Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,915
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Being told that genital preference is a form of discrimination seems to be something now. Increasingly gay people are accused of bigotry or transphobia if they refuse to accept sexual attraction to those who have transitioned into the appropriate gender
From what I've seen it's a minority view and tbh I've seen a lot more people complain about it than actually saying it I the first place.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
88,991
Location
Centreback

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
88,991
Location
Centreback
What is the article wrong about?
It is the Mail. They make it out as if children are being forced to watch as opposed to the makers saying what minimum age they would reccomend based on guidelines. After that parents can choose. Typical Mail beat up.
 

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
Being told that genital preference is a form of discrimination seems to be something now. Increasingly gay people are accused of bigotry or transphobia if they refuse to accept sexual attraction to those who have transitioned into the appropriate gender
I’m not sure it’s happening on any sort of meaningful scale but genuinely the best way to deal with freaks like that (if they actually exist) would be to just tell them ‘alright I’m a transphobic bigot…now feck off!’
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,902
It is the Mail. They make it out as if children are being forced to watch as opposed to the makers saying what minimum age they would reccomend based on guidelines. After that parents can choose. Typical Mail beat up.
They're not though. The article specifically mentions that the show's title is deliberately provocative so that people know what's gonna happen.

It's the Mail. They know their audience, they know this article will create outrage. But they're not making it out as if kids are forced.
 

Eyepopper

Lowering the tone since 2006
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
66,928
They're not though. The article specifically mentions that the show's title is deliberately provocative so that people know what's gonna happen.

It's the Mail. They know their audience, they know this article will create outrage. But they're not making it out as if kids are forced.
BenCooperisaGod wrote: 'If my kids teacher got naked to teach them about sexual pleasure, I would have a few choice words and be onto OFSTED faster than you could say where's my cod piece.
Other Mumsnet users branded it 'grooming in plain sight' and called for the police to intervene and picket lines to be set up.
:lol:

Or, you know, maybe don't bring your kids then?
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,950
Location
Chair
Yes. You only have to look at how Stonewall itself are increasingly critical of the term ‘same-sex attraction’.
Because a lot of lesbian, gay and bi people are in fact attracted to people who have transitioned, so "same-sex attraction" could be a bit of a misnomer.

In my experience, what's being labeled transphobic is categorically stating that you would never be attracted to a trans person. You don't really know that, do you?
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,408
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Lesbians being accused of transphobia if they balk at cock. I’ve no idea if this is a real issue or not but people who argue about this shit on Twitter are obsessed by it.
Ah ok, I suspected it might be that but it sounded too ridiculous a thing to accuse someone of bigotry over. Plus the sentence was unclear.

I guess if you're a lesbian who falls for a trans woman who still has a schlong it must be 'confusing' as Alan Partridge put it.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,408
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,632
Rich was a post-doc in Sabatini's lab.

funnily enough there is a former student of his who did go on the record, and she wasn't mentioned in this article at all, not sure why.

ground-breaking research takes a backseat to an ideal of social purity, and that subjective truth is the only truth that matters.
with david sabatini, we have lost the current otto warburg. and today, as we speak, modern-day current da vinci has been hit by the wokeistan.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,771
I don't know anything about that case, but the author of that article has a very distinct history in choice of topics, it seems.
The complaint can be read here (pdf). It's long, 52 pages. What should come as no surprise, however, is that it includes a lot of stuff this author forgot to mention.
 

Grylte

"nothing wrong with some friendly incest, bro"
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
14,006
I'm not usually into rap, but was randomly suggested this one yesterday.
The guy nails it.

 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,559
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
I'm not usually into rap, but was randomly suggested this one yesterday.
The guy nails it.

He sings facts dont care about your feelings.

Lost me there :lol:

Wait why is he saying we're ashamed to be American. He's Canadian.
 
Last edited:

Grylte

"nothing wrong with some friendly incest, bro"
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
14,006
What, exactly, is it you think he nails?
That woke and cancel culture are getting out of hand.
The fact that many of these words can barely be mentioned before you're accused of being racist or somethingphobe.
I saw a reaction to it on youtube, and the so called reactor had a reaction because he said... can't remember which it was, but she said "no you can't sing that" - she didn't even consider what he said, just that he said a certain word or sentence.

