John Cleese Warns Campus Political Correctness Leading Towards 1984 (washingtonexaminer.com) 669
An anonymous reader writes: Ashe Schow writes at the Washington Examiner that, "The Monty Python co-founder, in a video for Internet forum Big Think, railed against the current wave of hypersensitivity on college campuses, saying he has been warned against performing on campuses. "[Psychiatrist Robin Skynner] said: 'If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior,'" Cleese said. "And when you're around super-sensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next." Cleese said that it's one thing to be "mean" to "people who are not able to look after themselves very well," but it was another to take it to "the point where any kind of criticism of any individual or group could be labeled cruel." Cleese added that "comedy is critical," and if society starts telling people "we mustn't criticize or offend them," then humor goes out the window. "With humor goes a sense of proportion," Cleese said. "And then, as far as I'm concerned, you're living in 1984." Cleese is just the latest comedian to lecture college students about being so sensitive.
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
To summarize the summary [...]: people are a problem. - Douglas Adams
Also, fuck the fucking fuckers.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even 4 posts down and someone is defending the insane, thumb sucking, safe space needing, microagression fearing, losers that occupy campuses today.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even 4 posts down and someone is defending the insane, thumb sucking, safe space needing, microagression fearing, losers that occupy campuses today.
Indeed. The issue is not whether some people will be offended (someone will be offended by almost anything), but whether we cave in to the whiners, and censor speech. At a public university, censorship of speech is unconstitutional. If the KKK wants to hold a rally on the campus quad, they absolutely should have the same right to do that as anyone else.
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise, If someone wants to claim we lived with dinosaurs or the earth is flat, let them, we'll all have a good laugh. If someone wants to be racists and go around screaming the N word at black people or how dumb they think women are, let them, they'll be the ones unemployable. The only thing to be afraid if is they'll actually make a good argument and convince people they're not wrong, or they'll completely crash and burn their own cause and no one will take them seriously.
But not giving equal air time to all sides of an issue, it's just too easy to no-platform someone with a "controversial" (re: different or not politically correct, but not hateful) view. All you have to do is call them sexists, racists, homophobic, say they associate with stormfront, the KKK or random internet trolls, petition venues where they're suppose to speak and post continually about how ignorant they are while pointing to things that specific person has never actually said or supported. No one will ever hear their side, or at least won't admit to it, for fear of being lumped in with all the evils of the world. By the time anyone is will to speak on their behalf the damage is done.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a problem when the venue is so concerned with keeping the controversy alive (and keeping viewers' attention) that they don't tout the 2
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez...WTF is with these young kids and their intolerance of everything that isn't happy happy, joy joy or Kumbaya (minus any religious associations of course).
When did everyone get so worried about someone being offended?
Is this the end result of everyone getting a fucking trophy as a kid just for showing up, and worrying about their fragile self esteem being nicked slightly?
Will everyone's ears bleed if they hear the word nigger or cracker or spic or wop or kraut or chink uttered?
They're words people...they won't hurt you. Grow a bit of skin and lighten up and quit looking to be offended.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the helicopter parents: they're ruined everything.
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, so you're telling me the Affluenza kid is a democrat?
Re: (Score:3)
Why are we letting them? Because we're stupid, that's why (or, more precisely, North Carolinians are stupid). Republicans tell them what they want to hear about guns, abortion, religion, the "Constitution", etc., and they buy it, and vote for Republicans even though they over and over pass laws to benefit big corporations at the expense of everyone else. In short, Republican voters are stupid.
The Democrat voters aren't much better: about half of them are chomping at the bit to elect Hillary even though s
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
but only when swallowed in small amounts
over a long period of time
God I miss George.....
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately one of the requirements is that you not be a member of a criminal organization.
That's not true, they allow political parties. If ever there was a band of thieves they qualify.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people? And at what point in Cleese's career has he ever done anything but? Satire and parody aren't intended to be inoffensive and in-controversial.
From what I've seen in the news, universities and colleges have become places where whiny little kids demand they only be shown a fair and just world which conforms to their worldview. Too damned bad.
