Well, I made a genuine effort to find out exactly what Ofcom did and all I could find was a ruling that said he breached broadcasting standards. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll happily read it. For reference, here is a list of sanction decisions made by ofcom: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/

"Punishment means fines. Fines means the threat of force. Force means abduction and false imprisonment. For the crime of sitting on a couch and having a conversation."

That slippery slope looks awesome fun! Does it go the other way too? If you can't joke about dwarfs, then pretty soon you won't be able to advocate giving those queers the beating they deserve or tell those darkies to fuck off back to africa! It's PC gone mad!

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

Hey, since we're no longer being PC (or as normal people call it "not being an asshole"), I can say that this video is fucking retarded. Yay!

Without doubt, there are people who have taken "PC" to an illogical extreme, but they are in a tiny minority compared to the vast hordes of Daily Mail reading fucktards that complain about some made up nonsense that is "PC gone mad".

So much good stuff here. Please unkill this @eric3579.

I've said here before that 99% of the time when someone complains about "PC gone mad", they're a middle-aged straight white dude that can't understand why they can't call people fags, niggers or bitches anymore. And most of them don't even understand they're being a dick. As far as they're concerned they genuinely believe they're just "telling it like it is".

I'm going to let the late, insanely great, Iain Banks have the last word here:

'Political correctness is what right-wing bigots call what everybody else calls being polite ... Like everybody else, I have my own definitions of what is what, and I would never seek to deny that a few stupid people can take a perfectly good idea too far, but I stand by my contention that political correctness is more sinned against than sinning.'

Bill's only crime here was really only that it wasn't a very funny bit.

As for the "PC Police", most of the time, I think "PC gone mad" is just said by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson who are just upset that they're not allowed call people darkies or poofs anymore* but in this case it's just lazy journalists looking to drum up faux outrage.

* because that's what they are right? I mean, it's not racist or homophobic, that's just facts. Why are you all looking at me like that?

While there are certain excesses in political correctness, there is a genuine reason for it.

There are a lot of people who complain about "PC gone mad" simply because they're not allowed call out those niggers and fags anymore.

I agree that people should be able to express their opinion, but I'm not sorry that certain opinions have become socially unacceptable.