I liked the "it's not hate speech, it's speech that you hate" - part. If you disagree about one of the touchy subject, you're automatically anti that.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,386
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
That woke and cancel culture are getting out of hand.
The fact that many of these words can barely be mentioned before you're accused of being racist or somethingphobe.
I saw a reaction to it on youtube, and the so called reactor had a reaction because he said... can't remember which it was, but she said "no you can't sing that" - she didn't even consider what he said, just that he said a certain word or sentence.

I liked the "it's not hate speech, it's speech that you hate" - part. If you disagree about one of the touchy subject, you're automatically anti that.
For those of us who didn't listen to the song, what words are really fine to say but get you accused of being racist these days?

It has to be said that watching reaction videos is the lowest of low-hanging fruit. You might as well go into YouTube comment sections to form an opinion on cancel culture. It's literally meaningless.
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,950
Location
Chair
That woke and cancel culture are getting out of hand.
The fact that many of these words can barely be mentioned before you're accused of being racist or somethingphobe.
I saw a reaction to it on youtube, and the so called reactor had a reaction because he said... can't remember which it was, but she said "no you can't sing that" - she didn't even consider what he said, just that he said a certain word or sentence.

I liked the "it's not hate speech, it's speech that you hate" - part. If you disagree about one of the touchy subject, you're automatically anti that.
Which words? He just claims things you say get labeled homophobic or racist. It's completely meaningless on it's own. Given that it's Tom MacDonald, it's pretty safe to assume that most of those things are actually homophobic or racist.

There's a line in the song which, given that he's a reactionary right-wing dipshit, can only really be read as him thinking famous people being exposed as sexpests and rapists is a bad thing.

The "facts" he keeps alluding to are definitely right wing conspiracy theories regarding covid, vaccines and the 2020 US presidential elections.

He also claims US police are underfunded. Yeah.

Then there's his roundabout way of saying "aLl liVeS mAtTEr"

The line's actually "there's a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate." Technically true, I guess, but what's he referring to? What speech is erroneously labeled hate speech?

Whole song's just a bunch of whining about vaguely defined grievances, much like all whining about SJWs, PC gone mad and wokeism is.
 

UweBein

Creator of the Worst Analogy on the Internet.
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,729
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
Rich was a post-doc in Sabatini's lab.

No sympathy from me here.
He was in a realtionship that went south. It happens.
However, it's always tricky with that kind of a power distance.
 

Suedesi

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
23,873
Location
New York City
Seeing as that is quite literally only one (extraordinarily long) side of the story, it seems fair enough to gloss over a lot of the content.
This case is about David Sabatini, M.D., Ph.D. (“Sabatini” or “Counter-Claim Defendant”), a tenured professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), who – up to the summer of 2021 – believed himself so important and so influential that, no matter what his misconduct, he would suffer no consequences.

If the rest of this counterclaim sounds like the opening paragraph, then it's probably a bunch of faff.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,386
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
This case is about David Sabatini, M.D., Ph.D. (“Sabatini” or “Counter-Claim Defendant”), a tenured professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), who – up to the summer of 2021 – believed himself so important and so influential that, no matter what his misconduct, he would suffer no consequences.

If the rest of this counterclaim sounds like the opening paragraph, then it's probably a bunch of faff.
Is that your professional opinion, your honor?
 

Eyepopper

Lowering the tone since 2006
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
66,928
“Let’s address ‘Could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now?’” said Hanks. “No, and rightly so. The whole point of Philadelphia was don’t be afraid. One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man. We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.”
Thoughts on this?

Presumably, by equal measure, gay guys should no longer be accepting straight roles or something?

Serial killer movies to become a thing of the past due to the inavailabilty of actors with multiple murder convictions.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,902
Thoughts on this?

Presumably, by equal measure, gay guys should no longer be accepting straight roles or something?

Serial killer movies to become a thing of the past due to the inavailabilty of actors with multiple murder convictions.
I think it's a non-problem. I'm fine with straight actors playing a gay role. Hanks was very good in that movie, why would it be 'wrong' to replicate that today?