There is no right to not be offended, and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.
Cleese is saying "to hell with these whiny kids, I'm simply not performing there because it's absurd".
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
It's censorship to serve your own ends -- which would be followed by whining about your freedom of speech if someone else tried to do the same to you.
This is about modern kids deciding that the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them.
And that's the biggest pile of idiotic, self-entitled bullshit I've heard in a long time.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
There are definitely times when the system itself needs modification, because the system natively discriminates. A good example would be the Jim Crow Laws in the American South, where black people and arguably any non-white people were at a statute disadvantage right from the start because the very system was intentionally stacked against them. Minorities could not compete on a level playing-field with the majority population because they were legally hamstrung. That system needed to be changed to put everyone on the same plain, and given how slowly attitudes change, there's a compelling argument for the artificial structures enacted to help those changes become permanent. It took a hundred years post-civil-war to become what it became, I would not be surprised if it took a hundred years post-Civil Rights Act to normalize-out.
What I see with this current crop of arguments about safe spaces, "identification," and other concepts are that people are trying to take a system that starts out mostly on-the-level and they're trying to manipulate it to where it is imbalanced, citing their particular cause as a reason to do so. There are some initial merits to investigating how people are being treated, but the conclusions drawn, ie, safe spaces, are incorrect. Contrasting then to now, the Civil Rights Movement sought to be in clusive, while this current crop of movements seeks to be ex clusive. This approach would seek to further divide people into smaller and smaller groups instead of confronting the behaviors that cause the problems in the first place, and without teaching people how their choices will impact them.
And that leads to another difference, the nature of choice. I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change. On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual. They are not natural characteristics. Even areas of dispute, like intelligence and health, have degrees of choice in how people behave or how people take care of themselves.
Some of the College Campus Movements are based on characteristics beyond the control of the individual, but many of the movements, probably most of the movements, are based things that people have chosen for themselves. The world beyond College is not going to respect the individual and it has no obligation to, and it's not the College's mission to cater to people in this fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change.
Agreed.
On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual.
I'm going to dispute this. Unless one takes a religious stance or assumes panpsychism, the choices we make are ultimately direct consequences of the physical laws of the universe. It's all luck, including the mind you're born with and all the factors that influence it thereafter. Whether you take a deterministic interpretation of QM (Bohmian mechanics, some flavors of many-worlds, Mohrhoff's interpretation) or a stochastic one (most everything else), there's no choice that doesn't result directly fro
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no right to not be offended,
Correct.
and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.
Incorrect. You have the right to say something offensive, but they absolutely have the right to say "I'm offended by that". And of course, you have the right to respond back "tough shit". Because Freedom of Speech goes all ways.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
And those church-ladies have every right to do that, because Freedom of Speech goes all ways. Allowing those people to say those things is not "tyranny of a very vocal minority", it is the very essence of Freedom of Speech.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the PC crowd being pissed off about something you say or do that worries me. It is their ability to influence an organization or person who has direct control over whether or not you stay employed at a certain company or otherwise fuck with your life or livelihood. That is what pisses me off.
If someone got a person fired for something said that otherwise wouldn't bother anyone, that person had better start looking over their shoulder for retribution (preferably physical retribution such as teeth
Re: (Score:3)
Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people?
Well, at least as far back as 1999, as reported here. [nytimes.com] When a professor cannot use the word "niggardly" in his classroom talking about Chaucer because an ignorant student refuses to be educated as to the meaning of that word, we've gone well past the point.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
The difference is that there are active steps being taken to keep people who are PREDICTED to talk about things that are "offensive" from being able to talk at all. Church ladies protesting outside are fine, until they hinder people who want to attend the
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that it is the greatest privilege in the world to be offended by something.
Now let me explain why. Offensive things are the crucible and fire that refines and tempers our personalities. When something offends you, you learn more about yoursel
Re: Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah, I've worked with many women who could give shit as well as anybody, and a few who swore enough to make a sailor blush. They're not all fragile and boo hoo.
