the class do not have English as their first language, and indeed have a range of different first languages?”

Not if she was concerned about the expansion of class sizes and lack of funding for language tuition, rather than the mere presence of the non-English-as-a-first-language classmates themselves. If the latter, then yes: racist.

“Would it be “racist” for an English tradesman to be concerned that his rates were being undercut by immigrant tradesmen?”

Not if he was concerned that employers and their representative bodies were using immigration as an excuse to undercut wages, rather than believing that somehow immigrants *themselves* magically lowered wages (as if they have any economic power at all), in which case, yes: racist

If people blame “immigrants” for their government and bosses’ policy and funding decisions, rather than the government and bosses themselves, they are a) racists and b) pretty fucking clueless about how society works.

But what this little to-and-fro has proved is that our resident right-wingers don’t like having their style of rhetoric thrown back at them, not one little bit.

I’m afraid all it’s proved is that you’re either a moron or a tit. Or both, of course.

“I’m afraid all it’s proved is that you’re either a moron or a tit. Or both, of course.”

What a rational response. Tnx for rising to the bait, though.

@A&E charge nurse – I’m not really following your second point (about the blurring of human rights and political correctness).

You didn’t follow the point I made earlier about the blurring of “political correctness” with “things you don’t like”, either, because – and I’m trying to be polite about this, but there’s really no way to say it without sounding like a dick, correct as it is – you clearly don’t know the difference between human rights, political correctness and thingsyoudon’tlike. More reading required, I’m afraid.

Our problem here is a constant feedback loop. We have a tabloid media that makes profit by enraging the public. It enrages the public by making them afraid of paedos and political correctness. The public then transmit that fear and their desire for “somebody” to “do something” to the political classes, via pollsters. The political class respond with unworkable database programs and idiotic security rules. When these unworkable and idiotic databases and rules inevitably fail or throw up incidents like the teachers and your camcorder, these incidents are then reported back to the public by a tabloid media that makes profit by enraging the public with fearmongering about paedos and political correctness etc. etc. and so on, until everyone’s gone loopy.

And as if this wasn’t bad enough, we now have a sobbing, blubbering gaggle of right wing fruitcakes bleating about how they’re not allowed to talk about immigration in the pages of the highest-circulating newspapers in the land. They’re on the radio whimpering OMG, you can’t even call the blacks a load of freeloading criminals and call for them all to be deported to Africa without being called a bigot; their talking points are being echoed at all levels of society, and they’re still telling everyone how oppressed and marginalised they are. Right here, we have a load of right wing commenters explaining the exact circumstances in which it is or isn’t acceptable to use the word “racism”.

It’s political correctness gone mad, alright. Just not in the way we were led to expect it.

Well she might still think that the additional money required for language tuition would be better spent on her child.
Would that be unreasonable?

Your simplistic view of workers and bosses rather ignores the large number of self-employed.
Most tradesmen are self-employed.
An immigrant plumber will happily offer a lower rate – no “magic” about it – that’s how they win the clients.

Is telling possible BNP voters “you’re pretty fucking clueless about how society works” likely to help?

@60 & 68: There is also the important question of whether the hypothetical English parent / tradesman exhibits a consistent level of concern about these issues without regard to the race or nationality of the hypothetical non-English-speakers / tradesmen, or whether their concern only manifests itself with regard to specific groups.

“Is telling possible BNP voters “you’re pretty fucking clueless about how society works” likely to help?”

Well, that seems to be the right’s general response when, say, some union goes on strike.

I’m not sure if it helps though, no.

[71] you clearly don’t know the difference between human rights, political correctness and thingsyoudon’tlike.

Sounds like there is a list somewhere – is it available to everybody or does it just exist in your head?

‘Yes, I seem to remember that sorry incident, Shatterface – the question is how much blame should be attached to the Mail and Sun for it?’

Hard to say where the cycle starts but I’m betting that today’s headline in The Sun isn’t ‘Murders fall by 17%’ and that any MP who points to this statistic is jeered at.

Btw, Phillip Pullman, Anne Fine and Michael Morpurgo have joined the protest.

On the other hand Fine wrote a book about a bloke who dressed as a woman to get near his kids, and that IS a bit creepy

What a rational response. Tnx for rising to the bait, though

Well, since during this thread you were either genuinely not capable of understanding a very simple point, or deliberately pretending not to in order to be obnoxious, a perfectly rational deduction is that either you are a moron, or you are a tit. Based on reason that is.

@cjcjc

Well she might still think that the additional money required for language tuition would be better spent on her child…Would that be unreasonable?

Yes. Yes it would.

Sounds like there is a list somewhere – is it available to everybody or does it just exist in your head?

Better living by Wiki –

Political Correctness – language code theoretically intended to eliminate prejudice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Human Rights – In Britain, legal protection from state excesses and arbitrary treatment by officials, enforceable in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights; See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

[76] and William Leith complained in the Mail that children’s books tended to portray men as useless.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1190141/Why-sons-books-tell-men-useless.html

Is this political correctness or ‘thingsyoudon’tlike’?

I have no idea – I eagerly await Flying Rodents list.

Agree 100% with you Re School pollicy, A&E – and Shatter.

I also find the whole PC debate(?) on smoking one that that throws the odd curve ball.

I remember as a kid we used to have ‘candy sticks’ with a little red bit on the front and that was the lead into a life of smoking. Not banned but the red bit was removed and the packaging changed – OK. Kids STILL put them in their mouths and pretend to smoke – if that kills a PC angel well all well and good.

It didn’t stop the uptake on smokes. But here now there is a R rating for films where people smoke – they cannot be shown until after 10pm at night on TV, and new films have to hace that ‘R’ rating, not even the old B&W films, and the flavoured cigarillos have been banned – and all tobacco products are behind grey blinds.

Do note I am a smoker and I would welcome the frigging things being banned – make it a damn-sight easier for me to give up.

Well all that is good – but why oh why, if all this hiding the evil smokes has to come about don’t politicians have the balls to say they will ban smoking once and for all? I know it is about the tax take but still – it is becoming tedious!

If smoking and tobacco became a controlled substance how are those films showing someone smoking – in B&W going to get them to start smoking?

If you believe that PCism isn’t driven by tabloids then – well, I just don’t know what to say – because it is. What is worse is that a section of the Middle class take it to extremes, as always, and then when their “oh I didn’t mean it to be like this baby” come back to bite them on the arse they bitch like there is no tomorrow.

That section of the middle class are the middle Englanders who Dave and Gordy want to both get everyone to emulate and listen to – I have a simple saying for them – “fuck off!”

[79] Ahh – Wikipedia – say no more

@Tim J

Since my aim was to get one of the resident righties to admonish me for using a word in a politically-incorrect fashion, and you leapt into the role with both feet (despite my not exactly being subtle about it), well… Perhaps you need to wind your neck in a little, eh?

“[79] Ahh – Wikipedia – say no more”

You could follow the links.

@the a&e charge nurse

Is this political correctness or ‘thingsyoudon’tlike’?

Neither – it’s most probably bollocks.

[84] Did you Neil – If so I admire your reading speed.
FR posted at 3:13 you responded 3 mins later – I make that one minute to read and digest each item.
Or less, assuming your post took a minute or so to type and send?

I didn’t, no – but I didn’t dismiss it with ‘tsch! wikipedia’, either. I take it you won’t be back again until you’ve read it all? Jolly good. See you.

[5] I’ll get back to you in a minute Kid Penfold – I’m just checking the oracle (aka wikipedia) for classification status.

By the way do you have a link for the meaning of ‘bollocks’ – I dare say FR will accuse me of not understanding what it means …….. ta

[87] Interesting, Neil – there is only one reliable source that MUST be read – I must admit I didn’t know that

Since my aim was to get one of the resident righties to admonish me for using a word in a politically-incorrect fashion, and you leapt into the role with both feet (despite my not exactly being subtle about it), well… Perhaps you need to wind your neck in a little, eh?

I see. Definitely a moron then. My point was explicitly not that you were using the word in a politically-incorrect fashion, but that tim f’s view that all opposition to immigration was intrinsically racist made any debate on the subject impossible. Try and keep up.

@89: Well, I’d have thought the European Court of Human Rights’ documents on the European Convention on Human Rights would be a good place to read up on the European Convention on Human Rights, yes.

#31

I went to great pains to avoid calling people racists directly, because I appreciate it causes offence and over-defensiveness. But if people want to discuss immigration controls with me without at any point discussing racism, then no, that’s not going to happen. But equally, that doesn’t happen because I want to shut down debate, it happens because I believe immigration controls are racist. Should I really censor my views to cater to the majority?

My original point was that different people have different definitions of what racism is, and we’re going to have to be sensible about that if we want to have a debate. For me it means not compromising on my view that immigration controls and the ideology that supports them are racist, but not shouting “RACIST!!!” at everyone who disagrees. For others it might mean not being offended when I, on a slightly different definition of racism than some other people might use, describe an ideology as racist. After all, isn’t being over-sensitive about what words people use to describe you normally described as political correctness?!

Tim J says that my position on the issue makes it hard to have a debate. Well maybe, but I’m not backing away from one, and I’m sure you can see how ridiculous it would be to claim that both a) there’s no debate in this country because supporters of immigration won’t have one, [referring back to the issues the original post dealt with], and b) I won’t have a debate because tim f’s position on immigration isn’t one I feel I can debate with!

also, in response to:

“No, think about it. Tim f is opposed to any restrictions on immigration because they would be intrinsically racist. Any argument you make counter to his position will be dismissed as being because, knowingly or otherwise, you are racist.”

That’s not true. For a start, if I think everyone is influenced by undercurrents of racism (including me) then I would be stupid to dismiss people immediately because racism had influenced their views in some way. But anyway, I can disagree with someone’s position without dismissing it, and I can listen to and appreciate someone’s concerns without necessarily agreeing with the solution they advocate. I can agree that some employers use migrants to drive down wages, and that the experience of the worker who’s discussing that with me holds true and that they haven’t somehow fabricated it. But I might argue that a certain level of migration is inevitable under any system other than Stalinism and that employers will always do this, that even with lower migration they would just use other groups of workers (perhaps younger, less experienced people for example) to drive down wages and that the only way to deal with it is unionising migrant workers and a higher minimum wage. And just because I believe immigration controls and support of them are based on racism, doesn’t mean I think that there can never ever be any difficulties or challenges which arise because of immigration.

Like I said, Tim, wind your neck in. You’re blabbering now.

TimJ, that is.

On the other hand Neil if you wanted to know about the NHS I could direct you to the ‘NHS charter’ but some might say it is mostly bollocks (to use Kid Penfold’s phrase) and offers nothing in the way of analysis or context.
http://www.newinnsurgery.co.uk/nhscharter.htm

But thanks for the advice.

Yes, but it would be a good document to read if someone asked me ‘what does the NHS charter say’, wouldn’t it?

Is it racist that I don’t want to be known as British and I do want to be known as English? Or is that nationalist – I get confused.

I thought we were discussing the complexities of meaning/attribution – in my opinion these things cannot be defined by a wikipedia page or summary of a legislative framework.

[97 Have you tried the wikipedia page Will?

@Will Rhodes – I’m getting the feeling it’s probably best not to ask questions today.

#97 I’d say if you insisted everyone else who’s English defined themselves that way instead of as British, or if you formulated a political programme based on the concept of Englishness, it’d be nationalist. If it’s just the way you choose to self-define then it’s merely personal preference. Personally I’d think of myself as British, then English, but as a Yorkshireman before either of them.

93 – Not sure there’s anything useful to add to this. You’re either too stupid to understand what I say, or too disingenuous to engage with it.

“Not sure there’s anything useful to add to this.”

But yet… You did!

Fish in a barrel, mate. Fish in a barrel.

‘My original point was that different people have different definitions of what racism is, and we’re going to have to be sensible about that if we want to have a debate.’

And from your own statistics, 2% of the population define the word ‘racist’ the way you do, so if you want to join in the debate with a wider public you ought to learn the language. I’m sure there is funding available for an ESOL course.

Look, if you automatically define controls on immigration as ‘racist’ you can’t be persuaded that your opponants might have a valid case unless you accept an argument that you – not they – regard as inherantly racist.

THEY may be persuaded to open the borders by a reasonable economic argument, or by a moral case, but YOU cannot budge without redefining yourself as a racist.

That’s dogma, not principle.

