[coolestuk]

This shambles could only happen in Britain. Senior politicians get accused of being paedophiles by journalists with no evidence. Politicians routinely steal from public coffers, and don't even lose their place in Parliament (even though some were sent to prison). The country is awash with video surveillance, yet trying to get the police to respond to a crime report is like swimming upstream. A christian preacher who said "Homosexuals are deserving of the wrath of God – and so are all other sinners – and they are going to a place called hell" received a £1000 fine and a criminal conviction. Indian sikhs who criticise Indian muslims are accused of being racists.

Political correctness had taken hold in local government by the early 1980s. Practically every interaction with them requires you to tell them your race, gender and sexual preference.

The place is a mad-house.

[rmc]

Political Correctness is great if you are a minority. It means you have similar rights to the powerful group. As a gay man, I know I can mention the gender of my spouse (male!) in a workplace environment without being worried about being fired (for example). Straight people have always (more or less) been able to mention their spouse in the workplace without fear of repercussion. Now I can too! Political Correctness means I don't have to watch every word I say in the office! It's done wonders for my freedom of speech.

The most ardent opponents are those who hate gay people or black people and want to continue to shout vile things without repuccision.

[mseebach2]

That's not political correctness, that's anti-discrimination.

Political correctness is "Seasons Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending non-Christians. It's idiotic because for those not celebrating Christmas, indeed those that might be offended by mentions of Christmas, there is no season to celebrate. Don't send them a card. "Seasons greetings" is not "culture neutral", it's a code for Christmas. Pretending people are too stupid to figure out why suddenly people are eager to wish them a particular great third week of December is very offensive, IMO.

[rmc]

This can become a no true scotsman argument. What's the difference between political correctness and anti-discrimination? Is saying "spouse" or "partner" (instead of "wife") to a man you know is married politically correct or anti-discrimination?

Mostly PC is not about avoiding "offence", but about ensuring under-represented minority is not felt left out purely for being in that group. Despite what right wing tabloid newspapers print, very few people are actually offended by the mention of the word Christmas. Instead saying "Happy Christmas" implies you aren't thinking about the non-christians, and/or that there is nothing wrong with not thinking about non-christians. Saying "Seasons Greetings" is a code for "We are aware there are non-christians here, and we want to let them know we think you're just as welcome here as christians".

[mantas]

Why should I be aware of everybody's likes and dislikes? I'm just living my own life and that's it.

Are we going to call meat "animal-sourced food" next? Just to let vegetarians know we're aware of them...

[rmc]

Why should I be aware of everybody's likes and dislikes?

Because empathy towards your fellow human beings is a virtue and not giving two flying fucks about anyone except number one is not very nice. You may choose to live your life that way, but plenty of people in the world actually care about people aside from themselves.

Are we going to call meat "animal-sourced food" next?

Apples and Oranges. A more apt analogy is like a company having a meal outing and having no vegetarian options. It sends the signal to the veggies that they aren't fully welcome.

[mantas]

I don't think empathy and acknowledging is the same as going out of my way to make sure any possible minority is pleased if I accidentally meet them on my way.

[aes256]

"Anti-discrimination" is part of political correctness.

The example you provide falls under both categories, and it falls under political correctness precisely because it would be discriminatory to celebrate one religious festival without celebrating all of them. It is not politically "correct" to partake in discrimination.

I don't know if you're from the UK, but society today is highly secular. A British Humanist Association poll last year had 65% of respondents answer the question "Are you religious?" negatively. Of those who claim to be religious, most do not attend church on a regular basis, or take part in other religious rituals. Not to mention many of them are not Christian.

[mseebach2]

I meant anti-discrimination as the law that keeps the GP from being fired for admitting he's gay.

As for the number of Brits being religious, I think it's easy to conclude that more than 35% of Brits celebrate Christmas. Given the origin of the poll, I would not be surprised if the question was phrased very narrowly.

It's not discriminatory to celebrate Christmas by default if your company is in a culture that predominantly observe Christmas. It would be discriminatory to make special arrangement for time off on Christmas, but not accommodating seasonal holiday requests from Muslims on Eid and Hindus on Diwali.

[aes256]

The question was "Are you religious?", and 65% answered negatively. You can't really frame something as fundamental as that.

I personally think the 35% figure is inflated by people who identify with Christianity but don't practice it, or people who do practice it but out of fear more than faith.

Britain is no longer a Christian country, and that's not a bad thing. Give it another two generations and Christians will be a small minority (5-10%)

> It's not discriminatory to celebrate Christmas by default if your company is in a culture that predominantly observe Christmas. It would be discriminatory to make special arrangement for time off on Christmas, but not accommodating seasonal holiday requests from Muslims on Eid and Hindus on Diwali.

