I agree that there are biological differences between the sexes; that is obvious and indisputable; but I think each individual manifests a balance of gender characteristics. The human condition is not as simplistic as to be able to say that all men are, or should be, all masculine and all women are, or should be, all feminine.

I think the social and cultural gender roles are not fixed; they can change, should change and do change in accordance with the times. So while it's maybe right to say that roles in relationship should be "complementary", I would take that in the sense, not of fixed complementaries, but in the sense of roles being supplementary to each other; each providing the necessities for life that the other does not. But there's nothing wrong, for example, if the man takes care of the house and looks after the children while the woman works, if that arrangement suits a particular couple; or if the roles are not fixed in a situation, but switching back and forth. for example.

" People being discriminated against on account of who they are" means that they are ostracized (which means being cast out to some degree from the human circle in the sense that they are not accorded the same rights as the majority) on the basis of behaviors that are natural expressions of their natures; where the behavior in question is not of a criminal character. I shall have more to say about this in my reply to andrewk

If we are going to debate about PC I think it helps to give an account of the kinds of ways in which it steps outside the bounds of its usefulness as a social corrective and really does stifle debates that really should be had. For me and example of this would be that those who disagree with the militant actions of Israel, or think that it was a bad idea to restore the homeland to the Jews are accused of being anti-semites.

I don't have children, and I'm not gay; in fact to be honest the thought of having sex with a man disgusts me; but the thought of eating certain foods also disgusts me, and I no more expect others to be disgusted about homosexual sex, than I expect them to be disgusted by the thought of eating those foods that I happen to find disgusting. So, I can't see any rational grounds to diminish the accordance of civil rights to anybody on account of their sexual preferences (provided they don't include children or minors, as defined by our laws) and that would include the right to marry under civil law.

In view of this, what I see as, inalienable right that consenting adults have to do whatever they jointly consent to I cannot see any moral judgement being passed on such activities as rationally warranted, and as being anything other than an expression of simple prejudice, and hence bigoted. I don't believe this has anything more to do with how the debate has been framed in the case of homosexual marriage than it would be if the question was about whether, for example, coloured people should be allowed to marry.

Now you might want to argue that even if one does feel sexually attracted only to those of one's own gender, that one does not have to express that attraction by acting on it; by I think this is a bogus argument because it is unreasonable to expect someone to suppress the expression of their sexuality unless such an expression would be of a criminal nature. Who wants to live without sex? And the important question is: who should be expected to? Only, I would argue, pedophiles (if they cannot be attracted to anyone who is not a child) because in that case the projected sexual partner is not qualified to consent.

Don't you feel that rests on an assumption that one chooses what one believes? If so, do you think that assumption is defensible? — andrewk

I believe that one can choose what to believe; in fact I believe that one's present beliefs are the result of many past small more or less rational decisions about what to accept and what to reject. So, one cannot change one's significant beliefs in an instant, but significant beliefs are the outcome of one's freedom. And one can always choose for other reasons to act contrary to one's genuine beliefs; and this would usually be counted as immoral (unless one's genuine beliefs are anti-social).

If one cannot choose what to believe then one cannot really choose any action at all; which would mean that one is never responsible for one's actions. But even under this presumption we still must ostracize those whose actions are criminal or anti-social; and I would say that the promotion of vilification based on unreasonable condemnation of the non-criminal behavior of others would be a case of at least anti-social, if not criminal, behavior.

In view of this, what I see as, inalienable right that consenting adults have to do whatever they jointly consent to I cannot see any moral judgement being passed on such activities as rationally warranted, and as being anything other than an expression of simple prejudice, and hence bigoted. — John

That is 'what consenting adults do in private'. The argument when homosexual acts were de-criminalised was that society had no business policing what individuals do in private. That is perfectly fair. But same-sex marriage is another matter. What it amounts to is that that public approval is now compulsory. It's not enough to live and let live; we are required to approve. Because, that is a moral judgement, and one that we will all be compelled to accept!

I agree that nobody chooses to be gay; and I also believe that anyone who is, has a right to express themselves as they see fit; it's a free society, and we can be glad of that. But they can't command me to agree. So if my 'not agreeing' amounts to 'bigotry', then so be it.

