# Political Correctness



## Jed (13 Sep 2016)

Attached is a link to a meme that implies that Political Correctness (PC) has been a good thing for Society.

What are your thoughts?

https://www.facebook.com/DismantleMisogyny/photos/a.208944692619207.1073741828.208674125979597/623796777800661/?type=3

Personally, I think that PC is detrimental to society.   For one thing Politeness and Civility are not the same as PC. Two admiral traits.

PC stifles honest and truthful discussion and therefore greatly hinders the resolution of differences of opinion between people.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Sep 2016)

The basis of PC is simple good manners, which I fully support of course.

Taken to the extreme, it's a neo-Fascist, anti-intellectual disaster. The Atlantic has some good articles on the subject:

How Political Correctness Chills Speech on Campus
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-it-looks-like-when-political-correctness-chills-speech-on-campus/497387/

The Coddling of the American Mind
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

How Politically Correct Should the Workplace Be?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/how-politically-correct-should-the-workplace-be/477636/


----------



## George Wallace (13 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> PC stifles honest and truthful discussion and therefore greatly hinders the resolution of differences of opinion between people.



That is why we have so many today calling anyone who "questions" certain matters, or express their "concerns", such things as "Racist", "Xenophobe" or a multitude of other derogatory names in their defence of their views; which they can not defend without name calling.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2016)

I agree that good manners (civility) are desirable.  I don't agree they are the basis of PC.  PC has always struck me as exactly what the name implies: that there is a "correct" position.  And that is why PC is destructive: the presumption of a correct position implies a stance of moral advantage, which becomes an excuse for ends-justify-means enforcement of the position, from whence comes all the damage to true civility.


----------



## AbdullahD (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is why we have so many today calling anyone who "questions" certain matters, or express their "concerns", such things as "Racist", "Xenophobe" or a multitude of other derogatory names in their defence of their views; which they can not defend without name calling.



I always found it not the questions that are asked, but the manner in which they are asked that results in one be labelled rascist or some such term.

I agree to an extent that PC has gone to far and no one can say anything on certain topics without risking being labelled a "xyz". Yet on the other hand, I believe, at least currently that some "Political correctness", is good for society. In this day and age, when a person espouses easily debunked propaganda day in and day out, without giving any credence to the rebuttals.. I personally feel labelling the person a bigot or rascist is fine, depending on the situation.

But if the person has looked at the rebuttals and discounts them on a logical basis, supplies evidences to counter them, even weak evidence.. then that person should not be labelled anything. Because fact of the matter is, we are not all going to agree on everything. But the asterix beside the statement is, the higher education a person has, or the higher a person's public profile.. the stricter the rules are enforced.

Within these parameters I think political correctness is okay, but I also believe this is just being a respectable person... but as always to much of a good thing.. is bad. I always try to use the grandmother rule.. "if you wouldn't say it to your grandmother.. then it should not be said." But then again... my grandma ran around calling our african american friends by a certain term... so maybe thats a bad metric for some lol

We have to have tough, uncomfortable conversations these days, that a lot of us prefer to avoid (myself included). But calling a person a bigot or what have you, should not be used to avoid it. I also think there are some genuinely rascist bigots, who are using the anti-pc movement in order to espouse hate speech and morally destructive propaganda.

My musings take them as you will...

Abdullah


----------



## Jed (14 Sep 2016)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I always found it not the questions that are asked, but the manner in which they are asked that results in one be labelled rascist or some such term.
> 
> I agree to an extent that PC has gone to far and no one can say anything on certain topics without risking being labelled a "xyz". Yet on the other hand, I believe, at least currently that some "Political correctness", is good for society. In this day and age, when a person espouses easily debunked propaganda day in and day out, without giving any credence to the rebuttals.. I personally feel labelling the person a bigot or rascist is fine, depending on the situation.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with the above highlighted statement. I've never heard of the anti-PC movement though and in contrast, I have been called a Bigot and a Racist more times than I would care to mention for attempting to express an opinion that is against the grain of popular opinion.  I personally do not consider myself to be either, I may be 'Biased' though.  [


----------



## AbdullahD (14 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I completely agree with the above highlighted statement. I've never heard of the anti-PC movement though and in contrast, I have been called a Bigot and a Racist more times than I would care to mention for attempting to express an opinion that is against the grain of popular opinion.  I personally do not consider myself to be either, I may be 'Biased' though.  [



Sorry, it may not be a formal movement, it is just something I have observed on diffferent forums I am on. So I named it as I saw it, however rightly or wrongly.

Also spelling has gone down hill in Canadian society. They usually get the first few letters right and then lose track


----------



## mariomike (14 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How Politically Correct Should the Workplace Be?
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/how-politically-correct-should-the-workplace-be/477636/



Interesting.

I joined my career full-time Department two months after High School graduation. 
There were no women, or Diversity, in Operations or Communications back then. It was a social group with its own culture. 

I didn't do the hiring, I just worked there.

At the Academy, the Chief told us recruits that we came from a society with many prejudices. That he wouldn't try to change our beliefs. But, "If you treat anyone with disrespect, I can change your employment!”

Being probies, _that_  got our attention! It took about 60 seconds, and there was no movie.  

It was not an idle threat. Customer Satisfaction was _everything._  You were going into people's homes. 

