Has political correctness actually gone mad?

niMic said:
Well, you've certainly mastered the self-righteous condescending rant.
Click to expand...

You know what they say, if you can't beat them..........

Besides, you have to go a little crazy & OTT sometimes in order to try & put a point across, especially to those who lean so far to the left they probably have trouble walking in a straight line. Although I do accept the futility of it all when you consider that some of them have their opinions set in stone & simply refuse to budge an inch on them regardless of how strong that point may be. If they can't answer it they'll either ignore it, or revert to ridicule, generalization, & pigeon-hole people into the racist, bigot, homophobic box.
 
Cheesy said:
Of all the anti-PC arguments anything involving a TV show genuinely makes the least sense to me. Until the 1960s plays could be regarded as blasphemous and until about the 90s swearing and nudity was just a no-go. Of all the areas to highlight...that's the medium that if anything highlights how much things have changed for the better and how much more open society is now. Even if there's the occasional weirdo who doesn't understand that the lyrics to Fairytale of New York are clearly from the perspective of a character.

I mean, look at something like Monty Python and the Life of Brian. It was slated heavily...but it's not even that controversial unless you're a fecking weirdo! And, guess what, it wasn't the left who were criticising it. Even if you're an older individual who was never at all offended by any fictional medium, you're being fecking delusional if you pretend a significant portion of your own generation weren't.
Click to expand...

The Life of Brian movie is a perfect example of the then & now, & how much has changed.

The outrage at the film came from predominantly conservative church-going types who didn't see the joke. The majority of people who did get the joke came from the left, centre, & the right, who in turn laughed at the aforementioned for being so blinkered & blind. So lets bring a similar scenario up to the present day. This time however Brian is mistaken for a certain Prophet who just happens to be worshiped by approx 1.5 billion people across the planet. How do you think that would pan out then ? You reckon we'd have people on here laughing at the religious conservatives who were offended by the film ? Would you still refer them as weirdo's ?
 
redman5 said:
The Life of Brian movie is a perfect example of the then & now, & how much has changed.

The outrage at the film came from predominantly conservative church-going types who didn't see the joke. The majority of people who did get the joke came from the left, centre, & the right, who in turn laughed at the aforementioned for being so blinkered & blind. So lets bring a similar scenario up to the present day. This time however Brian is mistaken for a certain Prophet who just happens to be worshiped by approx 1.5 billion people across the planet. How do you think that would pan out then ? You reckon we'd have people on here laughing at the religious conservatives who were offended by the film ? Would you still refer them as weirdo's ?
Click to expand...
Islam seems to be exempt from that sort of thing. I guess partly because when you shift the target from Christianity it isn’t poking fun at ‘yourself’ anymore, and pokes fun at someone over there. It goes from self-deprecation to something a bit different. It’s a bit like you making a joke about yourself or someone else doing it, it’s just a different dynamic. Also, the fact they’re a bit touchy about it and will send you death threats probably doesn’t help.
 
2 man midfield said:
PC at it’s heart is a good thing. Be nicer to people, basically. And when it surrounds that basic principle it’s great, however it can stray a bit from that idea sometimes. Perspective is lost somewhere along the way and we end up bending over backwards to be offended on behalf of people who weren’t necessarily even complaining anyway. That’s when it can go a bit over the top imo.
Click to expand...

My earlier point was that we've never needed PC to govern a part of our lives. Most people are intelligent enough to know what's offensive & what's not. We certainly don't need self-styled moral policing to tell us what is, & isn't, acceptable. I guess some people will see PC as some sort of social progression. I see it as a social construct manufactured & created by the onset of social media.
 
2 man midfield said:
Islam seems to be exempt from that sort of thing. I guess partly because when you shift the target from Christianity it isn’t poking fun at ‘yourself’ anymore, and pokes fun at someone over there. It goes from self-deprecation to something a bit different. It’s a bit like you making a joke about yourself or someone else doing it, it’s just a different dynamic. Also, the fact they’re a bit touchy about it and will send you death threats probably doesn’t help.
Click to expand...

There's a billion of them. If they all sent death threats pretty sure this world would be a much different place.