Baden - there's a very low bar for homophobia, which you immediately classify with racism. It illustrates the point - agreement or ostracism, there is no space for dissent. — Wayfarer

I don't set the bar, society sets it. Anyway, I think I've said before on this forum that I don't believe that simply being against gay marriage makes you a homophobe. Being averse to gay people simply because they are gay on the other hand does. And yes, why wouldn't I classify that with racism, which is almost exactly analagous?

But they can't command me to agree. So if my 'not agreeing' amounts to 'bigotry', then so be it. — Wayfarer

So be it, Amen. Not being allowed to call folks homophobes, racists, misogynists and bigots would be political correctness gone mental health issue.

Marriage as a religious ceremony isn't a "legal" matter. It's a religious one. And yes, religions should be allowed to discriminate based on their own understandings of morality. If religion X doesn't approve of gay marriage, than gay folks shouldn't expect to get married in a religious ceremony - that should be self-evident. Nor should they expect religious people to recognise or uphold their marriage.

The point of 'public institutions' is that they imply public approval.

Not being allowed to call folks homophobes, racists, misogynists and bigots would be political correctness gone mental health issue. — unenlightened

But you aren't allowed to call certain people these things, and if you do, in several countries in the West, you risk being accused of hate-crime.

Of course that is far better than what will happen to you if you point out those flaws in other countries.

Exactly. In denying gay people marriage, you exclude them and their relationships from public approval. They understood to be of lesser value, to not be an appropriate part of our society. It's prejudice and discrimination.

The point of "public institutions" is above all "live and let live". — Πετροκότσυφας

Why would you need a public institution for that?

Just like a religion then.

You need to make up your mind. Do you want "live and let live" or social control?

But you aren't allowed to call certain people these things, and if you do, in several countries in the West, you risk being accused of hate-crime. — tom

What countries? Being called a hate criminal is of course totally legitimate, unless you are one of the PC brigade. But at least in the UK a hate crime is a criminal act motivated by hatred of a minority group, and 'not being allowed' means there being a law against it, such that a well founded 'accusation' will lead to arrest and prosecution. So let's have some cases, or I might call you a bullshitter.

And when I say 'cases' I mean to exclude libel and slander cases, because not being allowed to make false accusations is no part of political correctness.

What countries? — unenlightened

In UK you stand a good chance of being accused of a hate-crime if you draw a certain character, or point out that a certain religion teaches homophobia, paedophilia, or bigotry.

I like what Zizek has to say about PC



Perhaps an unconscious cause of PC lies in the difference between public and private conversations and how each of these discourses subvert each other, without our noticing it.

In UK you stand a good chance of being accused of a hate-crime if you draw a certain character, or point out that a certain religion teaches homophobia, paedophilia, or bigotry. — tom

Show me a legal case, or admit that your complaint is simply that folks call you names when you call them names.

Mr Corbyn has to defend himself against the charge of anti-semitism on a regular basis. I find it distasteful, but neither he nor his accusers face any legal sanction. but if you point out that a certain religion teaches paedophilia, then you are not calling anyone out individually, but calling out a whole group in an indiscriminate way that might well be deemed incitement to hatred, which is a crime.

But this is not political correctness, it is a reasonable restriction of free speech in the interest of public safety.

Show me a legal case, or admit that your complaint is simply that folks call you names when you call them names. — unenlightened

You seem unaware of the Macpherson Report, subsequent to which it has been deemed by the Metropolitan Police, and perhaps all police forces in UK, that "any offence which is perceived to be Islamophobic by the victim or any other person, that is intended to impact upon those known or perceived to be Muslim" will be treated as hate-crime.

This of course leaves the door wide open. If you happen to express the view that the worship of a paedophile is alien to Western civilisation, you may well find yourself numbering among the hate-crime statistics.

I'm not about to trawl through the huge increase of Islamophobic crimes that have occurred recently, particularly since the explosion in them surrounding Brexit, but certain notable crimes serve as a good example. Several people in UK have been arrested and sentenced for burning the Quran. Nobody has been arrested for treating the Bible in the same way. In fact, it is only ever non-Muslims who are prosecuted for burning a Quran, because under British law, Muslims are allowed to do that, because Muslims are allowed to burn the Quran under Sharia.

I like what Zizek has to say about PC — Cavacava

But Zizek appears to have no clue. PC *is* a traditional authority. Cross it and you could loose everything. Hence German men allowed 1,200 German women to be sexually assaulted in Cologne in a single night.

