National stereotype names - what's in, what's out?

Some people argue that the word Christmas should be removed from celebrations and marketing in December

Both are examples of how the world has gone mad with political correctness

Now taking that into account, I found it shocking that a man who has beat the anti racism drum week in week out on here for months would ask such a question that are terms such as jock, mick, paddy, frog, Taff, tan, kraut, wop etc acceptable to use to stereotype a group of people 

Of course they are not. All unacceptable. Some would cause different levels of offence than others to people but you must broad brush them, none of them can be used 

But it's not a silly thread

There is wide confusion out there as to what is or isn't unacceptable and much of that confusion is deliberately spread on behalf of far right politics via the construction of bad faith memes such as "political correctness gone mad" and "cancel culture"

These memes are being used unironically in this thread by at least one poster

Lack of discussion of the above issues is and lack of proper explanation is part of the reason we have a rise of the far right internationally - I mean look at the positive reaction charlatan politicians get when they shout "political correctness is gone mad"

It's complete bollocks but there are a lot of people who genuinely believe this sloganeering nonsense

I think we are heading, slowly, for a post-sex society, or post-gender society. We have got to the stage, certainly among those under thirty, where sexuality is accepted as a broad spectrum and as long as those involved are consenting then the logic is to leave them at it. I feel this will also happen, in hardly an exact repeat, but in the same vein, with gender fluidity. Society's that were considered savage by colonisers have been more accepting of this for centuries.  

A lot of the punching down towards 'T', 'Q' and '+' portion of the movement was used at the 'LGB' part before. People are using extreme behaviours as outliers to punch down in the name of protecting 'women's rights' as a thin veil to impose their own superiority and faux outrage at something that is unlikely to impact them. That is my reading of it, but I digress! Not a pop at you either RB, more a tangential observation on a topic I feel is important. 

I don't think you have said much wrong here, so not sure of the argument!

I do baulk at the use of the term 'political correctness', however. I have read a few books on what it means and, in reality, it means nothing. It is usually used as a term to validate anachronistic and mean-spirited views and little else. There are two things that are nearly universally true about those that use it: that they are against it and haven't a f**king clue what it means!

It seems it was originally used as an in-joke in a liberal think-tank in America that the American right got a hold of before being up by that bastion of morality, Richard Littlejohn. The first use of it that authors and researchers can find of it, in Britain at least, was when he used the phrase 'political correctness gone mad' in his Daily Mail column. This, it is worth reminding ourselves, is the man that got upset, snowflake that he is, by another publication referring to murdered women as ' women who worked as prostitutes' and not just 'prostitutes'. It did lead to a fine moment of stand-up comedy.

I can think of a large numbers of chants which are directed at Northern football supporters, which would have the same effect. So to say "rarely if ever" is  wide of the mark. I think there is an important discussion to be around the acceptability of chants and what is said at football matches, but there is quite a culture of anti-Northern sentiment at football.

Examples?

I don't doubt that is there is generalised or even specific anti-northern stuff aimed at followers of other teams but I find it hard to imagine that anything would top the dehumanising, othering abuse aimed at Liverpool supporters 

Obviously chants about the Munich air disaster would constitute an example of something that crosses a line but as bad as such chants are, they are not aimed at dehumanising and othering people from a particular geographical area, and are probably more often chanted by followers of rival northern teams to Manchester United, ie. Liverpool and Leeds, than by southern clubs

 

One word I, and everyone else in my school, would have used a lot was Faggot. A disgusting word and one I hope isn't thrown around now as easily as it was back in the 80's and 90's.

If you are unsure whether or not a word is offensive, then don't use it!

The chant about the Northerner who drinks 10 pints? The classist refrain of "we pay your benefits" is something that seems to be ubiquitously used against supporters of teams from the north.

It is a place apart, politically, yes. They elected people like Derek Hatton.  I'm not saying Liverpool don't get it more than other Northern clubs. But my point is about your reference to "rarely if never".

Within the southern teams themselves, particular clubs are seen as more "southern"

It's loosely to do with politics 

The real "southern" teams are Chelsea, Millwall, West Ham, Portsmouth, Spurs, Crystal Palace, possibly Luton, Ipswich, probably in that order

After that you're talking about the likes of diddy teams like Peterborough and Gillingham

Coincidentally a lot of these teams wear blue

Arsenal might have been seen as a proper "southern" team in the past but they're more seen as an internationalist team now I think 

Clubs like Brighton, Charlton, Brentford and Fulham are seen as fairly harmless

I think Southampton are seen as relatively harmless too