It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As an aside to the previous discussion about social media, it is in this area that I do not want to be 'surveilled'. Unbeknownst to many, social media is tracked (even when tracking is turned off) and governments do have access to what the user thinks is 'private'.
So I don't use social media much if at all (I'm not that interesting to begin with, and I can't be bothered with what someone has done during the day or the myriad 'selfies' that are populating these sites).
I don't mind them around certain areas like public transportation, malls, ATM's or high security places. Not a fan of them on highways.
Start with a song, a couple of gags then finish with my tribute to lady
Gaga.
Cheese :D
Yep! I think he was! :))
</b>Are you annoyed by the current emphasis on being PC?</font>
Don't let the far left's hijacking of this rhetoric cloud your judgement. It's a pretty touchy subject, but it's not as clear cut as being right or wrong. Most people don't actually understand what political correctness is, or its origins.
This bit of stand up is about 8 years old now, but is still very relevant and unequivocally brilliant. Particularly the bit about Richard Littlejohn, who for those non-Brits is your typical right-wing bigot.
My opinions on Political correctness aren't formed by the left and right. I don't really follow politics until election season, but when PC elicits Censorship that's where it crosses the line.
It's not an easy answer.
No
I'm not annoyed that PC has stopped bigots from making unsubstantiated, ignorant remarks in public about people they just happen not to like, or who are different from them, or who don't fit their narrow minded view of the world. In that respect, PC is a definite benefit, because it limits the ability for people to spew hatred at other people without any basis in fact - it especially protects minorities of all kinds (whether it be gays, racial minorities, or people with disabilities). These are all good things. It also prevents stereotyping.
Yes
I am annoyed that PC sometimes prevents us from saying things that are factual, just for fear of hurting someone. That is quite different from making a statement that is blatantly incorrect or not based in fact (as noted in the previous paragraph).
I am a big believer in free speech, and freedom of expression, as long as the statements are factual and not designed to provoke or incite hatred.
Balancing that freedom of expression (which I support) with the possibility of offence is tricky however, and not easy. People have varying degrees of sensitivity, and take umbrage to different things, even if they are factually correct.
So in these cases (when a statement is based in fact), is the person who is aggrieved then at fault for taking offence? Or is it the the one doing the so called 'offending' who is at fault?
From my point of view, it depends on how the offensive factual remark was delivered.
1. Has it actually caused anger or is one just worried about causing potential offence?
2. If it riled, was it a genuine mistake?
2. If it offended, was there an actual intention to provoke or annoy?
3. If it angered, was there a history of such statements that could cause offence by the deliverer?
4. Most importantly, what was the tone in which the statement was delivered?
So I think it's a matter of context and tone, whether facts are available to support the statement, and whether it actually caused disgust.
As an example:
1. calling someone whose origins are from Africa or the Caribbean the 'n' word is wrong and PC is correct in this instance. The statement is intended to insult and will do so.
2. calling someone whose origins are from south east Asia the 'p' word is also wrong, and once again PC is correct. The statement is also intended to disrespect and will do so.
3. calling muslims terrorists or stating that they have a predilection for terrorism or violence is factually incorrect (given the % of peaceful muslims in existence vs. the number of violent ones) and PC is also correct in preventing this. The statement is ignorant (lacking in fact) and is intended to defame.
4. however, hypothesizing that the shortage of women in science and engineering could be explained by innate biological differences in mathematical ability based on standard deviation analysis is not factually incorrect and yet the then president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, was forced to resign over it. Summers should have perhaps qualified his hypothesis by saying it remains to be seen, but I don't think he should have had to resign over it - it may have offended, but it is not incorrect, and the intention was not to offend.
5. saying that there are aspects of the Quran that encourage violence which should be disowned by moderates (given some murders are being committed in the name of Islam) is also not factually incorrect. The statement is likely to offend, but it is up to the offended in this case to show why it is wrong imo.
6. Renaming Christmas trees in some US schools to "Holiday" trees to avoid causing potential offence to non-Christians is wrong. The holiday is Christmas and it should be called a Christmas tree.
7. Renaming blackboards to chalkboards to potentially avoid offending is also going too far imo - which some schools have done.
Overall I think PC is a good thing. Difficult question really.
Indeed it's not a simple matter. PC has its positives, but also obvious negatives. The perpetual state of being offended by something is not a good thing, but the media certainly laps it up. The moral outrage over anything and everything is tiring and infuriating. It's good to have some guidelines so that all sorts of crazies can't just say anything without any consequences, but too much control and policing is not good either and is harmful, too.