I think it's a generation (or two) who have grown up so damned coddled and protected from anything remotely troubling they have no concept of how to deal with a reality which doesn't conform to their insulated little world view.
This is kids of both sexes who have been treated like fragile little objects, and are now incapable of having adult emotions and experiences without being overwhelmed, because they've been shielded from such things.
There's a reason why the term "precioius little snowflakes" is so widely used, and it has nothing at all to do with gender.
Re: Obligatory (Score:4, Informative)
And it is getting worse.
Hell, now it is ok to be fat, slovenly, unkept...unmotivated..because, well...you can't coach better behavior in folks because it might make them feel bad about how they are now.
Isn't that kind of the fucking POINT? Point things out so folks will try to improve themselves?
Re: Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't women, It is the internet. The problem is a vocal minority. Before the vocal minority was just a whisper in the wind at any given location. They didn't know how to find others with the same ideals that they shared, so they were outcasts. Now they have the internet, a place of global reach to find others with a similar voice, and collectively come together on the 'net to bitch and moan about menial little things. And then they use this online collective to form physical location protests.
Re: Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just having this conversation with a co-worker. It's the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the Internet. You can use it to find people who are into tabletop gaming, sports, photography, or any other interest you might have. Unfortunately, you can also use it to find people who agree with you in your hatred of GROUP A, that society would be great if we could turn back the clock to before emancipation, that nobody should offend anybody ever, or any other fringe group. And the same multiplier effect that lets one blogger take on a giant corporation can be used by a roving band of random kooks to harass a person for activities that society at large would find completely normal. (For example, a person I know is being harassed by white supremacists because she has 2 white kids and 2 black kids.)
The trick is figuring out how to prevent the abuse of the Internet's power while not limiting the good uses of its power. Unfortunately, I don't think this is solvable.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
It would also be advisable that when somebody relates the experience of a college campus being a hostile environment due to say a rape culture, to not presume they're a heterosexual male who sexually abuses women.
I find your speech offensive in that you believe that it's not possible for somebody assigned the male gender at birth to be a victim of sexism.
I find your speech annoying in that you desire to shut down any and all dialog about whether it's right to presume somebody is a sexual harasser and a rapist based either on their legal gender or what you presume their gender and sexual orientation are.
This is how we got into this mess in the first place.
I am an individual, and I will answer for no crime I have not committed. I will not feel guilty because of my assigned gender at birth. I will not feel guilty because women do not choose programming careers, because I am not the gaslighting asshole managers people like you keep mistaking me for who is chasing women out of tech. I will not feel guilty about rape, because I am not a rapist. I will not feel guilty about sexual harassment, because I do not sexually harass.
Let me use a better term than our ill-defined 3 letter acronym to describe you. You are a sexist. Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:3)
The only time I call someone out as a SJW is when they try to take other people's right to expression away. I have no problem with you sharing your opinion, and I encourage you to do so, but the second you try to prevent someone else from sharing their opinion, you are in the wrong. This is what I have seen you do on numerous occasions, which is why I label you as a SJW. You have even Foed me for pointing out your hypocrisy, which is your way of trying to make my opinion less in your eyes.
You are the one
Re: (Score:3)
Excellent, actually. You're describing the rebirth of student activism.
Activism directed towards squelching the freedoms of others is not "excellent" activism. Would it be "excellent" if a student KKK group started "activisming" to get all the "wrong color" people off campus?
It's high time we began trying to improve again, rather than just mindlessly hoard stuff.
Then it is your opinion that we are "improving" things to get an education in a microcosm of the real world, protected from world views that differ from your own, taught only the appropriate social and political concepts, to wind up graduated out into a world with a veritable plethora of ideas that differ
Re: (Score:2)
If it seems to an audience member that they might actually believe what they're saying about a group, then that audience member is either too gullible or needs to grow a fucking backbone because everyone's entitled to their op
Re: Obligatory (Score:2)
I think a better way to word that is everyone is entitled to offend /insult you.
Re: Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Long before the Year of the SJW, I saw a youtube where Will Ferrel read some "fan messages". He read aloud a few hater emails that boiled to the "lol u suk faggot ur dumb and bad" fare, comfortably and unfazed. I suppose they might not even be real, not that it matters. Nowadays I think there's a whole series of "Celebrities read mean tweets" of the same routine.