When did you feel better satisfied as Taxpayers, then or now?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Sep 2016)

Keep in Mind it was the PC mindset to support the sending of native kids to residential schools, re-locate the Inuit and intern and seize the assets of Japanese-Canadians. What is PC evolves for the moment and suits a particular agenda.


----------



## Jed (14 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep in Mind it was the PC mindset to support the sending of native kids to residential schools, re-locate the Inuit and intern and seize the assets of Japanese-Canadians. What is PC evolves for the moment and suits a particular agenda.



Precisely.   It was also PC to do lobotomies as required medical procedures, sterilize mentally handicapped people, treat women  to a double standard, etc.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep in Mind it was the PC mindset to support the sending of native kids to residential schools, . . .





			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Precisely.   It was also PC to do lobotomies as required medical procedures, . . .



Horseshit!  The underlying mindset of those actions was racism, bigotry and stupidity (either in combination or individually).  That you would try to so link now-repudiated (and rightly so) actions, makes me wonder if you know what "political correctness" means.



> noun: political correctness;
> 
> 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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Sep 2016)

PC is the mindset of the day, it's is neither fixed or rigid. The term to describe did not even exist, but the concept of popular belief being correct, because it is a popular belief existed long before the term was created.

from wiki: Early-to-mid 20th century

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided "correct" positions on many political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

    The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> PC is the mindset of the day, it's is neither fixed or rigid. The term to describe did not even exist, but the concept of popular belief being correct, because it is a popular belief existed long before the term was created.
> 
> from wiki: Early-to-mid 20th century
> 
> ...



And the term has exactly the same connotation today, to define the "correct" positions and prevent open debate or arguments on topics considered "off limits" to Progressives. The cloaking of PC dogma as "being polite" and so on is simply to disguise the true intent and disarm politically unengaged people who value politeness and manners, not realizing they are actually being forbidden to speak under the guise of not giving offence.


----------



## FJAG (14 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And the term has exactly the same connotation today, to define the "correct" positions and prevent open debate or arguments on topics considered "off limits" to Progressives. The cloaking of PC dogma as "being polite" and so on is simply to disguise the true intent and disarm politically unengaged people who value politeness and manners, not realizing they are actually being forbidden to speak under the guise of not giving offence.



It strikes me that too often the term Progressive is improperly used when you are describing individuals or groups that are uncompromising in their viewpoints. Progressives per se have been behind some of the most positive developments in our western society. For a quick example see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

And her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

The problem that in any free society you have a**holes at both end of the spectrum who simply will not accept that there may be a different viewpoint. Conservatives have their own problems. For just a few example see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

In its simplest form political correctness means nothing more than: "treat others the way that you would want them to treat you".  Unfortunately for some people on both sides of the debate it too often means "be like me and do as I say or f*** off" to the extent that if you aren't or don't then as a minimum you get yelled at.

Personally I view myself as a Progressive but I view with utter disgust some of the flaky and things being generated in our universities and society in general by a some extremist, intolerant members of the Snowflake generation.

In short, don't generalise and in particular don't use a term for a forward moving and open thinking segment of society as a pejorative one simply because at one extreme end of the spectrum it contains a closed and narrow minded element.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And the term has exactly the same connotation today, to define the "correct" positions and prevent open debate or arguments on topics considered "off limits" to Progressives. The cloaking of PC dogma as "being polite" and so on is simply to disguise the true intent and disarm politically unengaged people who value politeness and manners, not realizing they are actually being forbidden to speak under the guise of not giving offence.



Exactly.

Risking a slight tangent, I also have a problem with people who proclaim themselves as spokespersons for various 'communities' that they purport to represent. Sadly, with the easy availability of various virtual public speakers' corners these days, too many unelected politicians assume positions well above their stations.

This classifies is 'stolen leadership' as far as I'm concerned, and is also a tactic too prevalent amongst the 'professionally outraged' these days.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2016)

Terms like Progressive, Liberal, Conservative and so on have had their meanings changed and corrupted over the years. 

Theodore Roosevelt would certainly not recognize today's "Progressives" as having anything in common with the Progressive movement of the late 1800's, modern day "Liberals" are conserving ideas which were introduced by the New Dealers in the 1930's and Conservatives hearken back to ideas introduced by Liberals such a John Locke and Edmund Burke in the Enlightenment. And of course we hear National Socialism and Fascism defined as being "Right Wing", despite the rather clear indication in the name  (_Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei _).

At any rate, the defining features of "Political Correctness" is preventing discussion on various topics under the ruse of "being polite" or "preventing offence", regardless of who is attempting to silence you.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Sep 2016)

A "bigot" is just means a person is close-minded.  Not every opinion merits respect or even tolerance, so "bigot" is (should be) neutral without further explanation.  For example, I'm bigoted against people who dream of imposing any flavour of totalitarianism or who idolize totalitarians.

"Racist" just means belief that "races" (whatever those are) have inherently different characteristics and aptitudes.  Racism is (should be) essentially a consequence of belief in natural selection (that theory held in high regard by so many people who view their own intellect, education, and social attitudes as exemplary).  Racism too is (should be) neutral without clarification.  A racial difference will almost always be seen as net positive/advantageous on one side of the difference, which tempts people to conclude that the people on the other side are somehow lesser; but any given difference should imply no moral superiority or inferiority on either side.  Most times when I see "racism" thrown out pejoratively, what is actually at stake is "culturalism" - and sometimes, the bias is (as with "bigot") merited.  Not every cultural quiff deserves tolerance.