A&E -

I tried wiki but it just came back and told me that I liked Robin Hood. O_o

tim –

As a Yorkshireman I agree – but that has its flaws, I am also a Man Utd fan – and that does irk some.

Tim f – what I was getting at is that it seems as though your opposition to opponents of immigration (grammar…) is based (at least partly) on the belief that opposition to immigration is inherently racist, even if the proponents aren’t consciously aware of it.

Can’t you see that there is no way to argue against this? How are you supposed to demonstrate that your views aren’t *unconsciously* based on racism?

“if you want to join in the debate with a wider public you ought to learn the language.”

Don’t try to impose your tyrannical speech code on me… etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Tim J -

tim f said that his argument is against immigration controls, which he sees as racist, not immigration or lack of immigration or those who say immigration should be stemmed or not – as the case may be.

On that I can see both sides of the argument. A jobsworth is as bad as a bent copper.

#104

“if you automatically define controls on immigration as ‘racist’ you can’t be persuaded that your opponants might have a valid case unless you accept an argument that you – not they – regard as inherantly racist”

That much is true, but so what? People have all kinds of debates without changing their fundamental opinion. That’s like, the whole point of the internet, and stuff. After all, right-wingers say they want a debate on immigration when what they mean is they want the government to adopt their views. They don’t seriously think they’ll change their minds.

And as I’ve already said, debating with others might not lead me to change my overall opinion, but their experiences and views might challenge me in a way which leads me to have to refine my arguments on my own terms, or provide alternative solutions to social problems where the popular “solution” is to somehow have less immigration. So even if my overall view is not going to be changed, it’s still worthwhile for me debating the subject, and not just from a point of view of changing other people’s opinions.

Logically it’s even possible that if I accepted that immigration caused some huge social problem that could not be rectified without reinforcing immigration controls, I would accept the racist alternative as the least worst option, although that is admittedly unlikely.

As for using the majority definition, of course there aren’t just two definitions, there are many. But fortunately I like you and most people can hold two ideas in my head at once, so there’s nothing to stop me making arguments both on other people’s terms and putting my own views forward too.

The point is, immigration controls are racist on the standard definition of the term, which is something like “the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races”.

It’s just that, because racism is BAD and people generally define themselves as GOOD, they fail to notice that their opposition to immigration stems primarily from this impulse.

(why else should someone with the misfortune to be born in Somalia not have the right to come here and be given the same chances in life as someone with the good fortune to be born in Milton Keynes?)

As Shatterface, the class clown, is calling people ‘retards’ upthread, let me point out that anyone using that word is trying to laugh at someone else’s stupidity but is in fact just demonstrating their own.

I do rather wonder what kind of adult wakes up and thinks ‘another beautiful day, and I can call people on the internet spastics or retards!’ It seems like a pretty tragic way to live.

…clicked too soon, oops.

Any negative impact of immigration on British people is offset massively by its positive impact on the immigrants. So the only reason you can object to it is if you think that the welfare of British people matters more than the welfare of non-British people. That’s pretty damn close to, if not actually on, ‘members of one race are intrinsically superior…’.

“doesn’t mean I think that there can never ever be any difficulties or challenges which arise because of immigration.”

And does it not occur to you that people may favour immigration controls because of these difficulties and challenges?

#106

“Can’t you see that there is no way to argue against this? How are you supposed to demonstrate that your views aren’t *unconsciously* based on racism?”

You can’t, but why does it matter? If I can’t demonstrate in any way that immigration controls are racist or that that ideology supporting them is in some way racist then whether there is an unconscious racism underlying the ideology of those who support them or not I’m not going to persuade anyone that they should be abolished on account of being racist.

“(why else should someone with the misfortune to be born in Somalia not have the right to come here and be given the same chances in life as someone with the good fortune to be born in Milton Keynes?)”

What do you think would happen if millions of people from the third world entered Britain over the next few years?

“”Any negative impact of immigration on British people is offset massively by its positive impact on the immigrants. So the only reason you can object to it is if you think that the welfare of British people matters more than the welfare of non-British people. That’s pretty damn close to, if not actually on, ‘members of one race are intrinsically superior…’.”

Or maybe people just happen to feel a natural loyalty to and empathy with those who they are more familiar with? Remember that millions of British people are of a different race to the white majority. They would also suffer from mass immigration. It isn’t something that would only harm the supposedly racist whites.

Another example – imagine your child and your neghbour’s child were drowining. You can only save one. Chances are you will save your own, not because you believe it’s superior but because it’s yours.

john b – can you name ANY country that does not either implicitly or explicitly favour the indigenous population?

I’m wracking my brains but can’t think of one – presumably this means every country in the world is racist?

I assume the antidote is to abolish nationalities altogether since this seems to be the main driver underpinning such faulty logic?

I was going to make a small comment on the article, but reading the first 116 comments destroyed my will to live. Carry on.

same chances in life as someone with the good fortune to be born in Milton Keynes?

Are you drunk!?

Or maybe people just happen to feel a natural loyalty to and empathy with those who they are more familiar with

Quite.

Remember that millions of British people are of a different race to the white majority.

Race isn’t identically equal to skin colour. “I hate the French” is a racist statement, even if you’re using to include French people of African descent.

presumably this means every country in the world is racist?

*Most of the people in* every country in the world are racist, yes.

@118, not yet, sadly. And yes, obviously I picked Milton Keynes for amusement value.

@A&E Nurse,

Right, against my better judgement, I’m going to assume you’re asking for definitions in good faith here. Here’s the shortest summary of these I can muster.

The term “Political correctness” has its origins in Commie doctrine, but the sense in which it actually had any clout in the world at large – to cut a very long and boring story short – comes from academic movements in the United States. They believed that society could eliminate racial, national and gender stereotypes by making racist, sexist etc. epithets socially unacceptable – hence the reason why early jokes about PC were about how bald men are “follically-challenged” and fatties were “Salad-deficient” etc. etc. rather than about how the Muslims would run Britain by 2027.

This caught on in popular culture, to the point where it’s now socially unacceptable to call someone a nigger on national television, as Big Ron Atkinson found out to his cost. I have basic issues with attempts of social engineering of this kind, but given that the root idea was “People should try not to be cunts to each other for no reason”, and that the most notable effect has been that people generally refrain from, say, calling Pakistanis “Pakis” to their faces, I don’t have a major problem with it.

