Liberals Concept Creeped British Discrimination Law Beyond Recognition

Liberals want to abolish shame in society

Maybe I’ve not got the right timeline right, as this is worthy of an article in itself and I’ll need to do hours of research of historical newspaper articles to pinpoint KEY events.

First at Sports Day, if there was 4 people racing, you could give a sticker to all 3 of them, except for the person who came last, as it was better to have 3 winners than just 1. Then at Sports Day you had to give everyone a sticker, so everyone got a participation trophy. Then it became that if a child had a low mark for their homework, that teachers were FORBIDDEN from marking it with red ink for bad, now they can only use blue or black, red is no more. Then it became that Simon Cowell on Pop Idol isn’t allowed to make cruel and shattering insults towards the people auditioning. Then it became that those sensationalist tabloid newspapers like The Sun, Daily Star and The Mirror, that they’re not allowed to criticise the contestants of Big Brother, even if their behaviour is depraved, lazy, argumentative, exploitative, mean or counter-productive. Then it became that reality tv shows like Big Brother aren’t allowed to instigate or orchestrate drama, by allowing them to drink loads of alcohol EVERY day, even if they weren’t manufacturing drama in a forced and contrived way like American reality tv shows.

Then it became that the producers of talent competitions, that they aren’t allowed to force or coerce the contestants to create MILD drama, like for example, if a constant’s mother had died and their mother had a favourite song, and then another contestant sings that same song, in order to induce crying or a sad and sullen face from someone else, even if the person signing it has every right to sing it, making it a grey area, whereas before the producers could FORCE the contestants to sing that song for higher ratings, now they wouldn’t be allowed to, despite there being no moral imperative which mandates the contestants shalln’t.

Fast forward again to today, I’m not sure when that started as I finished school in 2008, but now the liberals want to abolish National Tests in school, for example they’ve abolished SATS for Key Stage 1 and they’re also abolishing other exams in schools as well. I’m not sure which ones.

This then leaves two obvious questions, to follow onwards to my next point

  • If shame is abolished from society, then what sort of things are we allowed to shame or criticise people for? And why are those things deemed acceptable to criticise and chastise people for, while for the other things now off limits to shame at a soft limit, low-level behaviour?
  • If only the most egregious behaviour can be shamed, whatever that may be, then if some of those things are petty, trivial, anodyne and benign, then as that raises a contradiction, why is it that some low severity behaviour is deemed worthy of being shamed, whereas some relatively high behaviour is deemed off limits to shame? If there is a skewed judgement due to behaviours being unfairly down-weighted, then why is this, who is allowed to question it and can it be allowed to continue once the contradiction question is raised?

So then that leads me to my next point.

Let’s look at the concept creep

You’ve got to look at how the definition of discrimination has EXPANDED over the past 20-30 years, maybe even the past 50 years.

Many of psychology’s concepts have undergone semantic shifts in recent years. These conceptual changes follow a consistent trend. Concepts that refer to the negative aspects of human experience and behavior have expanded their meanings so that they now encompass a much broader range of phenomena than before.

This expansion takes ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ forms: concepts extend outward to capture qualitatively new phenomena and downward to capture quantitatively less extreme phenomena.

The concepts of abuse, bullying, trauma, mental disorder, addiction, and prejudice are examined to illustrate these historical changes. In each case, the concept’s boundary has stretched and its meaning has dilated.

A variety of explanations for this pattern of ‘concept creep’ are considered and its implications are explored. I contend that the expansion primarily reflects an ever-increasing sensitivity to harm, reflecting a liberal moral agenda. Its implications are ambivalent, however. Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood.

concept creep: psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology by nick haslam

Well in the UK anyway.

Upright discrimination

At first discrimination was about denying someone access to something, like buildings having a sign on the window “no blacks no irish no dogs” or them being discriminated by landlords and employers

Hostile direct aggression

Then it became about “direct aggresion” (not indirect), or better put, hostile direct aggression, like assault, theft or vandalism, that it could have a hate element as a compounding factor.

Chastising someone

Then it became about chastising someone, like if you was to use insults and flags which showed obvious insults and slurs.

Bullying someone

Then it became about bullying someone like if in the workplace, someone was being bullied on a REPEATED and PROLOGNED basis.