Those terms - along with "sexist" and a few others - are overused to the point of meaninglessness and have become empty pejoratives.  Without explaining why a person is racist (or whatever), the accusation is empty (albeit thought by most people to be nasty).


----------



## Lumber (15 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A "bigot" is just means a person is close-minded.  Not every opinion merits respect or even tolerance, so "bigot" is (should be) neutral without further explanation.  For example, I'm bigoted against people who dream of imposing any flavour of totalitarianism or who idolize totalitarians.
> 
> "Racist" just means belief that "races" (whatever those are) have inherently different characteristics and aptitudes.  Racism is (should be) essentially a consequence of belief in natural selection (that theory held in high regard by so many people who view their own intellect, education, and social attitudes as exemplary).  Racism too is (should be) neutral without clarification.  A racial difference will almost always be seen as net positive/advantageous on one side of the difference, which tempts people to conclude that the people on the other side are somehow lesser; but any given difference should imply no moral superiority or inferiority on either side.  Most times when I see "racism" thrown out pejoratively, what is actually at stake is "culturalism" - and sometimes, the bias is (as with "bigot") merited.  Not every cultural quiff deserves tolerance.
> 
> Those terms - along with "sexist" and a few others - are overused to the point of meaninglessness and have become empty pejoratives.  Without explaining why a person is racist (or whatever), the accusation is empty (albeit thought by most people to be nasty).



This is all just semantics. As with political correctness, it doesn't matter what is actually true, it only matters what people believe to be true. To just about everyone, racist mean: being prejudice, discriminatory, or antagonistic against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. 

Here's another term for you: self-interest. It's important, because it's the whole reason that Political Correctness is able to flourish. A person is smart; people are stupid. Most people, I would argue, have opinions that are far more extreme than the "PC" position; so why do they hide their opinions tow the party line? Mob rule and the information age. You can't get away with anything these days. You can't make your position know one day, then change it the next, even if you've had a genuine epiphany. Anything you say will stick with you for years to come. There's no such thing as maturation any more; the mob won't just you on who you are, nor even on the sum of what you've done. Rather, it'll judge you solely based on the few most extreme and negative things you've done. 

So you go the safe route; you stay in your safe space being the PC line.


----------



## Shrek1985 (15 Sep 2016)

Anyone else catch the recent CBC radio show about how being politically incorrect is a cover for hate and wrong-think?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Sep 2016)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Anyone else catch the recent CBC radio show about how being politically incorrect is a cover for hate and wrong-think?



Coming from the CBC, that would be the apogee of irony.


----------



## Lightguns (19 Sep 2016)

Political Correctness is every level of government releasing statements claiming; that a series of pipe bombs are "internationally" but not Islamic terrorist and unrelated despite being all made the same, within minutes of the bombs going off and before any evidence was looked at.  We have lost the war on terror.


----------



## gryphonv (19 Sep 2016)

I always felt the popularity of Trump was the natural response to how far left the 'political correctness' has gone. 

People are just sick of it. Calling people racist, sexist, etc as a counter argument to any disagreement has gone to far. Its hamstrung so much intelligent debate. 

There was an outcry in my city recently because there were some sexual assaults by cabbies and the perp was identified as east Indian. The various groups that can be labeled 'east indian' came out and cried foul because the media was using the 'east indian' label.  Saying it was giving a bad impression of various ethnic groups. No it was giving a description of a perp who was at large. 

This is the idiocy we have to deal with today.


----------



## Lightguns (19 Sep 2016)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I always felt the popularity of Trump was the natural response to how far left the 'political correctness' has gone.
> 
> People are just sick of it. Calling people racist, sexist, etc as a counter argument to any disagreement has gone to far. Its hamstrung so much intelligent debate.
> 
> ...



I know I am tired. I am weekly a racist (disagreeing with any white progressive), NAZI Fascist (disagreeing with any NDP or Liberal), Jew lover (disagreeing with any non Jewish Middle Easterner), half breed (disagreeing with any First Nations after they call me racist and I explain my blood line to them).  It's tough to be a Racist, Nazi fascist, Jew loving, half breed in a multicultural society!


----------



## Jed (19 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I know I am tired. I am weekly a racist (disagreeing with any white progressive), NAZI Fascist (disagreeing with any NDP or Liberal), Jew lover (disagreeing with any non Jewish Middle Easterner), half breed (disagreeing with any First Nations after they call me racist and I explain my blood line to them).  It's tough to be a Racist, Nazi fascist, Jew loving, half breed in a multicultural society!



Sounds like we have a similar situation. [


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... Jew lover/*Zionist* (disagreeing with any non Jewish Middle Easterner *or liberal*) ...


FTFY  ;D


			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... half breed (disagreeing with any First Nations after they call me racist and I explain my blood line to them) ...


Now THAT sounds like it could be an interesting conversation ...


----------



## Flavus101 (19 Sep 2016)

Not sure if this belongs here, but I'll toss it in.

Was in a lecture today and the professor brought up the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement stating that it is the most dangerous group to the existence of the United States. He also stated that they are very much linked with the KKK. Apparently all this information came from the FBI's website (I did some searching and couldn't find it). After looking into the group a bit more in-depth than just the Oregon Standoff it seems that the movement focuses most of it's effort on tax fraud. There are members who are currently serving time for murder (mainly Police Officers), but the vast majority of charges relate to monetary fraud of various sorts.