Point is, "He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool."
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, I do reserve the right to be offended, and deal with it the adult way. Like switch the channel, leave premises or not go to a show. Or not, if I'm enjoying at being offended...
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not whining about people being offended by his work. He's whining about those people doing something other than just not going to his next show. Things like trying to get him banned from future shows so that the 5 people who are offended get their way, but the hundreds that enjoyed it don't get theirs.
And he is 100% correct. Don't like guns or abortions or comics ... don't use them, have one, or go see one.
And then stop telling the people that have different opinions they can't have them.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
While I see the point you're trying to make, some people believe that killing unborn children is the same thing as killing any other person. And I don't think you'd consider it odd that someone would protest against legalized mass killing if it was in another context.
Many people would consider it odd if your response to people killing other people was: well if you don't like killing people, don't kill them and leave me alone so I can kill them in peace. Protests against it make sense, as do the protests where the other side suggests that there is a privacy or health issue. I wouldn't consider telling either side to shut up about it.
Other people believe that guns kill people, which they do. Of course, the connection is not as direct, as guns don't automatically kill people, sometimes they kill animals, or paper targets.
That said, they can certainly be used to kill people. I am actually more on the side of Second Amendment liberties than not, but even I would not suggest that someone has no right to protest against guns. Guns can be used by one person to kill innocent people. I'd call that a concern. If you feel strongly about it, by all means protest one way or another.
The above two issues are places where it makes sense that the other side might ask for the "thing" to be outlawed. They're dangerous to someone who has no choice about avoiding them.
In this case, really, the only example where you can say, "just don't go see it," is comedy. And I agree with that 100%. When I went to college and everyone went to go to the leftist student protest, I didn't call for it to not be allowed, I just stayed away. I would think that the student body or the small fraction thereof who is offended by a protest or a comedy show would be capable of simply not going. And that is why things are going off the deep end in colleges and elsewhere.
There do exist events which are simply free speech where the offended majority now just wants to shut down *speech*. Speech should not be shut down by offense. Even if the speech is asking for something like "safe and legal abortion" to be continued or made illegal, or guns, or even racial prejudice, the *speech that either side uses to make their case* is what should not be blocked, even if you disagree with it or even find it offensive. And that is exactly what is at stake with over-sensitivity.
Re: (Score:3)
Admittedly it is an awkward term, but it is used rhetorically by the pro-life side to make their point that what is eliminated is not a different species. It is a reaction to the use of accurate, but very specific, and clinical terminology to aid in the similar rhetorical *alienation* of the subject of the abortion (the developing human) from the usual concern for children in society.
However, if the way the word is constructed bothers you, I doubt anyone would argue if you called it a "developing human who
Re: (Score:3)
the apparently-growing group of people whose profession appears to be 'being offended'
I call this the "LTBO" crowd (looking to be offended).
Most of the collage kids these days a whiny babies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab (Score:4)
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
I have this as a macro in World of Warcraft to signal the other players that I'm being attacked by something.
Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab (Score:5, Funny)
1/6
Now try to find the other errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Mac
Looloolooooloooloollloollololol!
Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab (Score:4)
Slashdot improvement suggestion #18...a fucking edit button.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a decoupage kid, I hate collage kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Careful, you might get bombed by association ;)
a forward rhetorical allusion every other sentence (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm triggered by silliness!" cried a campus snowflake.
This guy gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
He gets it. I disagree with him on a few topics. However, I would never dare to silence him. He has as much right to his opinions as I do. If you silence him I can be pretty sure I am next.
you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next
Truer words have never been spoken. I have worked with a few people over the years like this. You have no idea what will set them off. I have seen work places go from pretty fun joking around to people looking over their shoulders to make sure 'the right kinda people are around'. The very attitudes you are trying to squash out can become even more focused and harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"Offensensitivity"
- Berkley Breathed
Re:This guy gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
"The very attitudes you are trying to squash out can become even more focused and harmful".