You can't justify discriminatory actions by deferring to the culture in which they take place. Suppose we replace religion with race. Christmas is now a racial festival celebrating white culture. Is it appropriate to foist these celebrations on black people in the office? Of course not.

Does the fact the company operates in a predominantly white culture justify the practice? Of course not.

[mantas]

1) Many people who identify themselves as non-religious celebrate Christmas anyway.

2) Christmas existed in virtually all European cultures before Christianity. Under different titles though.

[objclxt]

I disagree: it could have happened in many Western countries.

The problem with a 'it's political correctness gone mad!' argument is it ignores the context in which those laws were enacted. Racism and sexism were systematic and endemic in the UK during much of the 20th century.

You say that "political correctness had taken hold in local government by the early 1980s", but you don't mention that the reason for this was that during the early 1980s there were numerous serious race riots throughout the UK.

Hate speech and anti-discrimination laws have drastically improved the lives of millions of people in the UK. I don't pretend that discrimination has been eliminated, but you simply can't deny the fact that British society today is considerably less racist and sexist than it was thirty years ago.

Now, there is a side effect to this. Because the UK doesn't have explicit free speech protection mistakes have been made enforcing those laws. Sometimes people mis-interpret them, in the same way people mis-understand health and safety laws. But I would argue these costs are far out-weighed by the benefit that a ethnically diverse and accepting society has brought. I see that since I started typing this someone has already replied to you saying how much their life has improved due to these laws.

Getting back to your original point: I don't think this is a UK specific problem. I could probably cherry-pick similar examples from the US and other EU countries and come up with equally compelling arguments that "this shambles could only happen in [X]".

This is obviously a very emotional topic for many people. I don't expect this reply to change your mind, and I fully expect people to disagree with me. All I really want to get at is that as someone who also lives in the UK I disagree with your viewpoint.

[mseebach2]

> Hate speech and anti-discrimination laws have drastically improved the lives of millions of people in the UK.

Cause and effect, dude. This happened in the same time frame in virtually every single developed country on earth with different ways of approaching the issue. Chances are that being more tolerant was simply just an idea whose time had come.

[objclxt]

Certainly true, but the switch doesn't simply flip overnight. Take the US: the impact the Civil Rights Act had is immeasurable.

Laws can and do cause drastic change. I think we could safely say that if hypothetically the supreme court was to find prohibiting same-sex marriage as unconstitutional the impact would be far more immediate and greater than legislating on a state-by-state ad hoc basis.

[illuminate]

"Chances are that being more tolerant was simply just an idea whose time had come."

Society does not move to a predetermined end, and we will not be "better" off without protections of civil rights. That statement is dangerous because it assumes that there are not forces and persons who wish to regress.

[rmc]

Racism and sexism were systematic and endemic in the UK during much of the 20th century.

A UK constituancy seat in 1960s was won by a conservative candidate against the Labour candidate, on the slogan: "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/apr/27/race.world2

But no, apparently it's "gone too far" when you can't say that anymore!</sarcasm>

the UK doesn't have explicit free speech protection

Debatable. it doesn't have a written constitution, yes, however it has signed up various treaties that guarantee free speech (e.g. Charter of Fundamental Rights).

Regardless, all countries have limits on "free speech" (even USA). Many EU countries put a limit on free speech and don't include very racist vile speech as protected speech. This doesn't mean they have "no free speech".

[qwerta]

> Practically every interaction with them requires you to tell them your

I find it _VERY_ disturbing that government is even asking for such information. Political clime is changing quickly and such catalogs may end easily in wrong hands.

Holocaust was enabled just because of such lists. Birth Records was first thing nazis were after when they invaded new space. Without them they would not recognize Polish, Russian from Jews. For example Kafka: he had Czech name, most of his friends were Germans, was Jewish and spoke fluently all local languages.

I dont care about assurances, they may be void tomorrow. Collecting such information is simply completely unacceptable. Even Russia is more liberal in this.

[rmc]

Political correctness had taken hold in local government by the early 1980s

I must point out Section 28 in the UK ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 ). It was passed in 1988, and banned local authorities from "promoting homosexuality". This was wildly interpreted as banning any mention of homosexuality in schools (amoung other things). It's the height of the AIDS epidemic and you can't teach gay kids in school how to have safe sex, and you can't tell them it'll OK to be gay, you can't have any books that have gay characters. It was repealed in 2003.

Political incorrectness and discrimination were enshrined in local government law in the 1980s.

[FuzzyDunlop]

In fairness the tweet that presumably started it all originated from San Francisco.