I found it interesting that nothing about the Islamic terrorist threat was brought up, nor the extremists of BLM group (or has the majority of the leaders of that group been labelled extremists at this point?).


----------



## Lightguns (19 Sep 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Not sure if this belongs here, but I'll toss it in.
> 
> Was in a lecture today and the professor brought up the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement stating that it is the most dangerous group to the existence of the United States. He also stated that they are very much linked with the KKK. Apparently all this information came from the FBI's website (I did some searching and couldn't find it). After looking into the group a bit more in-depth than just the Oregon Standoff it seems that the movement focuses most of it's effort on tax fraud. There are members who are currently serving time for murder (mainly Police Officers), but the vast majority of charges relate to monetary fraud of various sorts.
> 
> I found it interesting that nothing about the Islamic terrorist threat was brought up, nor the extremists of BLM group (or has the majority of the leaders of that group been labelled extremists at this point?).



The RCMP once had a whole task force dedicated to these guys, they were interviewed on CBC, Fifth Estate.  There was also the usual propaganda on CBC about them; claimed links to skin heads, KKK, and, "gasp" gun owners.  I seem to recall besides tax fraud, and silly paper work, they have been caught for driving without a license and pooping on the floors of trapper cabins.  Heck, by those standards, half of rural NB are "Freemen on the Land"!


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Sep 2016)

I was wondering if these types of assholes were the one's responsible this time, not surprised that it's the usual assholes however...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Sep 2016)

I used to deal with the placer miners in the Yukon (and hand loggers on the coast), when you get way out in the back country, you are dealing with the real “freemen”, for the most part they wanted to be left alone and generally being friendly and respectfully worked for most of them. Trying to be to bureaucratic usually caused things to go sour. I found being adaptable to their situation and working with what they had would be the solution. Most were problem solvers, so give them a puzzle to solve and they would do it, especially if it meant the government would go away and leave them alone for awhile.

These other ones are generally freeloaders that will use any excuse to avoid paying for anything and will make alliances with anyone that might give them stuff


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Sep 2016)

John Clese has some thoughts on political correctness in this Daily Mail article from Feb 2016.

Some quotes:

I’ve been warned recently not to go to university campuses because political correctness has been taken from being a good idea, from "lets not be mean particularly to people who are not able to look after themselves very well", to the point where any kind of criticism of any kind of individual or group can be labelled cruel.

He then quotes psychologist Robin Skynner, saying: 'If people cant control their own emotions then they need to start controlling other people’s behaviour,'...


----------



## FJAG (19 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The RCMP once had a whole task force dedicated to these guys, they were interviewed on CBC, Fifth Estate.  There was also the usual propaganda on CBC about them; claimed links to skin heads, KKK, and, "gasp" gun owners.  I seem to recall besides tax fraud, and silly paper work, they have been caught for driving without a license and pooping on the floors of trapper cabins.  Heck, by those standards, half of rural NB are "Freemen on the Land"!



There was a hallmark decision coming out of Alberta during a divorce case where the husband was trying some of the "Freeman on the Land" nonsense. The judge wrote a 185 page decision which explored the movement in detail and eviscerated it.  For anyone interested, it is here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

 :cheers:


----------



## ZeiGezunt (23 Sep 2016)

I used to be pretty interested in the sovereign citizen movement, mainly how anyone could be dumb enough to buy into it. Apparently there are guys making big bucks off of bilking desperate folks out of their last savings, in return for useless "legal tricks" that will get you charged at very best. These same snake-oil salesmen tend to die in shoot-outs with police.

Not as dangerous as, say, IS or the KKK or a crowd of angry Trump supporters, but definitely ruthless parasites on the edge of our society, and a threat not many people know about.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Sep 2016)

ZeiGezunt said:
			
		

> I used to be pretty interested in the sovereign citizen movement, mainly how anyone could be dumb enough to buy into it. Apparently there are guys making big bucks off of bilking desperate folks out of their last savings, in return for useless "legal tricks" that will get you charged at very best. These same snake-oil salesmen tend to die in shoot-outs with police.
> 
> Not as dangerous as, say, IS or the KKK or a crowd of angry Trump supporters, but definitely ruthless parasites on the edge of our society, and a threat not many people know about.



"There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2016)

>a crowd of angry Trump supporters

That's so cute.  I'd be more worried about a crowd of angry Obama/Clinton supporters.  They're the ones typically found rioting and destroying things.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2016)

:

How stupid are people getting?
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> British Army under fire for 'racist' tweet that showed a soldier with black face-paint
> Sam Dean
> 19 OCTOBER 2016 • 11:58AM
> The British Army has apologised after posting an image of a soldier with a “blacked up” face on social media.
> ...




Photos and more on LINK.



Wonder what complaints would be lodged by these people if they were to witness miners exiting a Coal Mine.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2016)

As long as he doesn't go down on one knee and start singing "Mammy", what's the problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaj7FNHnjQ



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wonder what complaints would be lodged by these people if they were to witness miners exiting a Coal Mine.



