?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
parrot_knight
Sep. 3rd, 2014 11:22 pm (UTC)
Hugh Muir's article is silly (he says, as a Guardian reader) because political correctness never existed as a positive movement, and he's trying to pretend it did. People were frightened of being thought racist, and there were people who were willing to take advantage of that fear to make use of them and encourage those who didn't want to make a fuss or just couldn't be bothered. There should be nothing reactionary in admitting that.

This article at The Conversation is a bit too apologetic and concentrates on the money issue (though it is an important one) without suggesting remedies other than more funding, but it does suggest that there were front line staff who wanted to act only to be overruled by more complacent or expediency-following superiors. There's another on the same site which points out that collusion and complacency are common across organisations and this is more of a problem than political conspiracy.

Edited at 2014-09-03 11:38 pm (UTC)
jordan179
Sep. 4th, 2014 01:13 am (UTC)
Right. Because if they did everything to be politically correct, but didn't use the actual term "political correctness," then they're magically absolved of doing so.

Excuse me while I go rob a bank. Only don't call it "robbery," or the building a "bank," so that I can still be innocent, okay?
parrot_knight
Sep. 4th, 2014 01:14 am (UTC)
Not the same thing at all...
andrewducker
Sep. 4th, 2014 07:27 am (UTC)
philmophlegm
Sep. 4th, 2014 08:05 am (UTC)
That can go in the next Phligm Phlagm...
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )