You know what grinds my gears, political correctness. Here is a random list of goings on that just make me want to eat my own arm to distract me from the frustration of having to share the planet with people responsible for such ridiculousness. We seem to have become afraid of being human.
Mother Goose has been seriously abridged: Baa Baa Black Sheep are now Rainbow Sheep, Little Red Riding Hood reasons with the wolf and Humpty Dumpty does put himself back together.
Programmes like 7th Heaven are endorsed by parents councils yet these shows encourage abstinence before marriage so that all the characters marry before 20, discourage family planning and believe the woman’s place is in the home.
Cookie Monster now eats vegetables as well as a moderate amount of cookies.
Our compensation culture stopping children from running in playgrounds.
No same sex unions to protect the sanctity of marriage while Britney Spears can marry and divorce over night as a joke.
The term non-nationals: the most non-descript term possible, it’s ok to use the term immigrants you know.
Dr. Phil.
Janet Jackson’s performance at the Superbowl knocks the war in Iraq off the front pages.
Straight white males are the only group of people who can be discriminated against, masculinity is now a word for obnoxiousness and immorality.
_4.jpg){kind=link}
7 comments:
Changing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" was ridiculous...it's a sheep for godsake, same with poor Cookie Monster...one of my old favourites...how could they, shame, shame. All in all though (7th Heaven and religious nuttery excluded)political correctness is a good thing. It causes people to stop and check themselves before they say or think something misogynist, racist etc. That reaction allows them to think about what they were going to say and it's effect on others. Without it much of the sexism and racism of yesteryear would still be a feature of everyday life. Baa Baa Black Sheep may not be offensive but "eeny meeny miny mo, catch a nigger by the toe" is and kids would be better off without it.
Good post CK. I remember a sketch on BBC a while back by some guy i think called guigeli or something. Anyway it went something like.#
Years ago we used to be able to throw our rubbish out the window at mental handicaped people now we can't. It is PC gone mad
abhcóide, political correctness is not a good thing, at least in its present form. It is getting ridiculous under Labour's ultra-pc rule in Britain - a police officer was suspended recently for calling a repeat offender "pond scum" on the grounds that the criminal's feelings could have been hurt. In that atmosphere idiots like the BNP thrive because no other party will say anything against, say, illegal immigrants for fear of being labeled as "racists". My reason for focusing on Britain is that what happens there happens here eventually. Racist, sexist and homophobic speech is abhorent, but allowing people to say what they think is the cornerstone of democracy and 99.9% of people are smart enough to ignore stupid opinions when they hear them.
I am all for tolerance and awareness but I certainly don't want my understanding and acceptance of difference and other people to be given a label that distinguishes me from an unacceptable norm. Acknowledging that we need political correctness only gives substance to a righteousness and preaching that for me undermines what should simply be common decency.
Common decency would, like western civilisation (to paraphrase Ghandi) be a good idea. We not living in a utopia unfortunately rules (even if they are social mores - political correctness under an old name) are sometimes necessary. An interesting debate would be the necessity or otherwise of Germany's free speech laws, particularly the group defamation provisions and those which ban holocaust denial. When is speech dangerous? Is unlimited free speech preferable in all cases? The American approach is pretty much that all speech is protected (some exceptions) even flag burning. The extreme side of this is that cross-burning can only be prohibited if "an intention to intimitade" can be proved by the State.
The US also recognises free speech rights for legal persons, i.e. corporations (United Bank of Boston case). One criticim of which would be attaching the whole panopoly of free speech rights to a corporation fails to recognise that the wealth of a corporation may give it enormous power, perhaps having a silencing effect on the speech of others...
or "intimidate" rather...am tired...not enough work done today I'm afraid.
Post a Comment