This is the species of “political correctness” that Don Paskini – remember him? – is talking about, except the right-wing version – right-wingers instructing their critics on the forms of criticism that are politically acceptable, while slogging through the newspapers for stories to be horribly offended by.

Then we come to the Daily Mail version of “Political Correctness”, which is basically a load of made-up horseshit about schools banning Baa-Baa-Black-Sheep and black bin bags. It’s then tied into a general narrative about how the world has gone to Hell because “right-on trendy lefties” won’t let people talk about immigration in the Daily Mail, which never talks about immigration, ever. This is how we wound up with thousands of slow learners believing that violent computer games are political correctness gone mad and that sex education for schoolchildren is political correctness gone mad and that every time a female MP opens her mouth to do anything other than call for the ethnic cleansing of London it’s political correctness gone mad.

This is what you’re talking about – some fuck-stupid rule or regulation instituted by the government in the naive belief that it’ll appease the type of cretin who believes everything they read in the paper. Not that it does appease them, ever, since said rule or regulation is inevitably a total fuck-up and is reported, not as a misguided attempt to please the nation’s most skittish idiots, but as political correctness gone mad.

I would like to add that the tabloids don’t do this to win votes for the Tories; they don’t do it to speak truth to power and they don’t do it because they want to show their readership what it’s really like out there. They do it because they know their readership love nothing more than being offended and outraged, and the more offended they are, the more papers they buy, meaning even more money for the tabloids. They do it because Lies + Credulous, Angry People = Money.

Now, do you really want to know what human rights are, or are you happy to accept the (reasonably well-written and impartial) Wiki article I linked above?

“I hate the French” is a racist statement

Why? The French are not a different race they are a different nationality.

“*Most of the people in* every country in the world are racist, yes.”

ZOMFG, you can’t call them ‘racist’ John!

(I’m not sure what you can call it, because no-one actually bothered to answer *that* question)

#113

Absolutely, and I was waiting for someone to say that!
But that’s bound to be the case – obviously I don’t think most people support immigration controls because they think they’re racist and think racism is a good thing.

the following responses are still possible in that case – a) immigration controls are racist and won’t help solve those problems, or b) immigration controls are racist and may help solve those problems but it would be better to look for non-racist solutions, or c) immigration controls are racist and there are no other solutions, so you have a choice between a racist solution and no solution at all

“Or maybe people just happen to feel a natural loyalty to and empathy with those who they are more familiar with? …

Another example – imagine your child and your neghbour’s child were drowining. You can only save one. Chances are you will save your own, not because you believe it’s superior but because it’s yours.”

For what it’s worth, people could’ve used the same argument 40 years ago to discriminate between white and black people, which pretty much everyone now accepts is racist. And I don’t accept that just because it feels natural something is right, because ideologies that nearly everyone would accept are racist feel natural to some people.

For what it’s worth, people could’ve used the same argument 40 years ago to discriminate between white and black people, which pretty much everyone now accepts is racist. And I don’t accept that just because it feels natural something is right, because ideologies that nearly everyone would accept are racist feel natural to some people.

So it’s not ‘right’ to prefer ones’ own children to other peoples’? This is getting a little odd.

And we’d managed to have an honest and civilised discussion up to this point. Nevermind.

Do you really want me to go into that, or can we just accept that the relationship between you and your child, and you and other people who have similar-coloured skin or a similar nationality to you is a completely different kind of relationship and not sufficiently comparable to extrapolate directly from one to the other?

Don, Neil and Flying Rodent – passim – epic demolition of political incorrectness. Nothing much to add to your trenchant diagnosis of right wing whining but the vague memory of the band Madness reforming to do a Green concert, and Armando Ianucci commenting

It’s Madness Gone Politically Correct

PS. This is a great blog, but when are you going to get some up to date software like the US political blogs?

Tim J, I think the ‘thought experiment’ deliberately confuses ties of family (save my kid!) with racial affinities – the sleight of hand is in using the emotional pull of one’s hypothetical offspring for one of the choices rather than offering the choice between,say, a black child and a white child who are both drowning.

“Tim J, I think the ‘thought experiment’ deliberately confuses ties of family (save my kid!) with racial affinities ”

OK, let’s mofidy it. Instead of your child, your best friend. Or someone you know who lives in your local area vs a complete stranger (assuming person from local area isn’t a paedophile etc).

It’s still not a fair experiment, if it involves someone you know. After all, if it was someone you know from a foreign country, you would be more likely to save them than a complete stranger from your area.

A fair comparison would be whether you’d save a complete stranger of your nationality or a complete stranger who is otherwise identical from another nationality from drowning. And I should’ve thought that eliminating any racism from the situation, it should be 50/50.

The whole “Political Correctness” thing is just a right wing scam to shut down criticism of bigotry and allow bigoted ideas to be accepted more easily. Everyone knows that.

Priceless! Nothing like the issue of political correctness to attract an infestation of trolls.

The Rights has it’s own version of political correctness. They use it in areas of life like business and the Military. Company down sizing is just a politically correct way of saying we are going to sack loads of workers and throw them on the dole. In fact, most of business speak is nothing more than right wing political correctness. When the Right changed the term of unemployment to ‘jobs seekers allowance,’ or the rates became ‘the community charge it was just right wing political correctness.

‘Collateral damage’ is a classic piece of right wing polical correctness. Instead of saying “we missed the target and rather than hitting the army base we actually hit the village and blew to pieces innocent civilians.” Just say the magic words ‘collateral damage’ and it does not sound so bad. It just slides of the tongue.

Another form of Right wing political correctness is to hide behind the term ‘standards and decency.’ The very people who get worked up about jokes about The Royal family are the very same who have no problem doing jokes about blacks or woman or gays . No one was more politically correct than Mary Whitehouse. It always amuses me when these pompous fools get up and say “we will have no political correctness here. “ Oh yea? Let me do a few jokes about the Queen Mother or Thatcher and then just watch their heads go all red and explode.

Whether “retards” is an improvement on filth is, perhaps, a matter of taste.

@122: “Why? The French are not a different race they are a different nationality.”

As with much of this discussion, it rather depends on definition. If you took one usage of “race”, as a synonym for “species”, then a white man saying “I hate black men” is nonsensical as both are equally homo sapiens.