Maybe that's because "trying to squash out... attitudes" is a thoroughly bad idea - and probably impossible. Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.
It seems to me that trying to squash out attitudes is a lot like trying to pound the triangular piece into the circular hole. It might be very annoying and frustrating that it is so uncooperative, but no matter how much force you apply it really won't go in. Unless you use so much force you smash the whole thing to pieces.
If you are absolutely certain that different races or sexes do not have different abilities (in any way at all), what should you do when you come across someone who disagrees? Perhaps a bit of listening might come in handy; after all, can you really be sure that you are absolutely right? If so, how can you be so sure? Maybe your interlocutor will tell you something you hadn't known, or hadn't fully understood, that might change your mind - or at least open it a crack.
'In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion'.
- Carl Sagan, Keynote address at CSICOP conference (1987), as quoted in Do Science and the Bible Conflict? (2003) by Judson Poling, p. 30
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]
Re:This guy gets it (Score:5, Funny)
Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.
Actually, the smart kid figures out that all the pieces go in very quickly if you take the top off...
Re: (Score:2)
Go one step back in the reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaints about stupid things aren't a problem because of the impact of the solutions. They are a problem because of the decision of responding to all complaints, regardless of their legitimacy.
e.g.: When someone complains about hurt feelings, the problem isn't that the solution will destroy criticism and humor. The problem is taking action based on the complaint without analyzing its merit.
And, if one decides to go even one step before that, the problem is that the constant erosion of the teaching of critical thinking creates a population unable to think critically, which in turn makes that population incapable of deciding which situations are problems that have to be dealt with, and which are nonsense that has to be ignored.
It's: [Eliminate the teaching of critical thinking.] -> [Population takes action over silly complaints.] -> [Illogical action has consequences.]
Don't focus on the last step.
Been saying it for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
In no way, shape, or form does any legal document, like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva Convention, et al, does it say "You have the right not to be offended". in other words "You do NOT have the right, not to be offended".
People are idiots, and that idiocy grows exponentially as the number of people in a group increases.
So, just to piss off the morons of the world.
It's "Merry Christmas" - not "Happy Holidays".
There can only be 1 (one) Winner, everyone else is just a loser.
Your child's "right" to have an education ends where your child's behavior jeopardizes my child's education, health or physical well-being.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and everyone else's stinks.
Your freedom of speech does not mandate that anyone has to listen to it.
To anyone who disagrees with anything above, fuck off you bloody wanker.
Re:Been saying it for decades (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Real liberals need to stop this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing I have noticed is that while conservatives are uniformly more likely to be consistently hateful, if you trigger the ire of liberals, they win all the awards for being truly vitriolic.
Conservatives don't care what you think, as long as you do as you are told. Liberals don't care what you do, as long as you think as you are told.
Re:Real liberals need to stop this (Score:4, Informative)
One thing I have noticed is that while conservatives are uniformly more likely to be consistently hateful, if you trigger the ire of liberals, they win all the awards for being truly vitriolic.
Conservatives don't care what you think, as long as you do as you are told. Liberals don't care what you do, as long as you think as you are told.
Quote of the day. Reposting in case anyone missed it due to AC filters.
Re: (Score:3)
I have found lately that when I ask my liberal friends about this phenomenon (the erosion of free speech on college campuses by Generation Butthurt), they either feign ignorance or say that "it's no big deal" and quickly change the subject to whatever evil they think the Republicans are pulling lately. This is weak, and frankly I don't know how a true liberal would stand for such an encroachment on their own civil liberties. If these opposing views are so terrible, let them out there to be discussed and torn apart on the public eye, and force those espousing them to defend their viewpoints. Of course, that means you have to be able to defend your viewpoint as well, which is what this is all about.
I'm a (nordic) socialist, but also somewhat old school if nothing else because I'm +40, and to me the US and most of Europe's self-described "liberals" are nothing but weak and spoiled cunts. I despise them deeply.
