You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 04:32:21 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)  (Read 455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AngiejuusanTopic starter

No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« on: January 15, 2015, 12:57:37 AM »
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-publisher-bans-mentions-of-pigs-or-pork-so-as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html

I go to Reddit a lot, and this topic got pulled off a board called "Not The Onion"-a board for real world headlines so freakin' ridiculous that you can't believe it's not satirical. Personally I don't know how reliable the London Evening Standard is, but I'm just going to assume it's legit until evidence is presented otherwise (and I'll delete the topic).

One thing I want to bring up: "The guidance was condemned by Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mhamood."

First thought-I find it hilarious that the people you're so worried about offending are the people who are telling you this is the stupidest thing they've ever seen.

Second thought-I would say this is the most offensive thing they could have done. The UK is trying to tell Muslims (and Jews) what they should be offended by. Which is stupid.

I can understand that Oxford University Press (OUP) has a wide reach and they don't want to offend anyone, but calling attention to the fact that you're trying not to offend people just leaves people confused and possibly more offended. Granted, I'm young and I don't know anything (only 21), so maybe I drew the wrong conclusion. Prove me wrong, please-or prove me right. Either way, I wanna see what you have to say.

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 01:06:31 AM »



Second thought-I would say this is the most offensive thing they could have done. The UK is trying to tell Muslims (and Jews) what they should be offended by. Which is stupid.



my thoughts exactly.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2015, 03:55:57 AM »
One thing I want to bring up: "The guidance was condemned by Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mhamood."

First thought-I find it hilarious that the people you're so worried about offending are the people who are telling you this is the stupidest thing they've ever seen.

Just because someone has a Muslim name doesn't mean they are a practicing Muslim, or even a Muslim for that matter.  There are many people with Muslim names in the West who don't know the first thing about Islam - yet were given Muslim names by their immigrant parents, or came to the West as children.  It's like saying everyone named "John" is a Christian.

From the little that I know about Khalid Mahmood, he has a political history of voting against Muslim interests.

Offline Dringdar

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2015, 02:19:59 PM »
How amusing. And how stupid. I hope that in fifty years the pendulum of political correctness will become more mild, and we can worry less about offending people, and more about fixing actual problems.

Offline AngiejuusanTopic starter

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2015, 02:36:31 PM »
How amusing. And how stupid. I hope that in fifty years the pendulum of political correctness will become more mild, and we can worry less about offending people, and more about fixing actual problems.

Well personally, I think there's already starting to be push-back against it, and not from the usual suspects of loud mouthed extremists-regular, everyday people are seeing this and going "da fuq?" I told my mom about it and she was like "that's...kinda silly." Of course, this is only anecdotal evidence, so take it with a grain of salt.

Offline AndyZ

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2015, 01:24:29 AM »
One of the concepts I've brought up of late after SNL came up with it was Asian-American Doll.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/asian-american-doll/2836284

If you worry too much about offending everyone who isn't white cismale Christian, then eventually the ONLY thing you can have anywhere is white cismale Christian stuff.  Then other people don't get represented.

There's a similar deal going on with the Washington Redskins team by Harry Reid, even though like 90% of Native Americans polled either don't care or actively want the name kept as it is.

There was a similar deal for the Fighting Sioux, Sioux being a misnomer for the Lakota.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/26/the-native-americans-who-voted-for-the-fighting-sioux.html

Speaking as a Christian, I could gladly do without the incessant majority of representation for my religion being the usual straw man parody, but it's got to be better than having people just pretend that we don't exist, or having an unrealistic "token" representation.

There has to be some better way to handle offensiveness.  I've heard it said that we shouldn't do something if even one person in a group finds it offensive, but I wonder if maybe closer to 50% would be a better demarcation so that we can focus on actual issues and not have this kind of thing come up.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2015, 08:26:21 PM »
There's a similar deal going on with the Washington Redskins team by Harry Reid, even though like 90% of Native Americans polled either don't care or actively want the name kept as it is.

As someone who grew up in the DC area, I have to correct you on this.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

The 2004 study (which I believe you are referring to) had some serious problems with the methodology.  Tribal status was not verified and Alaska, which has a significant Native population was excluded.  The study I have linked above was conducted far more recently.

Offline AndyZ

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2015, 08:42:40 PM »
Ah, okay.  Thank you.

Online Thesunmaid

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2015, 07:15:39 PM »
So will they also ban beef and cows to not offend those who are Hindu? Or perhaps all meat because there are vegetarians..or all men because fem nazis..or maybe women because women haters.Also in the Christian bible say that shell fish and eating anything with cloven hooves it bad...so..really..if its just about religion..do all the meat in books have to be kosher so Jewish people are ok with it? Shall I keep going? Its lovely to not want to offend people but isn't this just a bit silly?


Offline DarknessBorne

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2015, 01:35:00 AM »
I'm sorry, but I have a thing (as in, a pet peeve) for people who migrate to someone else's home and demand that person or people cater to them.

It was wrong when colonialists in the past imposed European culture on Africans, Indians and others.

It's just as wrong when it happens to other peoples today.

If you go to another man's lair, either respect him or do not go there.

Offline AndyZ

Re: No more pork or pigs in UK textbooks (Political Controversy)
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2015, 04:15:16 PM »
So will they also ban beef and cows to not offend those who are Hindu? Or perhaps all meat because there are vegetarians..or all men because fem nazis..or maybe women because women haters.Also in the Christian bible say that shell fish and eating anything with cloven hooves it bad...so..really..if its just about religion..do all the meat in books have to be kosher so Jewish people are ok with it? Shall I keep going? Its lovely to not want to offend people but isn't this just a bit silly?

In the New Testament (specifically Acts 15) they talk about how the inordinate number of Jewish laws was metaphorically a yoke which not even the Jews could fully bear, let alone the new converts.

Quote from: Acts 15:20 NIV
20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Just something helpful to know regarding the Christian bit.  I realize you were being facetious, and I know that people won't treat all religions equally with regard to being offended, but I like teaching new things ^_^