Once you broaden “race” out into its normal definition, heritable characteristics, it becomes more difficult. While they are genetically similar, there could well be some small difference found between the English and French (increased resistance to a strain of bacteria, say), that would render them separate races.

Once you use the widest definition, “self-identification”, all bets are off.

Terry Jones’s defence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is indeed filthy – and why haven’t we had a stirring Jones article in praise of Mr Ahmadinejad’s statesmanlike behaviour in Tehran?

But I’d be ashamed to ever use a derogatory term for the mentally disabled, and anyone seeking to stir up an old row between myself and Justin McKeating ought to grow up a little and remember that Justin and I worked very well together in campaigning for Iraqi employees, which is about the only time that UK bloggers have ever achieved anything to help real human beings.

and why haven’t we had a stirring Jones article in praise of Mr Ahmadinejad’s statesmanlike behaviour in Tehran?

That’s a very good question Dan, a very good question indeed, though perhaps lacking a little by way of accurate characterisation, much like “an old row between myself and Justin McKeating” in that respect.

There was indeed a row. Several months later I emailed Justin McKeating and asked for his help with the Iraqi Employees campaign, and I got all the help I asked for and more. As I’ve said in public and private, I was deeply impressed by how generously he reacted, and the campaign actually helped to get people asylum in the UK.

But if anybody else wants to try and reignite a quarrel that ended two years ago, join ejh in the playground. I’ve no quarrel with Justin and he’s got none with me.

I’ve no quarrel with Justin and he’s got none with me

You might not Dan, and he might not: but reading that thread (and perhaps a couple of others) I think there may be other people who have cause to be unconvinced as to your commitment to intelligent and insult-free discussion. Do you not think?

This exchange, by the way, is the one and only reason I can think for for breaking my self-imposed rule of ‘don’t feed the ejh troll’.

Call me what you want, but I am deeply grateful for the way Justin McKeating responded when i asked him for help and I’m not allowing anyone to try to stir up trouble between us. What a way for a grown man to behave.

Nobody is seeking to stir up trouble between you and Justin, Dan, and you know very well that this is the case. If you’ve settled with him (in an affair which did you no credit and him no discredit) then that’s good and I’m pleased to hear it. My concern, as you’re well aware and as anybody who reads that thread is aware, is the apologies outstanding, on your part, for the abuse you threw at other individuals on various forums and threads including the one cited.

This is my last comment tonight, and my last comment on this thread unless something even more poisonous appears overnight. My apologies to the post author and to the other commenters on this thread that I am taking up space responding to this obsessive and unpleasant personal vendetta from ejh, but I’m not letting anyone try to stir up a quarrel that ended *two years ago* between myself and Justin McKeating.

He’s a good guy who helped me get some endangered people to the UK- though not as many as we wanted. The sight of Justin Horton, a grown man who spends a silly amount of his time hurling insults at people on comments threads, demanding apologies because someone called him names back on a thread is silly beyond belief. I’ve had a drink with John Band, who was one of my opponents on that thread, and I’ll gladly buy one for Justin McKeating for the help he gave me and the Iraqis.

But the silly little man who is still screeching about a two-year old comment thread where he didn’t have things his own way can carry on doing so. This level of self-pity and obsession would be appalling in a teenager, Horton, and you are a grown man.Act like one.

a grown man who spends a silly amount of his time hurling insults at people on comments threads

It’s possible that this is the most spectacular example of projection I have seen all year.

Neil, just a note to say well done mate in your dealing with the trolls.

Well played youth!

Sunny or Robert, if you want to delete this ridiculous thread-within-a-thread which has sidetracked the discussion of the post, go right ahead. Robert- fair point about open source, though I know that was a while ago now.

[121] PC is more straightforward than you imply, Flying Rodent.

It divides people into two main groups.

Those who presume (mainly on the basis of superior intelligence and knowledge) that they can impose a world view that will make the world a better place (I can’t help noticing that your post is littered with words like cretins, etc) – for example, we are presently trying to export western liberalism to places like Iraq and Afghanistan with somewhat mixed results.

Then there are those who side with ‘Alex’ in ‘Clockwork Orange’ – in other words those who believe a person is not fully human unless he is FREE to choose, even if he chooses badly (or sociopathically in Alex’s case).

Now I’m sure various protagonists will try to exploit PC for their own multifarious motives (both left and right) – of course newspapers of all stripe will be at the forefront, after all that’s exactly what newspapers do, we all know that.
While some will take issue simply on the grounds that one person’s ‘better world’ is perceived by others as an infringement of their personal liberty (both liberty of thought and action).

You cite the public humiliation and vilification of Big Ron as an example of PC in action.
Indeed, for the exponents of PC perhaps this was a valedictory moment when the use of the wrong word finally proved to have dire consequences – even for jewelry clad football managers.
On the other hand, Ron, like the rest of us was a product of the culture he was brought up in (at least to a certain extent) and obviously it is easier to sacrifice an aging TV celebrity rather than address the sinister, perennial and largely impervious reasons groups find to dislike each other (a la Israel and Palestine).
So it’s not hard to see why some might advocate Orwellian newspeak if it provides a potential solution to such intractable problems?

The logical end point is for PC (and western liberalism) to be rolled out across the globe then the entire world would presumably be a much better and less abusive place

I suppose a fly in the ointment might be the machiavellian newspapers and the legion of ‘cretins’ who read them

obviously it is easier to sacrifice an aging TV celebrity rather than address the sinister, perennial and largely impervious reasons groups find to dislike each other

I don’t really understand this. Firstly, why would doing the former in any way impede the latter? Secondly, what should the TV channel have done about Ron Atkinson, do you think?

Ben’s official statement on political correctness: People should be free to say what they feel. Other people should be free to criticise/not commission them.

Your lack of military experience is showing, Shatterface.

As is the difficulty of backing up the allegation in #148.

I wouldn’t like to be Shatterface’s lawyer this weekend!

‘Your lack of military experience is showing, Shatterface.’

Yes, I’ve never killed anyone, black or white, and unless Dan is in his 80’s he’s never fought in a war worthy of earning my respect.

‘As is the difficulty of backing up the allegation in #148.’

I’m not sure there’s a substantive difference between defending rapist-soldiers and putting them beyond criticism by civilians.