But I stiil can't see the reasoning behind why, if you respect their right to do what they will in private, you also think that they should be deprived of the right to marriage equality on the basis of 'what they do in private'.

Are you saying that even though you respect their right you nonetheless disapprove of what they do? If that were so then you would be saying that you desire their disqualification from enjoying marriage equality before the law on the basis of your disapproval; that you are not prepared to extend their right to do what they will in private to its logical conclusion; which is a right to enjoy the same legal privileges attendant upon that right to a private life as the rest of us.

Perhaps, but what Zizek suggests appears much closer to what the OP is talking about. What happened in Germany was overtly against the law. Not being PC is not against the law (at least in the US), yet it can also have severe societal consequences.

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Wikipedia definition of political correctness

The perpetrators in Germany are the "marginalized group" who went beyond insult or any sense of the term politically correct from what I read. It became a question of the strong assaulting the weak overtly, physically, sexually with no thought to any kind of political correctness. The police information suggested that the majority of the men committing these crimes were new immigrants, also the Wikipedia article suggests that these attacks were were the responsibility of newly arrived immigrants.

Interestingly, the German government was not proactive in these situations. The government apparently does not want to exacerbate racial tensions beyond where they stand, which might be some kind of a reverse political correctness, but it is an untenable position, which could lead to very violent backlashs against all migrants,

I'm not about to trawl through the huge increase of Islamophobic crimes that have occurred recently, particularly since the explosion in them surrounding Brexit, but certain notable crimes serve as a good example. Several people in UK have been arrested and sentenced for burning the Quran. Nobody has been arrested for treating the Bible in the same way. In fact, it is only ever non-Muslims who are prosecuted for burning a Quran, because under British law, Muslims are allowed to do that, because Muslims are allowed to burn the Quran under Sharia. — tom

I'm not about to take your word for any of this, particularly as it is incoherent.

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Wikipedia definition of political correctness — Cavacava

And there we have it. Political correctness consists in not kicking a man when he's down, often considered to be taken to extremes by folks that think that not kicking men when they are down is a terrible imposition on their rights. Folks who like to kick men when they are down are then claiming to be a disadvantaged minority being discriminated against.

And that is how fucking pathetic this debate is. Myself, as a left wing liberal fascist bigot, I will continue to delight in calling out those that think it is their right to kick men when they are down and cut them down and kick them. I am just that kind of asshole.

I'm not about to take your word for any of this, particularly as it is incoherent. — unenlightened

Perhaps you can explain why a British man, born and raised in UK, walked free from Court because the judge accepted his plea that he was unaware that raping a 13 year old girl was illegal?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html

Then there are these cases of arrests for burning a book:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/31/arrested-for-burning-a-koran-19-year-old-bailed-and-moved-away-for-own-safety/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378172/Andrew-Ryan-jailed-70-days-setting-Koran-What-burning-poppies.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332877/Girl-arrested-Facebook-footage-Koran-burning-school.html

But of course Sharia law is already part of the British legal system via the Arbitration Act 1996.

Well just to quote from one article and not bothering to look very carefully:

'This is a case of theatrical bigotry. It was pre-planned by you as you stole the book deliberately. You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress.'
He told Ryan that people were entitled to protest but not in the manner he chose. The court heard the defendant had six public order convictions between 2002 and 2010 including racial chanting at a football match and assault with intent to resist arrest.

Nothing to do with Sharia law, nothing to do with political correctness, everything to do with incitement.

And you are pretty close to theatrical bigotry yourself in defending this behaviour.

Well, if that's the best the Daily Mail can do these days in their crusade against all things non-Anglo-Saxon, they really must have scraped the bottom out of the barrel.

It is nevertheless interesting that in UK, it is illegal to burn a Quran if you are non-Muslim, but *legal* to burn a Quran if you *are* Muslim.

Then of course there are the tragic cases of the fathers who were arrested by police for trying to rescue their daughters from rape-gangs in Rotherham, England. The police preferring to leave the girls to be raped.

These cases are detailed in the Independent Inquiry into child exploitation in Rotherham, England by Prof. Alexis Jay OBE. Prof. Jay found that there were at least 1,400 victims of Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham between 1997-2013.

