[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

It's an interesting concept and I would say certainly valid in cases where people find themselves getting genuinely "offended on behalf of" others, i.e. Really emotionally upset or angry about the issues being discussed. However, like I said I think it's possible to at least explore these issues and think about / empathise with others WITHOUT being emotionally involved. Surely it's possible to appreciate and want to support people who are upset by something, without getting upset at all oneself, or having it affect the rest of one's day in any way?

I would also say that if it is the case, and people's heavy emotional involvement with "offense" is in part down to projection, then surely that must apply both ways? There are people who get very emotionally wound up and certainly very angry on the flips idea of this, too... I guess in this case you could say "outraged on behalf of the festival organisers". It's sort of the same thing; the specifics of the case don't involve them in any way at all unless they are actually from that area or involved, and yet some people are incensed at the idea of it being "affected by PC" etc... So, might there be a similar element of projection there? People aren't actually annoyed by criticisms of the Zulu carnival, they might be projecting their own feelings of having their own expression shut down or invalidated, and be projecting it onto an event / event organisers that have nothing to do with them... Making it exactly the same "fighting for them for me" escape mechanism?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's an interesting concept and I would say certainly valid in cases where people find themselves getting genuinely "offended on behalf of" others, i.e. Really emotionally upset or angry about the issues being discussed. However, like I said I think it's possible to at least explore these issues and think about / empathise with others WITHOUT being emotionally involved. Surely it's possible to appreciate and want to support people who are upset by something, without getting upset at all oneself, or having it affect the rest of one's day in any way?

I would also say that if it is the case, and people's heavy emotional involvement with "offense" is in part down to projection, then surely that must apply both ways? There are people who get very emotionally wound up and certainly very angry on the flips idea of this, too... I guess in this case you could say "outraged on behalf of the festival organisers". It's sort of the same thing; the specifics of the case don't involve them in any way at all unless they are actually from that area or involved, and yet some people are incensed at the idea of it being "affected by PC" etc... So, might there be a similar element of projection there? People aren't actually annoyed by criticisms of the Zulu carnival, they might be projecting their own feelings of having their own expression shut down or invalidated, and be projecting it onto an event / event organisers that have nothing to do with them... Making it exactly the same "fighting for them for me" escape mechanism?

Sorry, I haven't time to answer this in more depth...
Yes, that’s why I said ‘some people’ - those who take it to extremes and see racism and injustice around every corner. Most of us have a natural empathy for the sufferings of others, but also have a sense of balance and can work out when something is deliberately hurtful or intended to cause conflict and when it isn’t.
We all have a coping instinct in which what we say and do unconsciously ‘feeds’ our minds and emotions to hopefully get us the outcome we need to make us feel better.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the more dangerous and unpleasant the world becomes as a whole, the more PC many people become.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Sorry, I haven't time to answer this in more depth...
Yes, that’s why I said ‘some people’ - those who take it to extremes and see racism and injustice around every corner. Most of us have a natural empathy for the sufferings of others, but also have a sense of balance and can work out when something is deliberately hurtful or intended to cause conflict and when it isn’t.
We all have a coping instinct in which what we say and do unconsciously ‘feeds’ our minds and emotions to hopefully get us the outcome we need to make us feel better.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the more dangerous and unpleasant the world becomes as a whole, the more PC many people become.

Was waiting for the PC term to raise it's head... Oh someone is agreeing with the offended minority when we want the have 'fun' in the name of 'tradition' we best trot out the tired old worn phrases to diminish their opinion.

We're not being intentionally offensive in our lionskin covered in skulls and horns, and if you're offended tuff.
The motto of the bonfire is they won't be 'druv' meaning (to me) however what we do is perceived let it be known we don't care we're doing it anyway.

