There's a point where political correctness becomes regressive also and does more harm than good.

Could you define 'political correctness' for me, and highlight at what point it becomes regressive?

IMO the limitations of "political correctness" begin when being (supposedly) politically correct begins to cause others to suffer. I don't mean "because they're not free to say or do whatever they want boo hoo" etc. but yes, this would be a good example, it's not OK to discriminate against women because doing so is part of a faith, and therefore it's "PC" to respect that faith. Equality wins out over adhering to / respecting a belief system, always.

I also do not believe in positive discrimination, of any kind, in the slightest... which is another limitation.

Quite simple really

political correctness
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Notice the word 'perceived'.This means that what is 'PC' is up for interpretation from anyone.
It becomes regressive when it is used as a tool to try and shut down debate or conversation which could improve a situation and is used very often by the regressive left.
Political correctness can very quickly turn into shouts of racism or any other 'ism/phobic' you can think of.Many people especially in the political arena will avoid issues like the plague for fear of being labelled.An example would be the immigration issue being swept under the carpet for years.This was regressive as it stoked up alot of people feeling ignored and some turning to the BNP and far right.Remember Nick Griffin getting his spot on Question Time?That would not have happened without political correctness squashing any sensible conversation.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

So basically what you're saying is that there is no definition, which is a bit of a cop out tbh.
The term politically correct for me is a benchmark as to what is socially and politically accepted in civil society .
One that you think would speak for those who have right leaning views, if it weren't for the fact that they are 99% of the time trotting the term out as a negative if someone dares to shine a light on the bigoted 'ist' things they say regularly.

To blame the 'Left' and accuse anyone who disagrees with swathes of the media and at times the govt marginalising those they deem undesirable as being 'regressive' is pathetic.

The regressive left is'nt a term used to describe everyone left of centre.It's a subsection of the left who will defend any other culture other than their own no matter how right or wrong they think they are.They will dismiss the bigotry of certain cultures as 'just part of that culture' and won't stand up to it.They will defend terrorists if they believe in the cause(Hamas for example).Just look at the Stop The War coalition(Corbyns favourite club).They only want to 'stop the war' if the west are involved.The kind of people who say things like 'our friends from Hamas'.These people will regularly use political correctness as their weapon of choice.
It does not describe every left leaning person as regressive.

Cool posts, what other things are regressive?

Well i'm sure there are other airlines that will cater for all these peoples gender segregation needs without those pesky women getting all uptight about it eh?

I love missing the irony of sticking up for women by telling other groups of people to feck off

Thats because youre progressive, right? Certainly no isms or phobics here, thats just PC gone mad.

Oh so it's only regressive Corbyn supporters now, and Corbyn himself?
:joker: I'm sorry this is just laughable now.

How about the ones you suggested? Arab airlines. Theresas pals the Saudis? They're really friendly and they are sooo all about womens rights and such.

There is no irony when the'other group's' point of view is discriminatory. Why would anyone excuse such discrimination because it's a claimed religious view? Religion doesn't excuse people from abiding by laws and common decency.

How can you claim isms and phobia's over this issue? Are you saying that a woman should be treated as if she is less than a man so long as that man is from a different race or religion to her? This somehow makes it OK does it?

Your argument does not have the moral high ground here.

She wasn't travelling on those airlines. She was travelling with a company that isn't based in a country with 3000 year old discriminatory rules, and should expect to be treated as an equal to anyone else. She is not less, her presence is not unclean, she has rights.

When you are a woman in Saudi you can't drive a car because it's against the law there and you have to respect the law of that country. When you are on a domestic US flight you shouldn't be discriminated against because of some whacko's view that half the world, including those who have given birth to said whacko's, are somehow unclean.

Be careful what you choose to champion, you wouldn't want to live like that and by championing those kinds of views you advocate them.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

No, how did you even get that from what ive said lol. The poster that I quoted just cant cry for common decency when their posts lack the exact same thing in this thread.

The video could also be titled 'angry woman would rather force novice buddhist out of their religion than switch seats' but it wasnt, the title went on about muslims so of course its a big deal. Monks who reach sunyata can sit next to women, monks who spend their whole life practicing for a religion but have not yet reached sunyata would rather not because of the respect that they have for women.

But of course because of the title the uploader gave the video, this is a big deal and its all muslims fault, this woman is hard done by and theres no point researching it a tiny bit further. Give over.

Your POV is completely influenced by perceived opinions of other users and racism perceived by you rather than looking at the actual facts. :shrug:

I couldn't give a flying what respect their faith is meant to have for women. It is not respectful to expect her to move because she is a woman. It doesn't matter what the headline said, it doesn't matter if they are Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, or the we love pink elephants cult. The issue is that they didn't want to sit next to a woman who wasn't even asked if she would mind moving or upgrading her seat. She was just shunted away to another seat like a dirty secret. That is, and should be, unacceptable. There is nothing to research.

No arguments from me.

It wasn't a serious suggestion Jaxie.... It was to highlight the hypocrisy of holding one person up for scrutiny.
I don't need a Saudi culture lesson from you thanks :laugh:

Being 'non PC' does, and that's ok :shrug:

So you are arguing with People just for sake of disagreeing with them because of some perceived view you hold of them and their views and not because you hold an opposing view. That seems to be what you are implying. :shrug:

We can always learn something new, even when we think we know it all.

I've not discussed PC on this thread therefore you don't know what I view as OK, however, I'll tell you what I think isn't OK. It's not OK to defend PC by upholding and defending discrimination and discrimination comes in more shapes and forms than the colour of a person's skin.

I have to say I find it bizarre that you decry on one hand what you are literally doing on the other because you are using preconceived prejudices to say that someone else can't have an opinion.

Nope, I was discussing an issue with another member, regarding the definition of PC.
I don't hold a view on anyone, perceived or otherwise.

:pat::pat::pat:

What on earth are you on about.... Where have I said someone can't have an opinion?
How can I defend 'PC' when nobody appears to be able to define it?