The report is available here:

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Some findings of the report:

"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

"Those who had involvement in CSE were acutely aware of these issues and recalled a general nervousness in the earlier years about discussing them, for fear of being thought racist."

"Agencies should acknowledge the suspected model of localised grooming of young white girls by men of Pakistani heritage, instead of being inhibited by the fear of affecting community relations. People must be able to raise concerns without fear of being labelled racist."


Though, I believe Jay's report was reported in the "Daily Mail", so you may wish to denigrate the 1,400 victims further by ignoring it.

And you are pretty close to theatrical bigotry yourself in defending this behaviour. — unenlightened

Where did I defend any such behaviour?

It is nevertheless interesting that in UK, it is illegal to burn a Quran if you are non-Muslim, but *legal* to burn a Quran if you *are* Muslim. — tom

It's not that interesting really. No more interesting than that homosexuals can use words like 'faggot' and 'queer' without sounding homophobic, where heterosexuals are less likely to be able to. There is no law against burning the Quran, any more than there is a law against waving a knife about. But there is a law against threatening behaviour and against incitement of hatred. Do such things in the comfort of your own home by all means, but make a public display, and it is a different matter.

"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

"Those who had involvement in CSE were acutely aware of these issues and recalled a general nervousness in the earlier years about discussing them, for fear of being thought racist." — report

Here at last is something worth thinking about. You see the same kind of pressure being applied to anyone who is critical of Israeli policy. Such hasty judgements serve to shut down debate, and in this case stifle proper investigation. In the case of Israel, it looks to me as if there is somewhat of a deliberate attempt to delegitimise any criticism of their policy, which is abhorrent; in Rotherham I'm not sure if it is that, or more of an internalised fear of seeming racist?

The phrase 'without fear or favour' comes to mind. There is no argument but that prejudice has been and remains the major problem, but nevertheless, fear of the stigma of prejudice can and does lead to bending over backwards. I can only commend to folks to be open to both possibilities in themselves and others.

Where did I defend any such behaviour? — tom

Well if you did not mean to defend it, then I fail to see why you brought it into the discussion.

Well if you did not mean to defend it, then I fail to see why you brought it into the discussion. — unenlightened

I'll pass on your condolences to the 1,400 victims of Muslim gang rape and their families. Lives wrecked at the altar of Political Correctness.

Note how Tom has distorted every single thing he quoted from the paper; — Πετροκότσυφας

And I'm in favour of Quran burning apparently.

Now, you are either innumerate of callous not to appreciate the industrial scale gang-rape of white, mostly underage girls by predominately Asian men. Rotherham is not unique in this matter, and as you so rightly point out,

In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010

It is worth noting at this point that the Asian population of Rotherham is only 3%, which means that only ~1% of the population is Asian and of raping age. 11 people have been sent to prison for these crimes, 2 of them non-Muslim women.

That is 155 victims per rapist! The only way that is possible is if political correctness gets in the way of justice.

Here is the scale of the problem wrought by Political Correctness:

http://pmclauth.com/PMCLAUTH/sentenced/Grooming-Gang-Statistics/Gangs-Jailed?widget=BASIC&start=101&limit=100

This of course leaves the door wide open. If you happen to express the view that the worship of a paedophile is alien to Western civilisation, you may well find yourself numbering among the hate-crime statistics. — tom

In some situations one may be unjustly verbally attacked for asking questions about the Prophet's history. I think it's a symptom of underlying stress. I found that moving on from that and pursuing some facts helped me lay the issue to rest. It surprised me that discovering the pertinent facts wasn't as easy as I thought it would be.

I'd advise against looking for answers on a forum like this. People will line up to give you incorrect information (while condemning you for asking). Read a good book about the history of Islam.

Oh, one more time you don't address the point made. That is to say, your distortion of the paper you posted. Since now I'm not even sure if you've read it, here's another passage... — Πετροκότσυφας

So in addition to the 1,400 white, underage victims of Muslim gang-rape in Rotherham, there were some Muslim victims of sexual abuse. It is a tragedy that, in the end, Political Correctness fails everyone.

Shall we move on to Rochdale? Take your pick:

http://pmclauth.com/PMCLAUTH/sentenced/Grooming-Gang-Statistics/Gangs-Jailed?widget=BASIC&start=101&limit=100