[153] – if sacking Big Ron exemplifies the zenith of PC (rather than a fairer, more tolerant society) then it tends to reflect its rather limited benefit, not to mention the latent paranoia inherent in such an ideology (because it assumes groups cannot work out boundaries for themselves).

PC is also in danger of producing blanket responses to problems (real or imagined) such as the £64 authors have to stump up to promote their own books, sorry work with kids in school.

What would I have done about the abuse dished out to Marcelle Desailly – sack him of course but then I’m an LFC supporter and medallion man used to manage Man U.

“Yes, I’ve never killed anyone, black or white, and unless Dan is in his 80’s he’s never fought in a war worthy of earning my respect.”

What of the salvation of British citizens from the loathsome Argies?

Thanks everyone for the, um, wide ranging discussion.

Just on immigration controls – they probably are racist (particularly if you look at some of the reasons why many of the controls were introduced over the last half century), but scrapping all immigration controls is still a really bad idea. I appreciate this is slightly nuanced and therefore people who like dealing in absolutes find it uncomfortable, but there’s lots of things like that in the real world.

And as for the argument that if someone says something which most people disagree, then they are ’stifling debate’…a perfect example of political incorrectness gone mad.

‘What of the salvation of British citizens from the loathsome Argies?’

Well, if he helped slaughter 14 year old conscripts to defend a penguin sanctuary, that’s different.

Respek due.

160 – “PC is also in danger of producing blanket responses to problems (real or imagined) such as the £64 authors have to stump up to promote their own books, sorry work with kids in school.”

Nothing to do with political correctness, the charge is a response to the Soham murders. An independent review was set up and recommended, amongst other things, that “New arrangements should be introduced requiring those who wish to work with children, or vulnerable adults, to be registered.” i.e. it was in response to those who demanded that Something Must Be Done to prevent anyone like Iain Huntley ever being able to work with kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Safeguarding_Authority

@A&E Nurse

It divides people into two main groups.

Yes, yes, the egghead smarty-pants with their snooty blog comments and the honest, commonsensical types straining against their ivory-tower overlords.

BenSix nails it here – I strongly advocate people saying what they think and facing other people’s criticism for it. In Big Ron’s case, I’m fairly certain that the general consensus was less Martyr to the PC totalitarians than it was Ho, ho, what a twat. I think it’s also pretty hard to make a case that more racist insults on the airwaves represent a mighty blow struck for free inquiry.

PC is also in danger of producing blanket responses to problems… such as the £64 authors have to stump up to promote their own books, sorry work with kids in school.

For the third or fourth time, this is not political correctness, any more than city centre surveillance cameras are political correctness. Continuing to pretend it is won’t make it any different, although it is pretty annoying. This is the inevitable result of an insanely hysterical press and a craven poll-watching, government. Even if the tabloids stopped openly lying to their readership tomorrow, it’d take years to get this kind of Scare>>Overreaction>>Scare rubbish out of politics.

donpaskini: ‘just on immigration controls – they probably are racist (particularly if you look at some of the reasons why many of the controls were introduced over the last half century), but scrapping all immigration controls is still a really bad idea’

This is where calling immigration control ‘racist’ leads: you’ve stated that such controls are racist but gone on to say they should not be scrapped: in effect, you are accepting ‘racist’ policies.

[164] 7yrs ago two children were murdered in Soham – today we learn some of our best known children’s authors must stump up £64 for a CRB check (if they wish to carry on working with school children).

Now you might be right, Don – maybe the Independent Review was so spineless that a few angry tabloid readers were able to intimidate the panel into taking such a crazy decision?
A rather belated and pointless action mind you, overlooking a 7 year window when a rogue author might have been having his evil way behind the teachers back?

On the other hand perhaps one of the unintended consequences of PC is the sort of landscape that seems to have evolved were the authorities are in a state of hypervigilance imagining that a bogeyman is lurking behind every corner (a problem that can only be dealt with by a raft of edicts and diktats such as the insulting and belated CRB check).

How reassuring it must be to blame the Daily Mail readers for this abysmal state of affairs?

I missed this gem from Letters from a Tory:

“From your list of newspapers and parties, do you notice which key organisation was missing from the list of those who have raised the issue in the past few years? Did you spot it? Did you? Well, in case you didn’t, the BRITISH GOVERNMENT is not on your list.”

By ‘not raised the issue’, he appears to mean ‘has introduced new laws on the issue almost every year for a decade’.

“This is where calling immigration control ‘racist’ leads: you’ve stated that such controls are racist but gone on to say they should not be scrapped: in effect, you are accepting ‘racist’ policies.”

So… Change the word! Yes! Problem solved!

But to what?

It’s been a good seven hours and none of the tory geniuses have mustered an answer, so I’ll take this opportunity to ask again: What is the permitted euphemism for discriminating on the basis of nationality?

166 – “This is where calling immigration control ‘racist’ leads: you’ve stated that such controls are racist but gone on to say they should not be scrapped: in effect, you are accepting ‘racist’ policies.”

I don’t think there is any way in the short term of making immigration system entirely non-racist which would not cause enormous harm in the way that scrapping immigration controls would. Over time, I support reforms to make them less discriminatory as part of a wider agenda of reducing the enormous global inequalities in wealth and power.

The alternative is either pretending that immigration controls aren’t at all racist, or that scrapping them wouldn’t have any negative consequences – both of which involve denying the obvious to avoid uncomfortable questions.

167 – “On the other hand perhaps one of the unintended consequences of PC is the sort of landscape that seems to have evolved were the authorities are in a state of hypervigilance imagining that a bogeyman is lurking behind every corner”

I thought PC was about making sure that the bogeymen lurking behind every corner weren’t discriminated against, and were funded by loony left councils to have their own support groups, backed up by the liberal elitists who care more about human rights for bogeymen than about the children?

Frankly, I don’t need lectures on ‘racism’ from someone whose experience of foreign people is largely down the barrel of a gun.

That’s neither here or there. IF you’re going to say someone condoned rape, when it’s based on a bunch of bullshit – then you either retract or you shut the fuck up. It’s really that simple. I don’t give a fuck whether you like the army or not. Same goes for you James. That despicable comment has been deleted.

I haven’t accused anyone of anything. Unlike you, Sunny, I don’t engage in raging speculation over things I know little of (& am actually a fan of Macolm X, as you seemed so interested.

