Is political correctness a good thing? More specifically is reasonless positive discrimination (the kind that so often seems to happen in today's politically correct society) a good thing?
You'll note that I used the word "reasonless" ... that is because I do favour discrimination under certain circumstances and I'll give an example:
I have a friend who is a fireman, in the UK (and I suspect it's much the same in other countries) firemen work in pairs, "buddies" and each is expected to look after their partner in the event that one of them goes down. To cut a long story short my friend complained to me that they had bypassed the height/weight/fitness standards to allow a number of women that didn't fulfil them into the career. Now I'm all for equality in principle but there are some things some people are better equipped for than others (that's just the way of the world) and typically a man is capable of carrying more and of being more physically fit than women and not only does this cause issues with respect to a person's ability to lug the heavy fire-equipment into dangerous situations but, unless these women are of a reasonable physical equivalence to their male "buddies" (perhaps "built like a brick sh**house" as we say in the UK) there is a very significant risk that they can actually endanger their buddy if, in the event their partner is incapacitated, they are unable to get their buddy out of danger. Positive discrimination of this kind is a sign that political correctness is being carried way too far.
Another example reported in the UK media "Metro" was the story of a UK Police cook who was employed for breakfast duties where he/she was expected to cook breakfast for Police coming on and off duty. It detailed how the man had been on leave with pay for 6 months pending a tribunal because he claimed he could not cook bacon (pork) for religious reasons ... further research into indicates the man was hired as a senior catering manager with an assurance he would not have to cook pork products and organisational changes resulted in him being put in a situation where he was asked to cook them and refused. Though I'm not big on the stupidities of various religions I actually support this man inasmuch as his original contract stated how he would be employed and, having been under such pressure myself and having seen others buckle to it, I don't believe employers should ever be able to change the terms and conditions of employment without the agreement of the employee. Had the man in question changed his views on cooking pork (for religious reasons or otherwise) in his employment or disingenuously gained employment and then complained I would feel different but on the basis of the facts available to me I support him. Most interesting to me about this case is that the Metro report implicitly branded this man or the situation as wrong by leaving out some of the information, a little more research and I found a report in "The Daily Mail", somewhat to my surprise given that it is sometimes referred to as "The Daily Heil" (one of many cynical nicknames) on account of its political stance, which implied the employer to be in the wrong.
Other examples in the media were of a Muslim taxi driver who refused to carry a passenger because she had purchased alcohol, US medical centre staff such as receptionists (go figure) can refuse someone medical treatment or advise them to go elsewhere on the grounds of their religious/philosophical beliefs and that UK supermarket chain Sainsbury's now allows for tellers to call a colleague over if they are philosophically/religiously unable to sell alcohol.
Most recently my own child came home telling us that her teacher said there was one word (the "n" word) which she considered worse than any other and would not explain why. Now, quite apart from the fact that I disagree over her branding of a given word as the most offensive, I can see that there might be an argument WRT to the appropriateness of age but in principle I do not believe any word should be shunned to that degree and, education being IMO the key, believe she should have explained after all how will future generations know that a given word is not acceptable if they have no idea why?
It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I am not particularly keen on political correctness and broadly speaking I believe you shouldn't choose to do a job or apply for a job that you know your own philosophical/religious views will prevent you doing effectively and if your views change in service to make you incompatible with that role you should seek reasonable accommodation with your employer if possible but ultimately find employment elsewhere if you can't because, with the best will in the world (and I'm no fan of the corporates or employers generally these days), it can't be their fault.
I dislike political correctness ... that's not to say that I go around abusing social niceties at every opportunity, I just feel that such things should be a matter of education and not restriction, that (in essence) it should be my decision as to whether I use a specific word or not and that is I, not someone else, who should decide whether I can or cannot say what I say.
Kyu
You'll note that I used the word "reasonless" ... that is because I do favour discrimination under certain circumstances and I'll give an example:
I have a friend who is a fireman, in the UK (and I suspect it's much the same in other countries) firemen work in pairs, "buddies" and each is expected to look after their partner in the event that one of them goes down. To cut a long story short my friend complained to me that they had bypassed the height/weight/fitness standards to allow a number of women that didn't fulfil them into the career. Now I'm all for equality in principle but there are some things some people are better equipped for than others (that's just the way of the world) and typically a man is capable of carrying more and of being more physically fit than women and not only does this cause issues with respect to a person's ability to lug the heavy fire-equipment into dangerous situations but, unless these women are of a reasonable physical equivalence to their male "buddies" (perhaps "built like a brick sh**house" as we say in the UK) there is a very significant risk that they can actually endanger their buddy if, in the event their partner is incapacitated, they are unable to get their buddy out of danger. Positive discrimination of this kind is a sign that political correctness is being carried way too far.
Another example reported in the UK media "Metro" was the story of a UK Police cook who was employed for breakfast duties where he/she was expected to cook breakfast for Police coming on and off duty. It detailed how the man had been on leave with pay for 6 months pending a tribunal because he claimed he could not cook bacon (pork) for religious reasons ... further research into indicates the man was hired as a senior catering manager with an assurance he would not have to cook pork products and organisational changes resulted in him being put in a situation where he was asked to cook them and refused. Though I'm not big on the stupidities of various religions I actually support this man inasmuch as his original contract stated how he would be employed and, having been under such pressure myself and having seen others buckle to it, I don't believe employers should ever be able to change the terms and conditions of employment without the agreement of the employee. Had the man in question changed his views on cooking pork (for religious reasons or otherwise) in his employment or disingenuously gained employment and then complained I would feel different but on the basis of the facts available to me I support him. Most interesting to me about this case is that the Metro report implicitly branded this man or the situation as wrong by leaving out some of the information, a little more research and I found a report in "The Daily Mail", somewhat to my surprise given that it is sometimes referred to as "The Daily Heil" (one of many cynical nicknames) on account of its political stance, which implied the employer to be in the wrong.
Other examples in the media were of a Muslim taxi driver who refused to carry a passenger because she had purchased alcohol, US medical centre staff such as receptionists (go figure) can refuse someone medical treatment or advise them to go elsewhere on the grounds of their religious/philosophical beliefs and that UK supermarket chain Sainsbury's now allows for tellers to call a colleague over if they are philosophically/religiously unable to sell alcohol.
Most recently my own child came home telling us that her teacher said there was one word (the "n" word) which she considered worse than any other and would not explain why. Now, quite apart from the fact that I disagree over her branding of a given word as the most offensive, I can see that there might be an argument WRT to the appropriateness of age but in principle I do not believe any word should be shunned to that degree and, education being IMO the key, believe she should have explained after all how will future generations know that a given word is not acceptable if they have no idea why?
It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I am not particularly keen on political correctness and broadly speaking I believe you shouldn't choose to do a job or apply for a job that you know your own philosophical/religious views will prevent you doing effectively and if your views change in service to make you incompatible with that role you should seek reasonable accommodation with your employer if possible but ultimately find employment elsewhere if you can't because, with the best will in the world (and I'm no fan of the corporates or employers generally these days), it can't be their fault.
I dislike political correctness ... that's not to say that I go around abusing social niceties at every opportunity, I just feel that such things should be a matter of education and not restriction, that (in essence) it should be my decision as to whether I use a specific word or not and that is I, not someone else, who should decide whether I can or cannot say what I say.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
