Fireman abuses cat up tree
The firefighter (who happened to be male, but could just as easily have been female) abridged the rights of the cat to determine for itself where it wanted to walk, climb, or rest, and inflicted his own value judgements in determining that it needed to be 'rescued' from its chosen perch. In callous disregard for the well-being of the environment, and this one tree in particular, he thrust the mobility-disadvantaged unfriendly means of ascent known as a 'ladder' carelessly up against the tree, marring its bark, and unfeelingly climbed it, unconcerned how his display of physical prowess might injure the self-esteem of those differently-abled. He kidnapped and unjustly restrained the innocent feline with the intention of returning it to the person who claimed to 'own' the naturally free animal.
The above text admixes the most radical versions of several movements or theories. In fact, almost any user of modified language would most likely be perfectly satisfied with "The firefighter put a ladder against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat."
posted by Dr Nicholas Beecroft @ 1:46 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Did you happen to hear Norman Tebbitt on Radio 4 today talking about this
issue? Clearly he has a unique viewpoint, but I was interested to hear his
comments on multiculturalism, namely that if we have many cultures, we do
not have assimilation, as culture is the essence of a society, so that
several cultures coexisting reflects merely shared geographic space.
My own view is that it is possible to coexist within several cultures - I am
Jewish, and my family is originally from Russia and Poland, yet I am quite
comfortable within the UK and I was born here. My wife is born here, but
from Indian and German parents and consequently does not feel she belongs
anywhere, yet mixes quite comfortably with Indians, Jews and British, as do
I.
The trouble arises with those who want to retain/preserve their culture to
the exclusion of the culture of their adoptive country which can lead to
resentment of their adoptive country's culture.
Political correctness is the emasculation of language as a substitute for
sensitivity of the real issues, in my view, so I am going to stop typing
now, before I get really started.
Eddie
Dear Eddie,
No, please don’t stop there; start ranting. You need to get it out of your system so you can then take a clearheaded look at this. It’s so interesting for me to have processed everyone’s generous responses to my questions. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the “Britishness” thing is not really the thing that I am worked up about. Certainly, I’d like us to be more patriotic and unified etc, but it is the underlying extremism of political correctness which, as you say, prevents sensible discussion of a whole range of issues from nationality, family, crime, immigration, medicine to disability living allowance.
Of course it is possible to have a pluralistic, diverse, multi-racial society in which people have free speech and real dialogue. My thoughts are evolving fast, but here is where they are now:
The challenge is to identify what is so wrong about political correctness. In principle, it is wrong to be racist, sexist etc. One should treat people with respect and with an open mind. One should aim to be unprejudiced and to judge people by their behaviour and not their race, sex, sexuality, wealth, class, looks or what ever. Anyone who criticises political correctness is assumed to therefore to be racist and otherwise evil.
In fact, political correctness and its twin multiculturalism actually says the opposite of this. It is founded in the philosophies of post modernism, relativism and deconstructionism and Marxism. They basically say that there is no truth other than the subjective truth of the individual. This subjectivity is bound by their reality and thus cannot be judged by anyone else, criticised or examined. In other words society, values, standards and culture are impossible and in fact an immoral imposition upon the subjectivities of others. It also takes a deterministic view of human nature- that rather than free will, people’s lives are determined by their group membership- class, culture, race, gender etc and so these groups must be treated separately. Because there is not truth, any assertion of truth must be an abuse of the powerful against the weak. All power is wrong and must be prevented. All patients need to have advocates to protect them from the abusive power of their doctors.
So what’s the opposite of political correctness?
Common sense:
One should treat people with respect and with an open mind. One should aim to be unprejudiced and to judge people by their behaviour and not their race, sex, sexuality, wealth, class, looks or what ever
Secular and religious people will differ as to whether or not there is an ultimate truth. Even if the French philosophers and PC thought police disagree, it is practically possible for people to agree upon relative truths, standards and values.
Democracy, debate, dialogue, argument and tolerance for other’s views (not idealisation or holy reverence for them) are a good thing.
There are rights and wrongs
There are duties and responsibilities as well as rights
It is possible for people to hold responsibility, power and authority without being necessarily corrupt. This depends upon integrity, accountability, trust, values and respect. A lack of these factors leads to endless regulation, bureaucratic micro-management and stifles the positive side of human nature.
Power and structure is not inherently bad. All societies and organisations need leadership, structure, hierarchy, leadership, boundaries, rules, rights, responsibilities, duties, values and standards.
Moderate patriotism is a healthy glue for social cohesion and co-operation.
Pc has taken over as a group-dynamic process. The tipping point was probably the introduction of legislation to outlaw discrimination on grounds of race or gender. In principle, these were very well intentioned, but there have been unintended consequences in making any sensible discussion of race, immigration, nationality, crime, gender relations quite impossible.
One ought to acknowledge that, although PC has gone way over the top, there have been huge advances in Western society from a few generations ago. Minorities, foreigners, women the disabled, gays etc are better treated than they were before. I would argue that they would be even better treated if society would evolve towards a more mature common sense rather than an authoritarian-puritan PC.
PC is enforced through the threat of the law, public vilification, peer disapproval and loss of career. This is great in the sense that it got rid of “Whites only” signs in hotels, but there is much further to go in removing racism at a deeper level. The PC people want to do this by more of the same. They want witchhunts of non-PC people, brainwashing courses, thought correctional facilities etc. They have managed to turn all public services into bastions of PC intolerance within which promotion is dependent upon speaking correct speak.
Anyone who might represent (to the prejudiced, chip-on-shoulder PC people) the forces of past domination and exploitation (white, British, male, middle/upper class, older, richer, professional, leader (sorry, manager), heterosexual and able bodied can barely speak without a multitude of apologies and caveats.
Anyone who might represent (to the prejudiced, chip-on-shoulder PC people) an oppressed victim (non-white, foreign (sorry- non-passport holder), poor, working class (unless they’re non-PC in which case they are evil), unemployed, disabled, criminal, gay etc) are treated with reverence and not be critisised, treated fairly or equally.
What’s wrong with treating people fairly, honestly, with respect and integrity?
Where did you find it? Interesting read »
That's a great story. Waiting for more. » » »
Keep up the good work »
Post a Comment
<< Home