Why does migration get so many hot under the collar?

perhaps one of the unintended consequences of PC is the sort of landscape that seems to have evolved were the authorities are in a state of hypervigilance imagining that a bogeyman is lurking behind every corner…

That could also explain the problem of all the disappearing bees, and those mysterious crop circles. But then, maybe it’s human rights that’s to blame for them, or health and safety regulations.

Jesus – having gone through the thread though I now agree with Kentron above in not having the will to live any more.

A few points. Yes we have some right-wingers on here. Tim J isn’t a complete troll, like chavscum for example, though he does say some stupid things. Nevertheless – can we at least maintain some degree of courtesy? After a few ad hominems I suggest some people just give up after a while of hurling little one-liners at each other. I’ve got to that phase now, and believe me it feels good.

The comments policy is quite clear – though myself and other mods are not always around to enforce.

Libellous comments will obviously be deleted, but so will comments by people who come here merely to call others names. So I’m cleaning up this thread a bit more (apologies to all the screwed up comment numbers).

Otherwise, I thought it was a great blog post Don

LeftOutside – that poster is brilliant. Who did it?

James, thanks.

‘That’s neither here or there. IF you’re going to say someone condoned rape, when it’s based on a bunch of bullshit – then you either retract or you shut the fuck up. It’s really that simple. I don’t give a fuck whether you like the army or not. Same goes for you James. That despicable comment has been deleted.’

I retract my accusation that Dan condoned rape but I stick by my claim that his argument that only those who have served in the military can judge those who have served in the military.

That view is utterly unacceptable in a democracy.

Aww, I’d thought ad hominem one liners of any sort were ‘on topic’ for this article How am I going to get more comments than Paul Kingsnorth if the editor keeps deleting comments just for breaching the comments policy?

On a different note, I am delighted to see that Laurie’s excellent piece on the family attracted another prime example of whiny, poor me conservatism:

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/07/15/hypocrisy-and-the-conservative-family-fetish/#comment-54486

Thanks to the cultural marxists, TORIES are the new victims!

Sunny, thank you for getting rid of the libellous comment by Shatterface. He’s done a pretty good job of discrediting himself here, and he’s a pretty good example of why bigotry is so unpleasant and so sad at the same time. If you’re a deeply insecure person you need someone to despise. Any white idiot can feel like a superman if he tells himself he’s superior to all ‘Pakis’ and anyone of low intelligence can feel big by mouthing off about ‘retards’.

Can we please take one thing away from this for future comments threads?

I actually did a libel course for my day job recently (I’m a reservist, guys). Something qualifies quite clearly as libel if it is a) an assertion of fact, not an expression of opinion; b) untrue; and c) defamatory. Shatterface’s comment was all three.

This is something to bear in mind, because under British libel law the editors and owners of a website are legally accountable for all comment on the site, even if they take the comment down rapidly.

If the same comment had been made about someone hostile to Liberal Conspiracy, then it’s quite likely that he might have sued for libel, and unfortunately in this case there would not have been a defence. Shatterface is probably beyond reasoning, but can everybody else please try to stay away from libel, because it will be Sunny and Robert who end up getting sued, not you.

As for ejh, I have long had a rule not to respond to his comments. I broke that rule on this occasion to make it plain that there is no silly feud between myself and Justin McKeating, but with that done the rule is back in place. I think that’s actually best for ejh- do something useful with your time, man, rather than these flamewars. Still, if he wants to frantically demand apologies for having received some harsh words in a comments thread two years ago, it’s his life and he can choose to waste it in obsessive self-righteousness. That’s me done for this thread.

“LeftOutside – that poster is brilliant. Who did it?”

I’ve heard rumours that it was Banksy… although I think it might be a fairly old pro-immigrant campaigning poster as well. Everyone loves Paddington don’t they? I’ve got a banksy book around somewhere I might have a look.

All in all, I bloody love it.

Eh up, summat up a’tmill, that must’av plenty a’brass lad if thi bannah shart a’bart libel.

Just my opinion, of course.

Don – there’s plenty of life left still in this post
Though I’m not going to tolerate the continuation of flame wars, hence more comments have been deleted.
Left Outside – thanks.

Apparently, Migration is not a crime, is not a Banksy

Ok, frankly I don’t have to pay that much attention to what you guys think about libel law – especially since I’m the one who has to fork out for the hosting and will be held liable if something goes to court. That really applies across the board.

But this isn’t all about the law – this is about the sort of atmosphere I prefer to encourage in the comments threads. For that reason there is a stringent comments policy and that’s helped LC develop a better culture of conversation than CIF or most other blogs.
Now – you lot are the community and I can’t really force you to behave. However I will have to exercise my judgement when comments go over the line (as they did) or when a thread descends into ad-hominem stupidity (as it did). I’ve pointed out in the past I will do this so I hope no one is surprised. A discussion about the character of the person who calls ‘libel’ or who is worth suing or not worth suing is neither here nor there. You’re all welcome to discuss that in a thread about libel law.

(thanks Left Outside)

Maybe we should simply conclude by quoting the original article then?

‘Political correctness is sometimes caricatured as people being oversensitive and trying to prevent anyone from being able to criticise them or their arguments’

You know, looking back over this thread, I recall what is unarguably the greatest PC scam on the internet – the idea that wrong and frankly ignorant propositions are every bit as valid as solidly-researched and well-considered ones, and that attempts to say otherwise are yet more evidence of elitist PC attempts to throttle debate.

Christ, at least left-wing PC was a well-meant and partially successful attempt to convince people not to hurl filthy abuse at each other for no reason. Right-wing PC looks like nothing more than a permission slip allowing the dirty-minded ignoramus to act like a hateful arse with total impunity. That explains a lot.

This thread makes some people look pretty vile, myopic and thick.

Which is a shame.

“the idea that wrong and frankly ignorant propositions are every bit as valid as solidly-researched and well-considered ones”

Well, quite. Also note, it’s these choose-my-own-reality types who are most likely to toss around accusations of ‘postmodernism’.

[181] FR said ……… ‘at least left-wing PC was a well-meant’.

Ahh, yes, that always sends a particular chill, an apparently ‘benign’ controlling ideology.

The fact that we have endured one of the most controlling periods of political activity may be entirely co-incidental?
http://www.noliberties.com/trailer.htm

Maybe the effects of PC are entirely linear and do not mushroom with unintended consequences?