Mizzou (Score:2)
Jimmy Carr's new "shortest joke" is a fine example (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Jimmy Carr's new "shortest joke" is a fine exam (Score:5, Funny)
Hypersensitivity can be a medical problem (Score:5, Informative)
I have a family member who went through a period in their life when they were hypersensitive to perceived slights. Some of the problem was real pressure to conform to other’s expectations that were unreasonable. But the inability to tolerate it and blow it off turned out to be caused by a hormone disorder.
I think that some of these hypersensitive people are just whiny babies who can’t handle an environment with a more diverse set of ideas. But for some people who get so overwhelmed that they need to run off and hide in a “safe place,” they may want to look into getting their endocrine levels checked (thyroid, adrenal, and various pituitary).
However, we live in a culture where we blame everyone else for our own failures, so it’s unlikely that most such people would ever even imagine that the problem originates in their own bodies.
Religion by any other name (Score:3)
Prosecuting outsiders to bond members of your own tribe seems to be an inescapable human need. Liberal activists who boo comics and ensure that anyone who dares to have a different personal opinion of, say, homosexuality [mozilla.org] loses their job are just bible thumpers and Saudi Arabia morality police going by another name. They have to continuously crank up the extremes of zero tolerance for anyone who deviates from their ideas about women, minorities, native americans and so on to bond with each other and maintain self image of superior human beings who have full right to bully and discriminate against savages.
For the record, I fully believe that LGBT and all other minorities including polygamists have a right to equal, productive lives, and so should a baker who doesn't want to make a cake for their wedding. It's just that activist groups who claim to support either side are actually just on a power trip to prop up their own self esteem and find a legitimate excuse to bully others.
Re: (Score:3)
... and so should a baker who doesn't want to make a cake for their wedding.
The level of harassment for those who dare to have an opinion on LGBT issues other than the official SJW position is persecuted to a level that would make a Scientologist proud.
Right to not be offended ? (Score:3)
as Ricky Gervais once said: Everyone has the right to be offended. Everyone has the right to offend. But no one has the right to never be offended.
Brazil, 1984 (Score:2)
Feminists deplatform Richard Dawkins from NCSS (Score:5, Informative)
Great video that explains the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTmwyKpz0o
Dawkins was deplatformed for twitting this satirical (and hilarious) video.
Feminists Love Islamists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
Please, everybody here, take an active stance and post that video on your twitter and/or facebook accounts. Let the feminists/Islamists know that there censorship efforts are counter productive.
Freedom of Speech is the key. (Score:5, Insightful)
As Martin NiemÃller sagely said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Political correctness* stems from a perfectly reasonable idea: be nice to other people.
But as the Founding Fathers wisely intuited 240 years ago, to INSIST on that itself is at root a sort of social tyranny, which indeed then opens the slippery-slope question "according to whom?"
A multicultural society CANNOT function in which everyone has to constantly try to anticipate everyone else's triggers.
The only reasonable solution is a general promotion of freedom of speech and internalizing the idea that offense is self-created. This isn't to say people shouldn't be offended; in my view much of the progress of humanity has stemmed from people being offended at something or another. They certainly have the right to their offense. But when this offense fuels actions that are then designed to constrain other peoples' right to their own freedom of speech - there a line is crossed, and the corrosion of free speech begins.
(And for the pedants, yes, I'm aware that the Constitutional provision about free speech only applies to the behavior of the Federal government; I'm speaking more broadly in terms of cultural values.)
*the real comedy is that there are still people who ardently insist there IS "no such thing" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/24/781372/-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And now those same christians are the ones yelling loudest about "PC Culture!"
See, the whole thing comes down to whose ox is being gored. As long as it's those people then of course political correctness is bad. But when it's you, it's "WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED BECAUSE A CASHIER DIDN'T WISH ME MERRY CHRISTMAS". Their feels are hurting because there's not enough baby jesus on their coffee cups and by god, that means war!
Really, a charge o
Remove the motivator and you'll fix this. (Score:4, Insightful)
John is obviously right about people being hypersensitive, but him talking to people isn't going to do fuck-all about the problem.
And the problem isn't that we're suddenly oversensitive towards each other, or that some specific generation or age group perpetuates it.