Miner ( And that's with a breathing mask! Can you imagine how they looked in the old days? )

I remember how some of the old time back-step firemen used to look coming out of a fire. No mask. Just a Haligan bar in one hand, and a cigarette in the other!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >a crowd of angry Trump supporters
> 
> That's so cute.  I'd be more worried about a crowd of angry Obama/Clinton supporters.  They're the ones typically found rioting and destroying things.



and you are right to be worried.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/undercover-video-shows-democrat-operatives-admitting-they-incited-violence-at-trump-rallies


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2016)

Armed forces veterans are told not to visit First World War memorial in uniform because they would be 'promoting war' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3859188/Armed-forces-veterans-told-not-visit-World-War-memorial-uniform-promoting-war.html

Armed forces veterans were told not to visit a memorial in uniform because they were 'promoting war'.


- Shyte like this pops up every, even in Canada, it seems.  Starting early in the UK though...


----------



## mariomike (21 Oct 2016)

Sounds like one of the volunteers was mistaken,

'We are deeply concerned at reports that some former soldiers visiting the Weeping Window artwork at Caernarfon Castle over recent days, may have been given the impression that wearing military uniforms around it was in some way discouraged.

'This is absolutely not our policy. We strongly regret if this impression has been given, and apologise unreservedly to any visitors who may have felt this.

'We are investigating how this may have come about. The artwork is designed to commemorate the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for peace and freedom, and no one would seek to place any conditions on those attending.

'We hope that as many former and serving servicemen and women as possible will visit the work between now and November 20 - and they will be warmly welcomed.'


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2016)

There is usually some ripple in the news around here about Nov 11 glorifying war; and then the white poppy brigade will rear their ugly heads... 

Its all rather routine now


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2016)

How close are we to this already?


----------



## Remius (28 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How close are we to this already?



Ask anyone with kids in school...


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Ask anyone with kids in school...



Me. And it's hell.

Some schools have a common sense approach, which relies on the personal responsibility of the kid with the allergy to not eat another kids' PBJ Sammy. At our school, you risk death by hemp hangman's noose for transgressing the 'no nuts or nut products or anything that might have even looked at a nut or been in the same area code' rule.


----------



## Flavus101 (29 Oct 2016)

My current favourite is the "No Scent" zones.


----------



## Scott (30 Oct 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> My current favourite is the "No Scent" zones.



What does that have to do with being politically correct?

People do not have to bathe in Axe or Brut or Vanilla Musk to promote good hygiene or personal grooming. It is strictly vanity and complete unnecessary. 

No scent zones happened because those chemicals do impact people.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2016)

Scott said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with being politically correct?
> 
> People do not have to bathe in Axe or Brut or Vanilla Musk to promote good hygiene or personal grooming. It is strictly vanity and complete unnecessary.
> 
> No scent zones happened because those chemicals do impact people.



I think we have arrived at that, in step with the measures taken for all other allergies such as the previously mentioned peanut allergy preventative steps taken in schools, etc.  It is not that it has an impact on people, but that we are narrowing down what people are "allowed or not allowed to do in public".


----------



## Flavus101 (30 Oct 2016)

Scott said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with being politically correct?
> 
> People do not have to bathe in Axe or Brut or Vanilla Musk to promote good hygiene or personal grooming. It is strictly vanity and complete unnecessary.
> 
> No scent zones happened because those chemicals do impact people.



As George said below, this was brought up because it effects what people can and cannot do. Look at this from my point of view.

1. Are colognes and deodorants legal? Yes.

2. Is the percentage of people affected small? Definitely yes.

Why should I not be able to put on a squirt of cologne that 97.6% of the population (According to Statistics Canada 2.4% of the population has a scent "sensitivity") does not have a problem with?

I agree, you should not bathe in the stuff. Nobody likes that. However to ban something that the vast majority of the population uses because a tiny group of people are affected by it seems to be a poor use of "democracy". 

I also have my doubts about whether or not these scent sensitivities are medically diagnosable for the majority of those who claim to have this issue. Some people cannot stand the smell of manure, should farmers be prevented from fertilizing their fields?


----------



## Scott (30 Oct 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> As George said below, this was brought up because it effects what people can and cannot do. Look at this from my point of view.
> 
> 1. Are colognes and deodorants legal? Yes.
> 
> ...



We can play this game all day.

I understand, accept, and encourage that people, most people, can stay within the acceptable norm of how much cologne/perfume they apply, to the point where it is an enhancement. The problem lies with the (likely 2.4 as well) percent who soak themselves in the stuff. Since we can't fairly state that only a certain amount be applied we just ban it. 

I have developed a sensitivity to scents. Not all, but enough that it legitimately bothers me. I cannot do anything about what others wear, unlike someone who can police themselves, to a point, when it comes to food based allergies.

If you and I meet at a local bar, restaurant or even in the mall and I find myself reacting to whatever you're wearing I simply accept this as a matter of being in a public place. Work is entirely different.

Tell me the legitimate "need" for cologne, please. I have zero issue with deodorants. One is a part of good grooming and hygiene, the other is pure vanity.


----------



## Flavus101 (30 Oct 2016)

I thank-you for being reasonable and I will do my best to be reasonable here as well.

Now please don't take this next bit as completely irrelevant because I will bring it back to relevance at the end.  ;D

Banning things that people find pleasurable is 9/10 a losing battle. I am not saying we shouldn't do "the right thing" because it is most likely going to be a losing battle. What I am saying is that there is usually a better way to go about it. 