Isn't that a sorry state of affairs that the more dangerous the world becomes it's seen as a bad thing to want to resolve it in a 'politically correct' way, what's the alternative... Anarchy?....War?.... Segregation?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Was waiting for the PC term to raise it's head... Oh someone is agreeing with the offended minority when we want the have 'fun' in the name of 'tradition' we best trot out the tired old worn phrases to diminish their opinion.

We're not being intentionally offensive in our lionskin covered in skulls and horns, and if you're offended tuff.
The motto of the bonfire is they won't be 'druv' meaning (to me) however what we do is perceived let it be known we don't care we're doing it anyway.

Isn't that a sorry state of affairs that the more dangerous the world becomes it's seen as a bad thing to want to resolve it in a 'politically correct' way, what's the alternative... Anarchy?....War?.... Segregation?

I used the term PC as an observation, not a criticism. I'm fairly PC myself, just not overly so.
Of course people have the right to be offended, and people have the right not to be offended. Why is not accepted that people are all different?
War, Anarchy? No. I think more tolerance is the way to go. Trying to force people to all think alike is very dangerous indeed.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

I used the term PC as an observation, not a criticism. I'm fairly PC myself, just not overly so.
Of course people have the right to be offended, and people have the right not to be offended. Why is not accepted that people are all different?
War, Anarchy? No. I think more tolerance is the way to go. Trying to force people to all think alike is very dangerous indeed.

It came across a tad critical, as I asked what is the alternative? People are appearing more PC because guess what they don't want to go to war again, they don't want genocide, they don't want regression.
It's not forcing anyone to do anything is it?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Was waiting for the PC term to raise it's head... Oh someone is agreeing with the offended minority when we want the have 'fun' in the name of 'tradition' we best trot out the tired old worn phrases to diminish their opinion.

We're not being intentionally offensive in our lionskin covered in skulls and horns, and if you're offended tuff.
The motto of the bonfire is they won't be 'druv' meaning (to me) however what we do is perceived let it be known we don't care we're doing it anyway.

Isn't that a sorry state of affairs that the more dangerous the world becomes it's seen as a bad thing to want to resolve it in a 'politically correct' way, what's the alternative... Anarchy?....War?.... Segregation?

The irony there being that the left cause much of the anarchy with all their protest marches and attempts to control how others think - both of which often lead to violence. It's akin to baiting.

PC is by it's very definition is controlling - it is designed to be - to deny that is infantile. All these people wanting to see themselves as 'progressive' when I believe that really they fear that not just accepting everyone regardless of the issues involved will lead to the above ie war etc - one could argue that was simply a form of self-interest.

Segregation is very often something minorities do to themselves. Many come to Britain but do very little to integrate - not even to learn the basics such as language - there is never any excuse for that.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The irony there being that the left cause much of the anarchy with all their protest marches and attempts to control how others think - both of which often lead to violence. It's akin to baiting.

PC is by it's very definition is controlling - it is designed to be - to deny that is infantile. All these people wanting to see themselves as 'progressive' when I believe that really they fear that not just accepting everyone regardless of the issues involved will lead to the above ie war etc - one could argue that was simply a form of self-interest.

Segregation is very often something minorities do to themselves. Many come to Britain but do very little to integrate - not even to learn the basics such as language - there is never any excuse for that.

The right also march... there are perhaps more organised right wing marches than left I would say, that said they are if peaceful perfectly acceptable as we have that right thankfully. Would you remove the right to protest?

Define PC for me, I would be interested to hear what this propaganda inspired soundbite has invoked in your mind, to deny that isn't infantile it's you attempting to control the conversation by reducing any opinion contrary to yours to that of a child.

I'm not sure how you manipulated the thread once again into an attack on left wing values unless they're somehow are a crude reference to how different people respond to the thread topic?

the sentence in relation to segregation appears to suggest that it is ok to marginalise minorities as they like it, you rationalise that by expressing that they refuse to integrate.
I do not accept that personally, however I feel that is a topic for another thread as it is drawing the conversation further and further away from the discussion here.