Committing social isolation

Then it became about committing social isolation against someone, like in the workplace, if they weren’t invited to events after work, if they were given an excessive amount of work, less ability to change their schedule or ignored and left out of conversations.

Alienating someone

Then it became about alienating for example
1) someone deliberately using complex, figurative and technical language around a foreign english speaker
2) a person who keeps cooking bacon in the workplace, which is notorious for having a very strong lingering smell, to annoy someone who doesn’t eat it for health, religious or ethical reasons
3) a person who replaces all the wireless optical infra-red along with the wired rubber ball mice, to be replaced with the trackball, as they know that a specific person will be annoyed by it
4) people with money talking about holidays and sushi around poor people, knowing the poor person won’t be able to have anything substantial to add to the conversation

But now they’ve expanded it, the meaning of discrimination, even further.

Such a perplexing word. So what are microaggressions anyway?

Rather than have me explain, something that is rather hard to understand, I’ll let the articles below explain it, better than I could, from the people who would personally take offence or uneasiness from it.

Maybe I should add some loosely related articles here that steer away from the 411 primer for those who have heard nothing about it before.

Someone got their Amazon Alexa account banned because they got reported for racism because their smart doorbell committed a microaggression against a delivery driver.

The person luckily had audio recordings of their front door, not just the visual footage, so when they successfully defended themselves to get their account back, it then transpired that the smart doorbell actually said

Can I help you?

Remiscent of a black person thinking that they were only asked that in the shop, under the underlying premise that they are about to steal if they’re loitering in a shop empty handed without picking up or buying anything.

Amazon Alexa Locks "Racist" Owner Out of Smart Home

The video went viral then it made Amazon look bad with bad publicity and reputational damage, once all the news websites and youtubers started covering the story straight after Mental Outlaw’s video.

Then Louis Rossman got his Amazon affiliate program account deleted for reporting on it.

Amazon cancelled my account after exposing their wrongful lockout of a paying customer

Don’t think that it could happen in the workplace, to warrant someone being instantly fired on the first transgression? Think again!

Multinational conglomerates having to pay £18-50k over a microaggression in an employment tribunal, after being sued by a customer.

When I worked at Marks & Spencer

They said that I was not allowed to do these two things, as they would be perceived to be a hate crime.

  • If a person is suspected of shoplifting, when reporting it to security, do not mention the person’s race.
  • If there is a female employee in the workplace, do not treat her as a concierge or anything that could lightly be perceived so, as it would be deemed as a microaggression for the stereotype that women have to be, in a single word, subservient to men.

If a company is sued in the UK, especially a multinational company, they’re looking to pay £30,000 in damages to the victim, maybe £18k but £12k if lucky.

If it’s continually expanding, what is the upcoming emerging trend?

This article is about the here and now

The obvious question is

Now you have

  • 1) Lawsuits over microaggressions (well in the UK anyway)
  • 2) Gender stereotypes banned in adverts and elsewhere
  • 3) Code of Conduct in workplaces, conferences, livestreaming and open source

How are these feminists ever going to plausibly continue to use the 2010s argument of lack of role models and discrimination, for the gender parity in STEM?

This might be covered in a future article as it’s about predicting the future. Actually I think I will cover it in the future, as well!

Further Reading

Under british law, there are four different types of discrimination.

  • Direct discrimination
  • Indirect discrimination
  • Harassment
  • Victimisation (this includes constructive dismissal)

The articles at Britton&Time, HR Solutions, GOV.UK, ECHR and Citizens Advice Bureau should further explain this.

However if you feel you are a victim of a hate crime, which includes speech Stop Hate UK has some good resources for reporting it online. It may seem that nothing is done in the long term but the results come sooner years as you think, as when the government gets each small story to build a wider picture, they can create an action plan and taskforce to deal with any emerging, impervious or clandestine threats. For those interested in the legal and case study aspects of these hate crime laws, the consultations from the Law Commission about reforming the Communications Act and reforming the hate speech laws, it makes an interesting read.

For context, hate speech laws are covered by three different acts.

  • Communications Act
  • Malicious Communications Act
  • Public Order Act

However stalking, cyberstalking, smear websites and witch-hunting falls under the Freedom of Harassment Act.

Conclusion

Related Posts