You agree that people should be able to put on a reasonable amount of cologne (or whatever scent product they fancy that day). I agree that people shouldn't be a walking perfume store. I don't claim to have a one size fits all solution to this. There has to be a better way than just outright banning something that the majority of people actually enjoy. I think it should start with conversation, the employees talking to each other like humans and letting each know that it isn't a problem to wear a squirt or two but the amount you're wearing now is too much. 

I admit there is no "need" for cologne whereby you would die without it. There is also no "need" for air fresheners, candles, etc. It is something that the majority of people like.

Perhaps I am just backwards in my thinking. I would still like to hear your thoughts on other alternatives to policing the workplace of scents other than an outright ban?


----------



## Scott (30 Oct 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I thank-you for being reasonable and I will do my best to be reasonable here as well.



No probs. I appreciate the same in return.



> You agree that people should be able to put on a reasonable amount of cologne (or whatever scent product they fancy that day). I agree that people shouldn't be a walking perfume store. I don't claim to have a one size fits all solution to this. There has to be a better way than just outright banning something that the majority of people actually enjoy. I think it should start with conversation, the employees talking to each other like humans and letting each know that it isn't a problem to wear a squirt or two but the amount you're wearing now is too much.



Unfortunately, the one employee/coworker that you cannot talk to is the one that drives the ban. This is how it happened in one of my workplaces. In the interest of clarity and transparency, I am a safety officer at my workplace, so this comes right into my wheelhouse and I happen to hear both sides of the debate - as well as my admitted chemical sensitivity which makes also makes me a stakeholder.

Let's start with a fact: You have a reasonable expectation, a right, if you will, to expect that your workplace will be free of things that present a hazard to you and possibly impede your performance and enjoyment of the space. I have the exact same rights. You enjoy wearing cologne. In fact, so do I. But I also have this funny schnoz that goes all apeshit with certain scents. Might be perfume/cologne, might be potpourri. To the point of a decent headache and/or an inability to taste mint flavoured chewing gum. In this case, your enjoyment of that strongly scented cologne is interfering with my enjoyment of my space, and because your cologne is an add-on, something that is not a need or requirement, my beak happens to win any debate. 

In this case specifically, it's not a case of "suck it up" like some, perhaps even in this thread, would like to believe. It's a legitimate unwell feeling that people do suffer from, I can attest to this personally. And because it's difficult to discern just who is going to be affected, it becomes far easier just to ban the stuff. Because it is strictly vanity it makes that job a whole lot easier. We are not discussing eating foods with nuts or exposure to nuts, we are talking about a scent that has exactly zero bearing on how you perform, but can affect how others perform. It's not society becoming more limp waisted or pandering to the weak.

Those are the broad strokes.



> Perhaps I am just backwards in my thinking. I would still like to hear your thoughts on other alternatives to policing the workplace of scents other than an outright ban?



Now to narrow it down:



> "Hey Flavus, I understand that you really enjoy having that smelly stuff on, but it's just a little too strong. Could you, perhaps, try a little smaller dose? I don't mind the scent, but it's just a little too powerful for me and it's giving me a headache"
> 
> "Holy shit, Scott, I'm sorry for that. Would you mind if I tried a little less tomorrow? I'll stop by to see you just to make sure."
> 
> "That's awesome, thanks"



If only it worked that way, right? I'd have less to do.

I did have an interaction similar to that with one of my coworkers.

Now I'll tell you about a similar interaction between two others.



> "Hi Ramona, I really need to mention to you that when I come into where you work I find your perfume to be a little overpowering, I have a headache and I can't even taste my chewing gum right now. I understand that you like to smell nice, but this is really affecting me. Do you suppose you could try putting less on?"
> 
> "Who the fuck do you think you are, you snivelling cocksucker? You're a pussy. I am going to have your fucking job for this you asshole. How dare you?"



To be fair, it could also, just as easily, go this way:



> "Holy shit, Ramona, I can't be around you because you stink. What the fuck, did you bathe in Chanel No. 5 this morning? I demand you go immediately to the washroom and hose that stuff off"



So, because of the latter two interactions, management just bans the stuff and takes away any rational discourse. Roughly 2.4% of people are affected, and 2.4% of people are assholes about it, one way or the other. Management has no way of knowing who is going to be a Flavus, or who is going to be a Ramona. They want Scott to show up to work and produce, so the easiest thing is to just ban it. 

And have we seen one court challenge of it? I am going to go out on a limb here and not google that, because I think it would be pretty flimsy.

Edited to modify sentence structure, not content.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Oct 2016)

Providing they are safe and equitable, the employer has the right to set the rules of the workplace. If they say 'no scents', that's what they mean.

Yes, you have rights.

That being, you have a right to the work, if employed there, as described, within the terms of reference.

Or the right not to work there if you find the rules too onerous for you.

No different than when an employer set out that you will have, say, safety boots for the job. So, you wear safety boots to work..........or you don't work.

There is no difference between the two examples.


----------



## Scott (30 Oct 2016)

Thanks, RG. I suppose I could have opened with this, but I'm still trying to develop that "explain yourself" side of being the safety guy.

I think you've advanced beyond that ;D


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2016)

Scott said:
			
		

> Thanks, RG. I suppose I could have opened with this, but I'm still trying to develop that "explain yourself" side of being the safety guy.
> 
> I think you've advanced beyond that ;D



Now if you become the Harassment Adviser guy, you will have to take a different tack.   [


----------



## mariomike (30 Oct 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> My current favourite is the "No Scent" zones.