No, the REAL fucking problem here is that humans can sue the living shit out of other humans for nothing more than being "offended", and those cases are winning in courtrooms. THAT is the real problem here.
And the fix is simple. Remove the element of reward (monetary gain) for being "offended", and you'll suddenly find humans aren't so damn sensitive towards each other anymore. Anything short of doing this is pointless and not identifying the real problem.
And yes, once again, we have our greedy, corrupt legal system to thank for this bullshit.
Re:Remove the motivator and you'll fix this. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think real motivator is that victimized is a coveted social status. When group concept of privilege mutated and misapplied to become highly socially disadvantageous label applied to an individual, it is natural that maintaining social standing now demands negation or qualifiers of such label privilege. How you do that? You invent slights, blow trivial offenses out of proportion and proceed to claim to be oppressed by this or that -ism based on these.
I blame Social Sciences for creating this monster. They invented and promoted the idea that in order to have a valid opinion, one must necessary experience things first-hand. If you didn't, then you are privileged, and should just act as you told. Nobody likes doing that, so everyone suddenly jumps on the victimhood bandwagon just to not get silenced at every turn.
Another Brit comedian gets it (Score:3)
Very insightful video
Pat Condell - Dumbing Down University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjN8xP0i6Ak
also (Score:2)
Save me! (Score:2)
All these comments filled with your micro-aggressions totals to over one mini-aggression.
I will report this site and its contributors to the nearest college student president. Then I'll be off to find my non-denominational, mono-gendered Yoda doll and vegan, cruelty-free GreenLube then proceed to sooth my hurt feelings.
Why so scared? (Score:2)
OK, so maybe college students will be offended by his comedy. So what? Is he afraid of being viciously attacked, of someone taking a shot at him or something?
If he (and Seinfeld for that matter) are merely afraid that people will say mean things about them, then that seems ratheroversensitive.
Have you seen X-Files this week? (Score:5, Interesting)
It featured a fantastic, humorous episode written by Darin Morgan about a monster who is bitten by a man and turns into one. Its a beautiful satire about an alien trying to make sense of human behavior (working 9 to 5, lying about sexual prowess, our love for fast food) and, at one point, he gets hit by a transgender which leads to an hilarious exchange with Duchovny trying to explain transgenderism to Darby.
So i've just found out that Slate actually run a story on their LGBTQ section titiled Did The X-Files use a transgender character for cheap laughs? [slate.com]. Why, yes. Yes they did. It doesn't matter that the treatment wasn't offensive at all, or that the entire episode was making fun of the human race as a whole, or even that it actually was in line with the transition theme that was the entire point of the episode. Some people got their panties in a bunch because a transgender character threw a punch.
Cleese is absolutely right here. Then again, he usually always is.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they all planning on living in their parents basements, communicating only via text messages, and hoping the app they wrote becomes a big seller so they don't have to really work for a living?
No.
The planning stage is long past.
Re: (Score:3)
"hmor"? What the fuck is "hmor"?
Ban HIM!! (Score:5, Funny)
His insensitivity to people who "walk funny" is just intolerant and cannot be abided by.
Shame on you Sir!! I hope I find you soon!! [youtube.com]
Re:Ban HIM!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I broke my hip as a kid and it never healed right so now I'm one of those people with a "funny walk." John's outreach makes me feel included in one of the best comedy troops of all times.
Sorry that you can't agree but I'm part of a greater scene so piss off, tosser.
Re:Ban HIM!! (Score:5, Funny)
A comic! Burn him! Burn him!
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether he is a comic. ...because they're made of... wood? ...Exactly. So, logically... ...A comic!
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with comics?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from comics?
Peasant 1: More comics.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do comics burn?
