Is this Racism or PC gone mad?

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I don't like it and think it demeans political discourse - how many homosexual poodles do you know?

This is the trouble with the "monkey" as a symbol people plead moral equivalence in its use against blacks and whites. So why does it not follow that a poodle is just a dog particularly when the person to whom it is directed is straight

I would have thought the issue, if there is one, would've been the use of the term 'mincer'.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I would have thought the issue, if there is one, would've been the use of the term 'mincer'.

I know what I said before but there is also the "sticks and stones" argument as well - bit of maturity would help all round

 

[NoSpinZone]

You have to laugh. Voting in Obama was supposed to herald in a new age for race relations in the US, evidence at last that blacks were accepted as equals. But alas, you still have hypersensitive angry blacks running around looking for anything to get upset about.

Pathetic.

 

[NoSpinZone]

This is boring - is'nt it just good manners to avoid giving offence to others. This is the trouble with the "political correctness gone mad" idea.

If I call a white person in Australia a "coon" or a "boong" it is not equivalent to saying it to a blackfella.

Political correctness is just aimed at not giving offence to towel heads, n-i-g-g-er-s and slant eyed gooks. If political correctness [which is nothing but a right wing wedge term] means that people are too polite to use these terms anymore that is a good thing right?

Or is that political correctness gone mad - and when people use that it is usually code to permit racism. sexism etc.

Using the logical extension of political correctness why is it wrong to use these terms should'nt we be free to use them if we want to .. and would not we have been better off if we had've interred every muslim in Australia after September 11 and if I want to put a swastika on the side of a synagogue - is'nt that just exercising free speech.

The fact is throughout history minorities have always been represented as sub humans - it happened to the Irish, to the Italians when they first came here and to asian people and blacks. If they are offended by a depiction of someone as a monkey why do it?

What a boring world we would live in if we had to tip toe around careful to avoid offending anyone from the million and one minorities we seem to have.

I find many things offensive in life, but you have to learn that it is just part of living in a society full of differences. These morons having their tantrums should just be told to f*** off, get over themselves and move on.

Personally, I find their behaviour offensive.

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

That quote from the wiki article actually backs up my claim that it is not without criticism, and is generally considered a non-PC term.

The term coloured is racist, and you are a racist for using it imo.

You know Karl, you can actually be non-PC and....get this, its gonna blow your mind.....not racist!!!!!

Is your mind going into melt-down now?

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Sorry, on what planet do you think all racists are open about their racism?



Being racist is bad, and anyone who is racist is a bad person. I'm glad there are witch hunts on racists. However, this board is not an example of such a place

You mean people who dont fit into your guide-lines set by the International Political-Correctness Association?

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

In what way did I lie?

Anyway, as for the term 'coloured people', an anchor from NBC was forced to apologise for using the term, even whilst actually discussing it with the NAACP on air, as it is considered racial slang.

http://digg.com/arts_culture/MSNBC_Anchor_Apologizes_for_On_Air_Racial_Slur

No Karl, dont you see?

He is insinuating that you are a jew, and since I dont think he was intending to compliment you, he is implying that jews are bad. You should report to the bloody IPCA!!

Oh no! I just realized that since I myself picked up on it, I must be subconsiously (or according to you, secretly) a RACIST!!

Please dont tell the United Nations Dicrimination League of Harmony and Tolerance!!!!!

 

[Contra Mundum]

What a boring world we would live in if we had to tip toe around careful to avoid offending anyone from the million and one minorities we seem to have.

I find many things offensive in life, but you have to learn that it is just part of living in a society full of differences. These morons having their tantrums should just be told to f*** off, get over themselves and move on.

Personally, I find their behaviour offensive.

Yeh but why purposefully go out of your way to make offense anyway - civility is what seperates us from living like animals or Roberta Williams

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Yeh but why purposefully go out of your way to make offense anyway - civility is what seperates us from living like animals or Roberta Williams

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Its like, I usually use the word "abo" around friends and family, not cos i'm racist, just that its a shit-load easier to use that ab-or-ig-i-nal or in-dig-neous Australians. I mean, i'm aussie FFS, anything more than two syllables is just a waste of breath.

But in saying that, there's no ****ing way I would ever use it around any Indigineous australians, just for the simple fact that it offends them, even if I think it is a bit silly that it does. Same with Paki, or lebo. I mean, why bother? Its not like i'm going out of my way NOT to offend.

 

[medusala]

Political correctness is just aimed at not giving offence to towel heads, n-i-g-g-er-s and slant eyed gooks. If political correctness [which is nothing but a right wing wedge term] means that people are too polite to use these terms anymore that is a good thing right?

No, its an abomination and a deprivation of liberty.

Not only that but its utterly absurd and illogical ie Aussie ok but abo bad, Pom ok but Jap bad etc etc

Using the logical extension of political correctness why is it wrong to use these terms should'nt we be free to use them if we want to .. and would not we have been better off if we had've interred every muslim in Australia after September 11 and if I want to put a swastika on the side of a synagogue - is'nt that just exercising free speech.

No that is graffiti and a property crime. What has interring people got to do with liberty?

You are clutching at straws comrade.

By your argument the Life of Brian should have been banned given its offensive nature to some.

If they are offended by a depiction of someone as a monkey why do it?