For what it is worth to the discussion,

Guidelines for Addressing Scented Product-Related Concerns in the Workplace 
http://wx.toronto.ca/intra/hr/policies.nsf/9fff29b7237299b385256729004b844b/d5888b275f32a92385256cc3005ded1e?OpenDocument


----------



## Flavus101 (30 Oct 2016)

One more series of questions and then I will most likely give up my backwards way of thinking.  ;D

When you say workplace, what do you define as the workplace? Is a school considered a workplace? If so, does it extend past secondary school? How about a mall? Or a driver examiner who has to enter personal cars. Are the cars considered to be the workplace?

What I am trying to get at is where do we draw the line as a reasonable place to have scent free zones?

In a perfect world those Romano's are the ones that should have to suffer. Not the Scott's and Flavus'. I sadly know that we do not live in a perfect world.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2016)

A very good course to go on when offered, no matter what you or others may think, the Harassment Adviser Crse, which has this handy publication:

Harassment Prevention And Resolution Guidelines

What constitutes a "workplace"?



> *Workplace* is the physical work location and the greater work environment where
> work-related functions and activities take place and work relationships exist.



Pay particular attention to the last part of that statement: "where work relationships exist".  That could mean anywhere where workers employed at the same place may gather as a group.....ie. the MESS after work on a Base, or a neighbourhood pub where they may have a Team Card or even a Company sports team.  That is an area that can cause concerns in the HA world when people start slagging other colleagues.


----------



## Scott (30 Oct 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> One more series of questions and then I will most likely give up my backwards way of thinking.  ;D
> 
> When you say workplace, what do you define as the workplace? Is a school considered a workplace? If so, does it extend past secondary school? How about a mall? Or a driver examiner who has to enter personal cars. Are the cars considered to be the workplace?
> 
> ...



Definitions depend on provincial/territorial laws. 

If you're a teacher then school is your place of work. Administrators can put a no scent rule in place for employees and can do the same for students. That's been done already, and easily.

Vehicles have long been considered workplaces in certain areas. For example, when smoke free workplaces came into effect in BC lots of guys ran afoul of this policy by smoking in work vehicles.

Let's look at the mall, because you have two distinct groups: employees or people who, as a part of their work, do things like deliver items to mall employees; and you have the patrons. The scent policy would cover employees and visitors engaged by store staff so that other staff would not be adversely affected by the scent. You could stretch this by mandating that if an employee finds a patron's scent to be too much to handle then they have a mechanism in place to ask someone else to wait on the person. 

By no means is it perfect, but there is a linear approach to it in most cases.


----------



## Flavus101 (30 Oct 2016)

Thank-you for taking the time to lay out your side of things Scott.

I do not agree with how far this no-scent policy reaches. However, in an office setting I completely get where you are coming from and you have changed my mind for that scenario.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2016)

Ontario definition 
“workplace” means any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works; (“lieu de travail”)

Federal
work place means any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee’s employer; (lieu de travail)


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2016)

PC poster for you:


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2016)




----------



## FJAG (31 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

>


Not to mention playing road hockey in the streets, going on ten to fifteen mile bicycle "picnics", and playing relievio in the various woods and ravines of Scarborough.

Yup. I and all my friends survived being free range children.

[cheers]


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not to mention playing road hockey in the streets, going on ten to fifteen mile bicycle "picnics", and playing relievio in the various woods and ravines of Scarborough.
> 
> Yup. I and all my friends survived being free range children.
> 
> [cheers]



And in a small town after school, carrying our Cooey .22 bolt action repeaters slung upside down over our shoulders with the bolts in our pocket down the main drag and not causing any panic. We would each purchase a box of .22 LR at the hardware store and go to the dump to plink tin cans. Once in a long while a local cop would ask to see our weapons, but after he was satisfied they were safe, he would tell us to have a good time.


----------



## QV (31 Oct 2016)

Thankfully we continue to advance as a society.


----------



## GR66 (1 Nov 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And in a small town after school, carrying our Cooey .22 bolt action repeaters slung upside down over our shoulders with the bolts in our pocket down the main drag and not causing any panic. We would each purchase a box of .22 LR at the hardware store and go to the dump to plink tin cans. Once in a long while a local cop would ask to see our weapons, but after he was satisfied they were safe, he would tell us to have a good time.



Our high school had a range in the basement and we'd walk to school with our .22's in a zippered case over our shoulder (bolt and ammo in our gym bags) for our after-school gun club.  We'd hand our rifles to the secretary and she'd lean them up against the wall in the corner and put our ammo into the safe for us until we came to pick them up after class.  

Amazing how the world didn't decend into panic and anarchy!  This isn't THAT long ago...early 80's (not that long ago to my mind anyway...to some of the kids on this site it might sound like the early paleolithic) and we're not talking a remote rural school either, this was Aurora in the 905 area north of Toronto.


----------



## Pusser (1 Nov 2016)

Yes, many of us did indeed survive these things (and others - remember lawn darts?).  However, there were a lot of kids who didn't and that's why we've seen an influx of seemingly stupid rules.  Unfortunately, kids today suffer under overly restrictive rules because some parents in the past were morons who failed to exercise common sense.

PS:  I was a latch-key kid and loved it.  I only occasionally tried to burn the house down and never actually succeeded!