Is blandness the only way forward? I hope not.
I disagree with @Bondjames on some points:
1. There is no scientific research that supports the assertion that men have an innate or natural ability to be better at math and science than women. Summers shouldn't have been canned for suggesting it, but it was a reckless statement. What instead may be true is that boys and girls encounter gender biases that provide males an advantage in learning math and science at an earlier age. This is cultural, rather than biological.
2. The Christmas Tree / Holiday Tree controversy is borne out of the separation of church and state issues our country has. Again, for 200+ years, white Christians got the notion that their religion was the law of the land, when, in fact, that whole idea violated the Constitution and the framers' ideas about the nation. Heck, Christians STILL think they have some "right" to place themselves and their beliefs over anyone and anything else, and some members of the current SCOTUS have unfortunately begun to agree with them. Point is, the resistance to the terms "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday Trees" is a lack of acceptance on the part of Christians that their belief is just that: a belief. Furthermore, wishing someone "Happy Holidays" is just tactically smart, and any business owner would agree. Play it safe. Respect all religions, and acknowledge that we celebrate an entire "Holiday" season from Thanksgiving to New Year's Day. Funny, but Christians want to say "Merry Christmas" for three weeks, prior to when Christmas even takes place. We don't wish people a "Happy Easter" "Happy Fourth" weeks in advance. So why is this the case with Christmas?
Rant over.
In a nutshell, he observed that even if on average, they were the same, there is increased variability on the boy's side (higher and lower). That is a fact. It was misprepresented in the media, misunderstood amongst certain groups, and he paid for it.
As I suggested earlier, he should have been more careful with his remarks, but his statement was not wrong. It was not inaccurate. I don't think it was intended to offend. However I agree that it was careless given his position, as it was apt to be misunderstood.
I remember being surprised when the furor erupted, because I expected that in a respected academic institution such as Harvard, people should be able to put forth a hypothesis based on accurate observations without being unjustly vilified. So I think this is an example of PC going too far.
Regarding the Christmas tree thing, yes, I agree that there may be a sense of entitlement among some about their holiday, and I agree that it makes better business sense to say "Happy Holidays", but that does not make saying "Merry Christmas" wrong either.
My point actually was about renaming the Christmas tree to a Holiday tree, which has occurred in some schools. That is PC going too far imo.
This happens all the time, with all sorts of stuff. It's frustrating and at times infuriating. Sometimes I get the impression that media is not even interested in correctly reporting, but rather in creating a Story. Misrepresenting opinions is very easy. Take out the context or "simplify" what is said and you very quickly have a quite different opinion - no longer that of the person who said it, though... but they're the ones who will get the shit for it. And quite often trying to explain what they actually said and meant doesn't work, because many people still go with the misrepresentation that took place earlier, and just think "oh, now he's trying to backpedal..."
Funny how I was just having some discussion on that type of situation. That guy we were talking about won't be losing his job, thank goodness, different type of position, but anyway... I like people having opinions that may not be entirely PC, and not being afraid to voice them, and being able to back them up. It's also ok, if people disagree. But all this business of being offended... It should be possible to have discussion and different opinions without being offended so easily. The person I was talking with went "but he used these words, so it's his fault if people misunderstood, he should be more careful", and my position was that no, if media ignores the context and just picks out some words they are seriously misrepresenting what the guy really said, even though yes, he used those words, but the whole meaning gets distorted if words are out of context and most of what he said is ignored. It seemed obvious to me he didn't mean to offend, and certainly wasn't ignorant of what he was talking about, either.
Another guy gave a very un-PC interview for which he got shit, of course, and later apologized, and seeing some quotes I thought, ok, looks kinda bad, but since I like this guy I want to read the interview to get the full picture. So I searched and found and and read, and while it was indeed un-PC (quite refreshing I though), the stuff that had been taken out of context didn't seem that bad to me in the interview and I found myself agreeing with most of what he said. I thought it was ridiculous he had to apologize for it. He'll probably never now get the Oscar he should have gotten ages ago. I hope he'll keep getting good work, though.
I actually liked him even more after reading that interview.
:D
But I guess I go by this most of the time. I try to keep things to myself unless I have something productive to say to someone. I'm against personal attacks or insults obviously, but I don't think its necessary to sugarcoat everything.
(just joshing!)
I have mixed thoughts on this. I will write more later; not time just now.
And about that fella that lead a huge scientific organisation and him telling that women are less, women are not less and saying that for somebody in his position is a sackable offense in my book. What is factual is that the scientific world is quite conservative and as such still dominated by a male group.