Some people are offended by drinking alcohol. Should we stop that so as not to give offence?

I find it quite remarkable that you see freedom from state oppression as a right wing "wedge" issue.

 

[medusala]

Yeh but why purposefully go out of your way to make offense anyway - civility is what seperates us from living like animals or Roberta Williams

Yet there is no standard definition of offence.

Take religion. The vast majority of Christians can accept criticism of their religion.

Certain other religions can't.

Why should religion be immune from criticism? Why would any sane person want blasphemy laws in place?

Why should ideals, people, beliefs etc be beyond criticism?

How is that logical?

 

[skipper kelly]

The fact is throughout history minorities have always been represented as sub humans - it happened to the Irish, to the Italians when they first came here and to asian people and blacks. If they are offended by a depiction of someone as a monkey why do it?

What about 'rednecks'? Ive never heard it used as a compliment. The word is used to describe 'white trash'. Oh theres another one. Or in Australia they are called 'bogans'. Once again neither are complimentary.

Anyway at least I have been enlightened that 'coloured people' is no good but 'people of colour' is fine. Personally I prefer the term 'people' but hey Im probably a racist. Well I definitely am going by the criteria in this thread.

 

[NoSpinZone]

Yeh but why purposefully go out of your way to make offense anyway - civility is what seperates us from living like animals or Roberta Williams

Of course there should be limits, I agree with you there. But there is also an onus on people not to go out of their way to be offended. There are a number of ways that the cartoon can be interpreted, so why take the most negative one then get all angry. These people really need to get a life.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Why should religion be immune from criticism? Why would any sane person want blasphemy laws in place?

Why should ideals, people, beliefs etc be beyond criticism?

How is that logical?

You've got a good point there, meds. NOTHING should be exempt from scrutiny, or criticism where it's warranted. Manners & common sense should prevail in everyday life though. Meds, would you;

*Go up to a Vietnamese girl and start shouting 'Gook' to her?

*Go up to an African bloke and start doing ape impersonations?

I know that lampooning white caucasian stereotypes is seen as inoffensive while the onus is put on us (I'm speaking as a white caucasian here) not to lampoon different cultures, and this dosen't help matters.

There should be mutual respect all round. Thing is, how can we decide what's done in good humour and what's done in malice?

 

[medusala]

You've got a good point there, meds. NOTHING should be exempt from scrutiny, or criticism where it's warranted. Manners & common sense should prevail in everyday life though.

I totally agree. I have zero time for those utter knobs who think its ok to use their mobile phone in a restaurant or on public transport.

However, that is a world away from thinking the govt must put out a huge and lengthy decree detailing what is and is not civil behaviour.

Who is to decide? Do you trust a cardigan wearer in Canberra? An extremist like Gillard? A rampant God botherer like Tony Abbott?

There should be mutual respect all round.

You can't legislate for respect any more than you can legislate away fear and greed.

Never ceases to amaze me that there are those who think you can.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I totally agree. I have zero time for those utter knobs who think its ok to use their mobile phone in a restaurant or on public transport.

However, that is a world away from thinking the govt must put out a huge and lengthy decree detailing what is and is not civil behaviour.

Who is to decide? Do you trust a cardigan wearer in Canberra? An extremist like Gillard? A rampant God botherer like Tony Abbott?



You can't legislate for respect any more than you can legislate away fear and greed.

Never ceases to amaze me that there are those who think you can.

I agree but Governments can set the mood particularly by obstaining from dog whistling

 

[Cap]

A rampant God botherer like Tony Abbott?

what the hell is a God botherer?

I don't think that can actually occur.

 

[medusala]

I agree but Governments can set the mood particularly by obstaining from dog whistling

Abstaining does not require legislation.

Why limit freedom?

It is a very small step as we have seen from racial and religious vilification type muppetry to censorship of the internet.

People are perfectly capable of behaving in a civil manner towards each other without the government sticking its nose in.

In the cases where it isn't eg racial / religious tension, do you really think legislation will remove animosity as per the tennis?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

What about 'rednecks'? Ive never heard it used as a compliment. The word is used to describe 'white trash'. Oh theres another one. Or in Australia they are called 'bogans'. Once again neither are complimentary.

Anyway at least I have been enlightened that 'coloured people' is no good but 'people of colour' is fine. Personally I prefer the term 'people' but hey Im probably a racist. Well I definitely am going by the criteria in this thread.

Is that similar to 'The Peoples' Front of Judea?' or is it more in line with 'The Judeans' People Front?'

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Racism

I agree. Racism.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Murdoch ended up apologising over it and admitting it was insensitive, for anyone still interested.

 

[fairdinkum]

Murdoch ended up apologising over it and admitting it was insensitive, for anyone still interested.

Why, do you suppose, did he do that?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Why, do you suppose, did he do that?

Because, as I supposed early on in the thread, he saw how even if the comic wasnt' deliberately or malisciously racist, that it was very insensitive and showed a huge ignorance of race relations in the United States.

 

[fairdinkum]

Because, as I supposed early on in the thread, he saw how even if the comic wasnt' deliberately or malisciously racist, that it was very insensitive and showed a huge ignorance of race relations in the United States.

Nothing to do with $$$, then?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Nothing to do with $$$, then?

Hard to say, I'm just accepting his apology on face value.