And maybe the real culprits for certain excesses are the Daily Mail readers and the jackbooted Health & Safety Nazis and not an intelligentsia who feel the need for greater control over the the thoughts and actions of its minions?

Diminishing racism is a good thing, obviously, just don’t assume PC is the only route – there is always more than one way to skin a cat

The fact that we have endured one of the most controlling periods of political activity may be entirely co-incidental?

Look, I’ve explained my thoughts on what causes daft, authoritarian legislation, and you’ve made no attempt to rebut it beyond continuing to witter about the “unintended consequences of political correctness” – a concept that, as you’ve repeatedly demonstrated, you don’t understand, can’t define and aren’t interested in investigating further.

I named this particular argumentative fallacy myself, so I’m well aware of the futility of arguing against those deploying Kamm’s Gimlet.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/kamms-gimlet.html

Find some faults in what I’ve said, or I’m going to assume that my original conclusion – that you’re wasting my time and yours, to no useful purpose – was entirely correct.

[185] Neither do you FR, at least you provide no evidence that you do.
You link to wikipedia (natch) followed by a self-congratulatory pat on the back perhaps?

OK, well lets take the wiki-item and unpack it a bit shall we?
My contention is that PC is an oppressive ideology with unintended political and social consequences – I dare say from your perspective this will merely amount to another bout of ‘wittering’, but here we go.

First we have a British Ministry of Information official Arnold Bennett who (during WW1) used the expression ‘politically correct’ in vetting language for “appropriateness” – an early hint about the nature of the beast?

Then there is Ruth Perry who traces the term from Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book. The People’s Republic of China banned religions, and allowed only Marxism and Maoism as the politically correct belief systems, thus, being politically incorrect — to contradict Marxism and Maoism — might lead either to jail or to death, or to both. A bit more than health safety, but I digress.

As a linguistic concept PC became infamous for addressing the linguistic problem of naming. Using “inclusive” and “neutral” language is based upon the concept that “language represents thought, and may even control thought” per the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, a language’s grammatical categories shape the speaker’s ideas and actions – typified by Orwellian, newspeak.

Liberal and Left-wing commentators observed that after 1980, right-wing American conservatives re-engineered the term political correctness to ideologically re-frame US politics as a culture war.
Hutton reports: Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism. . . . What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism — by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents — they could discredit the whole political project.
Moreover, the commentators claimed there never was a “Political Correctness movement” in the US, and that many who use the term do so to distract attention from substantive debate about racial, class and gender discrimination and unequal legal treatment.

Right-wing and conservative critics claim that political correctness is a Marxist undermining of Western values. In The Abolition of Britain, Peter Hitchens says: “What Americans describe with the casual phrase . . . ‘political correctness’ is the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation.” William S. Lind and Patrick Buchanan have characterized PC as a technique originated by the Frankfurt School, whose work aimed at undermining Western values, by influencing popular culture through Cultural Marxism. In The Death of the West, Buchanan says: “Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.

So a quick walk through the wiki item yet only the Flying Rodent has a handle on these delicate and complex issues and only he (for it is almost certainly a he) can define exactly when and how such ideas insinuate themselves into everyday life supported by his exciting system of classification (or the PC – health and safety axis if you prefer).

Well done, FR, your exposition on Big Ron is nothing less than a master class on the theoretical origins, application and interpretation of a disparate and evolving set of political ideas and cultural theories – in fact you make it all sound so easy.
I’ll bet there isn’t one big problem in the world that we couldn’t solve if we just listened to you, eh?

I’ll bet there isn’t one big problem in the world that we couldn’t solve if we just listened to you, eh?….

Clearly my powers of persuasion are lacking – I’ve just wasted thousands of words on explaining why incidents like your schoolchildren/camera episode aren’t in any way connected to political correctness, but you’ve just posted the phrase PC – health and safety axis with a straight face.

I said Find some faults and your response is a cut ‘n’ paste followed by Oooh, look at you thinking you’ve got such big brainy brain, Brainiac. See ya.

[187] Thousands of words of (gasp) EXPLANATION !!!!!

No my dear Rodent, there is hardly any explanation at all.
You simply present fait-accompli, then mistakenly assume your position is synonymous with ‘fact’.
Hell, it sounds like you can’t even count if you believe there are “thousands of words on explaining”.

Perhaps you always think in such binary, or simplistic terms?

A causes B (clunk) and does not impact on C or D (unless you say it does, of course).
I can see the attraction of linear explanations but they hardly ever reflect the complexities of linguistic or cultural theory not to mention the way in which they influence institutional behaviour (to return to the frightened school teachers).

Ideas propagate moods my simplistic friend …….. so do try and keep up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article679097.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3346573/School-told-to-drop-its-offensive-saints-name.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/19/adults-children-paranoia-surveillance

Well if Peter Hitchens says so, it must be true.

See that expansive stretch of green and brown stuff next to the wood, Neil?
They’re called trees.

BTW Neil, the Hitchen source was cited in the wiki article – now I seem to recall that it was YOU who insisted I should read it?

What?

see 84

BTW a&e, I never suggested you read the wiki article. I suggested you follow the links in the wiki article to the original sources, such as the ECHR document mentioned earlier.

But don’t let facts like that get in the way of a withering little accusation, eh?

OK, apologies, Neil – but the wiki item does actually contain 60 references (if we go back to the source documents) – that would be a fair amount of reading.

Anyway, that has been my contention all along that the effects of PC are complex and POTENTIALLY both nebulous and far reaching.

“that would be a fair amount of reading”

Well, quite.

Sunny,

I’ve been looking at this conversation with some interest and have added to a few other conversations as well.

Although my opinions differ as I think you are correct only about 50% of the time – I much appreciate you setting up this site and bearing the risks in so doing.

Regards

Kojak

I’m sure that’s a deal breaker.

200 !!

?

I think the best proof I saw of how rightwingers over exaggerate the “threat” to free speech from so-called “political correctness” came from a piece I saw in the Daily Mail, which asked its readers directly if they could supply evidence of how PC had ruined their precious little lives.

The responses were thin on numbers and those that were submitted were utterly feeble.

In other words, not a single contributor could display evidence of how PC had impinged on their liberties.

“Politcial Correctness” is one massive rightwing whinge.

Indeed, it is a made-up thing to beat back equal opportunities.