I don’t think ‘political correctness’ is anything more than a dog-whistle for Daily-Mail-Types, is it?
But ‘persistently considerate’ - absolutely - that’s what the rest of us believe in!
‘Woke’ - another dog-whistle.
My mother-in-law is not offended by mother-in-law jokes - but nor does she feel the need to broadcast not-being-offended on social media!
By all means suggest all you like, condisending or not, but I can think quite successfully for myself without things getting rammed down my throat daily by everyone in the world who thinks they know better 
I learned many years ago to filter out what matters to me from all the background noise.
But why engage on social media if you don’t want to hear other people’s views Griffin?
What’s coming across to me is precisely what my post described (shame you didn’t read it!): you wanted to have your say about Jan’s post, but dismiss any views different from your own.
See the pattern?
1 Like
Get over yourself Geof, your constant lecturing to people who think differently to you is becoming incredibly tedious. We’re all entitled to think what we like and vocalise that provided we do it in a way that doesn’t offend anyone else.
3 Likes
Not really comparable is it, to jokes about people who have historically been powerless/chattels/ exploited/otherwise victimised. Dad jokes are rather meta.
1 Like
Except it’s the exact opposite, MILs are seen as powerful, dominating and to be feared. Dads on the other hand are seen as embarrassing out of date dinosaurs.
Who traditionally brings home the bacon and is the financial mainstay of a family? Not the mother-in-law, who incidentally is generally the butt of jokes only if she is some man’s mother in law.
You don’t get it do you, which is normal because you are probably a middle aged white man 
so you aren’t likely to see the problem.
We can just agree to disagree 
1 Like
So you don’t think daughter in laws ever whinge or take the piss out of their mother in laws then?
Not sure what my age or colour has got to do with the discussion.
I think the shorter, less reasoned, ruder version of @Geof_Cox’s comment may have been “You’re talking nonsense, pull your head out of your proverbial” so seeing his well thought out comment was definitely the better option. 
Thank goodness we’re all different and have our own ways, be they short and sweet or detailed and reasoned.
1 Like
Tim I could not have put it better myself.
Geof, i didn’t say I don’t want to hear other people’s views, I do, but I gets wearing being lectured too if I don’t agree with you, I’m not one of your students 
Yes, it’s human nature that we can hear people opine for days if we agree with them, but if we don’t it’s not quite what we want to hear. But it does allow us to understand ‘the other side’ much more, even if it’s personally a bit painful.
2 Likes
No pain here, we can’t all be fans though.
Scan a few hundred instances of jokes about mothers-in-law and I think you’ll find they are overwhelmingly made by the son-in-law.
QED 
3 Likes
As long as it’s not one of those nasty Dyson ones I don’t see why not. Although I guess even those have their gammony fans. Fans with fans. More hot air than in the Commons.
1 Like
Now your going too far, that’s just not possible 
1 Like
Really? The only time my Scottish MIL is to be feared is if you’re between her and the bargain self in Waitrose.
Precisely! As I said in my earlier post:
Nobody here is stopping anybody using whatever words they like, are they? So perhaps the fear is that others will criticise your choice of words? - but surely that is their right? Is this a question of one interlocutor, under the guise of defending their own freedom to express themselves, trying to curtail others’ right to object?
Do you and Griffin get it now?
You want to write on social media against some comedian expressing dislike of mother-in-law jokes - but what about their right to express their views on jokes, or anything else? Or others’ rights to defend them against you?
Don’t you see that in branding people showing consideration for others’ feelings as ‘political correctness’, or showing sensitivity to social injustice as ‘woke’ - you engage in precisely the same shouting down of others’ views that you say you oppose?
How I would love to see a closely argued and evidenced post from you guys setting out exactly what it is you think is wrong with considering others’ feelings, or showing sensitivity to social injustice!
Believe me, I would certainly not try to dismiss it as ‘lecturing’ - I’d get my analytic teeth right into it!
Why ? because you have spoken 
As has been said before that you have missed your true vocation, you would have made a consummate politician.
It’s probably easier to do what others do and block you, that way no more lectures, easy solution.
Of course she has the right to voice her opinion, unfortunately she was not merely expressing an opinion but doing what you often do which is lecturing people (which in this case was a national television audience) that we should now not find something amusing because we live in a certain time period.
What is so absurd about this is that if I find certain jokes/themes funny I am now by default ‘insensitive’ to others and social injustice. How did we get to a situation where you must not find anything humorous in case it offends someone?
1 Like