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2016)

I am thankful that I came of age in an era before AIDS put the fear of God into people.

As for buying cigarettes. "They're for my mother!" If that didn't work, just go to a cigarette machine. You could smoke anywhere. The only concern was about fire, not second hand smoke. 
I was a smoker until April 1986 when the laws became insufferable. I remember the exact day. I was backing the bus into TEGH and saw all these half-naked patients outside in their wheelchairs and IV's. I figured there must have been a fire alarm. But, was told it was the new smoking rules. That was the day I quit.

On the other hand, you had to be 21 to buy alcohol. LCBO was about Control. Not the boutique stores they have now. It was completely different,

1. Customer will fill in purchase order form as to date, brand number, quantity, kind, unit price, amount, permit number and address.
2. This form must be signed by the customer at the permit endorser’s wicket and in full view of the permit endorser.
3. Hand purchase order and permit to permit endorser who will hand it back after making the necessary entries on the permit.
4. Take purchase order to cashier’s wicket and pay for the goods. Purchase order will be received back from the cashier after being stamped by the cash register.
5. Present purchase order at counter and take delivery of the goods from the counterman.

From, "Punched Drunk: Alcohol, Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975."

Unlike cigarettes, I never developed a taste for alcohol.  

Never tried marijuana. Alcohol, tobacco and coffee were popular with the men I worked with. Marijuana was not. So, I can't say if I would have enjoyed marijuana or not.

Speaking of working with men. That's all we had back then. But, I do remember my first female partner years later. Couldn't hardly lift, but in spite of that, she was a lot of fun to work with.


----------



## CountDC (1 Nov 2016)

some years ago (5+? a trucker in Ottawa area was ticketed for smoking in the workplace - the cab of his truck.


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> some years ago (5+? a trucker in Ottawa area was ticketed for smoking in the workplace - the cab of his truck.



Trucker fined for workplace smoking after lighting up in rig 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trucker-fined-for-workplace-smoking-after-lighting-up-in-rig/article1316944/

Girl, 15, smokes as driver gets $155 ticket
https://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/02/17/girl_15_smokes_as_driver_gets_155_ticket.html


----------



## FJAG (1 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I am thankful that I came of age in an era before AIDS put the fear of God into people.
> 
> As for buying cigarettes. "They're for my mother!" If that didn't work, just go to a cigarette machine. You could smoke anywhere. The only concern was about fire, not second hand smoke.
> I was a smoker until April 1986 when the laws became insufferable. I remember the exact day. I was backing the bus into TEGH and saw all these half-naked patients outside in their wheelchairs and IV's. I figured there must have been a fire alarm. But, was told it was the new smoking rules. That was the day I quit.
> ...



I used to routinely get sent down to the corner drug store when I was between 9 - 15 to buy cigarettes for my mom (they were twenty cents a pack then and I used to regularly keep the change to augment my meagre allowance). Never started smoking myself although I was heavily hit by second hand smoke from my family who must have collectively done five to six packs a day.

The LCBO thing brings back memories of bars shutting down for the supper hour and the separate entrances for "Gentlemen" and "ladies and escorts". Talk about control. Didn't seem to stop this sixteen year old and his buddies from going in though to order a tabletop of draft and a pitcher of tomato juice. (legal age was twenty-one then but profits were profits I guess)  ;D

 [cheers]


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The LCBO thing brings back memories of bars shutting down for the supper hour and the separate entrances for "Gentlemen" and "ladies and escorts".



"Two separate and distinct beverage rooms – one for men only, and the other solely for women, except where attended by bona fide escorts.”

The area I live, Swansea - High Park, voted to remain dry until 10 Nov 1997. The nearby Junction would have to wait until late 2000 to go wet. 
Only place you could get a drink was at the Legion. Now, there are bars all over the place, and the Legion is permanently shut down. 
You still can't get a drink at the Grenadier Restaurant in the Park itself.


----------



## mariomike (15 Nov 2016)

Signs in Toronto urge white people to join ‘alt-right’
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/14/signs-in-toronto-urge-white-people-to-join-alt-right.html
"Hey white person, tired of political correctness?"


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Nov 2016)

And of course in the story, it's all the Donald's fault.   :


----------



## mariomike (15 Nov 2016)

Speaking of non-PC things to say,

This from a Democrat, President Lyndon Baines Johnson,

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/


----------



## Pusser (16 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Speaking of non-PC things to say,
> 
> This from a Democrat, President Lyndon Baines Johnson,
> 
> ...



It is interesting that today the Democratic Party is seen as the champion of civil rights and diversity.  This was not always the case, especially within the ranks of the Southern Democrats (from whence LBJ came).  Lincoln was a Republican (Southern Democratic opposition to his election as President was one of the causes of the Civil War), as was Eisenhower (who sent the US Army into Little Rock in order to integrate a school).  In the last few decades, there has been a noticeable shift in the two parties in that their racial views (for lack of a better term) have almost completely swapped.


----------



## mariomike (16 Nov 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It is interesting that today the Democratic Party is seen as the champion of civil rights and diversity.  This was not always the case, especially within the ranks of the Southern Democrats (from whence LBJ came).



Regarding that,

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to many of us a watershed in American history. With it, blacks gained access to public accommodations across the country. When he signed the act, he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the early edition of The Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/?utm_term=.dfe14117f0f3


----------