Peasant 3:
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether he is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of him.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw him into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere:
Peasant 1: If he weighed the same as a duck... he's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2:
Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score:5, Informative)
Riiii-ight.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12... [dailycaller.com]
http://www.buzzfeed.com/twhyla... [buzzfeed.com]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/out... [slate.com]
Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score:4, Informative)
If someone wants to protest against something, that's their right, but it's another thing entirely to capitulate to the demands of those who seem to be looking for new ways to be offended. Look at the Mizzou professor who shoved a student journalist who was attempting to report on the protests there. It's not just the students who are participating in the idiotic ideology that makes the Tea Party look sane by comparison. The people getting offended are the kind of rabid zealots that want to shove their views on everyone else, not the type of people who will politely disagree or engage in some kind of dialog.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to list some example from top of my head: rape epidemic moral panic, cultural appropriations moral panic, trigger warnings, prevalence of victimhood culture, campus sexual assault kangaroo courts, media-free safe spaces.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
rape epidemic moral panic... campus sexual assault kangaroo courts
The term rape culture accurately sums up these things.
Here's the thing. This is sort of my bigot detector kit. Criticize a rape culture for creating a hostile environment, and somebody will fly out of the woodwork and leap to the conclusion that one is:
#1 Male
#2 Heterosexual
#3 Sexually abusive towards women
That's how one knows one has a bigot on one's hands. Apparently if the environment is hostile towards trans women and men, who are informed by university policy that they are already considered guilty
Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score:5, Insightful)
But let's pick an example to illustrate exactly why they're bad. Let's suppose we have a woman named Karen who was mugged. Her mugger was black. Can Karen demand a safe space that contains no black people because that triggers her? Can she demand a new cashier at a store or a new server at a restaurant because black people trigger her? How can you distinguish between someone who may have actually been mugged and someone who's just a racist prick that wants to use trigger warnings to harass others or be a jerk? Outside of a therapy group designed to treat such problems, trigger warnings or safe spaces have no reason to exist. Being used otherwise, only leads to further infantilizing individuals and reinforcing their negative and unhealthy stereotypes.
Karen might have well been mugged and now has an unhealthy attitude toward black people. I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain can see why that isn't something to be coddled. The same goes for anything else, even truly horrific events. It might take a lot of help and expert therapy, but leaving someone in a state that prevents them from functioning in society, or perhaps even their daily lives is horrible. The people demanding trigger warnings and safe spaces are only making people worse, not helping them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trigger warnings are part of the problem. If you're still having problems dealing with dogs years after being attacked or bitten, that's not healthy.
While entirely true, there are probably some ex-military people would agree but point out overcoming traumatic events is not as easy as just doing therapy for six months. Don't belittle mental injuries.
Let's suppose we have a woman named Karen who was mugged. Her mugger was black. Can Karen demand a safe space that contains no black people because that triggers her? Can she demand a new cashier at a store or a new server at a restaurant because black people trigger her?
You are talking about someone with PTSD. They need help. It might be reasonable to have some white cops/doctors help her at first, since she can't be blamed for suffering from an acute mental injury, but in the longer term then it wouldn't be reasonable to expect black people to avoid her.
These things are nev
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score:4, Informative)
Ask the administration at the University of Missouri (a state school in a red state, no less) if the problem of SJW bullying is exaggerated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's "overstated" in that it's just words most of the time, which are not *that* big a deal. It's not like people are being locked up in Room 101 if they don't conform or something. But on the other hand if people start voluntarily stifling their feelings and the words that go with them purely out of the fear that they might offend some overly-sensitive person who can't take a crass joke, or who thinks certain topics are completely out-of-scope for satire and/or criticism, or if someone is taking offence
Re:Perhaps, but that isn't to say... (Score:2)
there isn't a problem. The tenor of college campuses has changed dramatically over the past 25 years, and if you are a comedian why would you risk a roll of the dice on a media circus? Safe space wasn't a natural part of the lexicon even 5 years ago...
One of the more pernicious affects of censorship is you are never completely aware of the scope and degree what is being censored. Memory hole is apt as if you didn't have direct knowledge, you'd have no reason to suspect anything was missing at all.
Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score:5, Funny)
You missed such a grand opportunity to say that the squeaky wheel gets the Cleese. For shame.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why it should be one over or another. I'd be worried equally if I had terminal cancer prognosis and was on a death row for a crime I didn't commit at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)