Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Political correctness destroying New Zealand


First, Psycho Milt noted the hounding of the Massey University professor which questioned the value of Pasifika immigration to New Zealand.
The New Zealand Herald noted a report on the culinary habits of our indigenous peoples in olden times, which saw its author receive much criticism from the PC bigade, reflecting how academic freedom is under threat in PC New Zealand.
But it took the Herald to highlight the damage of political correctness on the country, with a speech from former All Black legend sir Brian Lochore.
Sir Brian said society was turning men into 'male mothers,' and that kids aren't as free to do things as they did due to a failure on crime. He also supported smacking and gave this telling comment:
"People have to make decisions, and people do make mistakes. But make sure that you take action - that there are consequences, and that you actually follow them through."
And as someone noted on one of the other blogs, I guess that does include how you vote!

15 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

I have to say that I think Lochore's lost the plot completely. There's no such thing as PC - there are merely opinions you agree with and ones you don't. Lochore's bothered because many of his opinions now seem to be minority ones, and he preferred it when his were the majority. Others of us recall those times differently, as our opinions were the minority ones back then, and we didn't much enjoy getting told off for holding them by people we didn't respect either. That's life - too bad, matey.

As an example of exactly how PC doesn't exist unless you allow it to in your own head, consider this statement from Lochore:

You as a father, with the aid of your partner - I can't say 'wife' these days, PC.

Can't he? I refer to my wife as my wife, because that's what she is. No-one's ever suggested the term is incorrect, for the very good reason that it's not. Who is preventing Brian Lochore from saying "wife?" The police preventing him from using the word exist only in his own mind. If he thinks others will try and shame him for using that word, perhaps he should think back to his golden days when blokes ruled the roost, and consider all the different ways he and his mates used to try and shame men who used words or had thoughts the blokes didn't like - I can assure him there were miriads of them, it was just that no-one gave it ridiculous names like PC.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Ouch!

'who' if you don't mind, Fairfacts.

"...Massey University professor which questioned the value "

PM of NZ said...

Voting: Decisions with consequence.

Lance said...

I have to say it's PM's commentary and postings that keep me coming back to No Minister. Precisely because I don't generally agree with him. And I don't in this instance either, but I would venture that he has a good point(as he so often does - flattery will get me everywhere right?). If there is one thing for me that will blow a person's credibility out of the water and lower my estimation of their ability to critically think through a political or social issue it's using the phrase:

"It's political correctness gone mad!!!"

And yes, when you can actually hear the triple exclamation marks it's time to suggest they have a cup of tea and a lie down.


I do regard there to be such a thing as Political Correctness, however I'm prompted to partly agree with PM. Sometimes people mistake it for opinions they simply do not agree with.

Psycho Milt said...

Precisely because I don't generally agree with him.

Absolutely, Lance - there's limited entertainment value in discussions with people you totally agree with. The ones with opposing opinions in them are way more fun.

Clunking Fist said...

You have a point psycho. What did bashing gays (and other pre-pc recreational activities) achieve?

But at least there was SOME responsibility for actions: if you lay on the wrong side of a ruck, you learnt what rucking meant. You didn't do it again (unless it was an absolute emergency).

But there has been no PROGRESSION. Instead we have handed responsibility for aspects of our lives to gummint: politicians and bureaucrats, at times without realising it.

The result is a belief that these people have the RIGHT to use our money to do things that we should be doing for ourselves.
And they can't see the correlation between this way of gummint meddling and spending and our slide down the OECD ladder.

Peter said...

I disagree with PM. When people talk about political correctness there is actually something they are referring to and it's not simply a matter of disagreeing with particular opinions.

To me, political correctness means that not causing offence or hurt feelings is made more important than clarity or directness, or sometimes truth. But it's not merely being considerate or respectful, it's about making some topics literally off-limits - no matter how they are addressed.
Ostensibly it's meant to help certain minorities who are thought to be in need of protection but in practise it's often used as a tactic to control discussion.

Lochore didn't actually give a very good example when he said "I can't say 'wife' these days". As PM points out, there isn't anything stopping you from introducing your spouse as your wife. But you can't easily make a public statement referring to wives in general, because that then raises the question of where de facto partnerships, homosexual partnerships etc fit into your worldview and what you think of them. And of course we all know what the answer to that question is supposed to be. The dogma which you are supposed to accept is that nobody has the right to judge any kind of relationship - they are all to be considered of equal value. Not only are you not supposed to question that, you're not even supposed to say anything which raises the possibility of such a question.

The sort of people called "politically correct" consider this kind of limitation of thought and discourse worthwhile, because they believe it will result in less bigotry. But that has never been shown to be the case. I'm not convinced that there is any less bigotry around today than there was 50 years ago, although the targets may have changed. But a culture which discourages certain types of thought and speech must cost us something. We permit pornography because it's thought that the costs of suppressing it oughtweigh the benefits. Is the idea that a wife might be more valuable than a "partner" worse than pornography?

Psycho Milt said...

The dogma which you are supposed to accept is that nobody has the right to judge any kind of relationship...

The thing is, that's exactly the bit that bothers me. Who exactly is forcing us to accept this dogma? I've seen no authorities enforcing compliance with such dogma. If you publicly disagree with it, who polices this crime? What punishments accrue?

It appears to me that the sum total of anti-PC complaints is "a large number of people believe I ought to think this way and will condemn me for expressing a contrary view," which as I pointed out in my earlier comment, is in fact nothing more than "how annoying that my view is now the minority one."

Clunking Fist said...

"The dogma which you are supposed to accept is that nobody has the right to judge any kind of relationship..."

Because it's no one else's fucking business. Which is why I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with polygamy, if it's all consenting. That'll be the PC brigade: who think the man is oppressing the women, as men have form for that, right throughout history.

But it's also no one's fucking business if my two boys want to play with toy guns.

Your comment Peter, makes you sound like a conservative/christian. Are you? Then what about judge not lest you be judged? If god exists, then he'll send all those dirty homos to hell and beyond. So no need for conservative types to legislate to make man-to-man loving illegal.

Only your point on debate is valid, the way it is shut down. And that's where liberalism is illiberal.

Grant S said...

"I have to say that I think Lochore's lost the plot completely. There's no such thing as PC - there are merely opinions you agree with and ones you don't"

..except that such PC opinions are exclusively promulgated and endorsed by pseudo-liberal commies working for the state.

WAKE UP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WAKE UP said...

Oh my, a Man of God (well, of Rugby, which is the same thing), a man from the detestable what- happens-on-tour-stays-on-tour" over-rated boofhead rugby culture, just happens to have opinions on other matters that I agree with!

What to do, what to do?

I know! Everybody, safe in a free-speech democracy, should be able to say EXACTLY what they think about anything.

That way, I could excoriate both the PC brigade and the rugby boofheads with equal enthusiasm.

Adversity certainly creates strange bedfellows :)

Peter said...

The thing is, that's exactly the bit that bothers me. Who exactly is forcing us to accept this dogma? I've seen no authorities enforcing compliance with such dogma. If you publicly disagree with it, who polices this crime? What punishments accrue?


Just off the top of my head: Lawrence Summers, Harvard president, suggested that biological differences may have something to do with the fact that fewer women than men reach the top in scientific fields. Women and men are different physiologically and psychologically, so it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that they might be better at different things. But what he said contradicts the idea that in an ideal society we would have equal numbers of male and female scientists, and possibly some people might draw bigoted conclusions, so he was forced to make an apology. There were also attempts to have him fired. It's not cost-free to publicly contradict the "established dogmas", even in academia where it is supposed be possible to question the dominant ideas in society and advocate minority viewpoints, even if they are unpopular or cause offence.


It appears to me that the sum total of anti-PC complaints is "a large number of people believe I ought to think this way and will condemn me for expressing a contrary view," which as I pointed out in my earlier comment, is in fact nothing more than "how annoying that my view is now the minority one."


As I've already said, it's not so much that some viewpoints are now a minority, it's the tactics used to marginalise them and enforce conformity.

You might say "so what, society has always enforced its norms on people", but many of the people who would be called "politically correct" don't like being on the receiving end when society imposes norms or morals. So there is an element of hypocrisy as well.

Peter said...

Because it's no one else's fucking business. Which is why I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with polygamy, if it's all consenting.

If what you do affects nobody else then you may be justified in saying that it's nobody's business but I'm not sure that relationships are like that. Society is a web of relationships, the nature of 2 people's relationship (or 3 or however many you like) may have an effect on other relationships, which affect others and so on.

Your comment Peter, makes you sound like a conservative/christian. Are you?

Your comment makes you sound like you have a problem with conservatives or Christians. Do you? Yes I am a bit conservative. Am I a Christian? Many Christians probably wouldn't think so. I'm not sure myself. Anyway I never said that homosexuality ought to be criminalised, I just don't like the climate where you are not supposed to question certain ideas in case it rocks the boat or causes offence.

Only your point on debate is valid, the way it is shut down. And that's where liberalism is illiberal.

That is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Joanne Proctor said...

Just wait 'till next year when the Human Rights Commission (HRC)trys to get a law passed that turns women into men and men into women by statutory decree! This cock in a frock act is just one of the recommendations in the HRC report, To Be Who I Am, released in January this year.