Freedom of speech is a flawed idea in the modern society. There are opinions you just cant say in public. I cant go around announcing how sexy little boys are. For that reason being PC is important
 
redman5 said:
My earlier point was that we've never needed PC to govern a part of our lives. Most people are intelligent enough to know what's offensive & what's not. We certainly don't need self-styled moral policing to tell us what is, & isn't, acceptable. I guess some people will see PC as some sort of social progression. I see it as a social construct manufactured & created by the onset of social media.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if they are tbf :lol: there’s still a lot of bigotry, racism, homophobia, discrimination etc in the world, and a helping hand is never a bad thing. I just think that’s the sort of thing that needs to be the target, not petty stuff that was offending no-one in the first place.
 
shamans said:
There's a billion of them. If they all sent death threats pretty sure this world would be a much different place.

Freedom of speech is a flawed idea in the modern society. There are opinions you just cant say in public. I cant go around announcing how sexy little boys are. For that reason being PC is important
Click to expand...

Thats a weird example :lol:.
 
2 man midfield said:
Islam seems to be exempt from that sort of thing. I guess partly because when you shift the target from Christianity it isn’t poking fun at ‘yourself’ anymore, and pokes fun at someone over there. It goes from self-deprecation to something a bit different. It’s a bit like you making a joke about yourself or someone else doing it, it’s just a different dynamic. Also, the fact they’re a bit touchy about it and will send you death threats probably doesn’t help.
Click to expand...

But it wouldn't be poking fun at Islam though, just in the same way the original film wasn't poking fun at Christianity. It was a film about mistaken identity & how the masses reacted to it.
 
shamans said:
There's a billion of them. If they all sent death threats pretty sure this world would be a much different place.

Freedom of speech is a flawed idea in the modern society. There are opinions you just cant say in public. I cant go around announcing how sexy little boys are. For that reason being PC is important
Click to expand...

You can’t deny that the Middle East seems a world behind the West when it comes to religion though. Even America is behind ‘secular Europe’ as its referred to over there. They’re very, very offended by anything even remotely poking fun at religion and react accordingly. Even if a large percentage aren’t the ones sending the death threats, a large percentage agree that it’s warranted for making the joke in the first place. I certainly don’t think it’s a small enough amount to pretend you don’t know what people are talking about when it’s brought up.

As for the second paragraph, I don’t know if PC is the antidote to that. Free speech should permit you to say that, but people should also be free to call you a fecking weirdo. That isn’t really PC, I think that’s just free speech at work.
 
redman5 said:
But it wouldn't be poking fun at Islam though, just in the same way the original film wasn't poking fun at Christianity. It was a film about mistaken identity & how the masses reacted to it.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen it in years tbf.
 
shamans said:
Point being opinions arent always "hey man it's just my opinion dont be so sensitive". If we can act as a community to shut down some opinions then why not.
Click to expand...

It was a just a wee joke, but to answer your question; the reason is in a question. Who gets to decide whats right? Me? You? We can agree that "liking little boys" is sick, and we have the ability with freedom of speech to say that. The people with the power to say what is and isnt sick changes. What if someone who thought liking little boys wasnt sick started making the rules? Remember that the idea of a woman showing her ankles in public was once considered sick. Educate, rather than stifle. Tell them why liking little boys is wrong. We both know why, so telling them shouldnt be difficult.

I really really wish you had used another example.
 
shamans said:
Point being opinions arent always "hey man it's just my opinion dont be so sensitive". If we can act as a community to shut down some opinions then why not.
Click to expand...
I dunno, who decides what is and isn’t ok to say? You? The best way to deal with things like that is to talk about them, using free speech. You say what you want, and other people say why they think you’re mental. That’s how society moves past out-dated ideas, not by banning them and sending them underground.
 
redman5 said:
But it wouldn't be poking fun at Islam though, just in the same way the original film wasn't poking fun at Christianity. It was a film about mistaken identity & how the masses reacted to it.
Click to expand...
I don't get how anyone could think Life of Brian wasn't at the very least poking fun at Christianity, possibly to the point of outright derision. Took the piss nicely out of the left-wing student politics of the time too.
 
2 man midfield said:
I dunno, who decides what is and isn’t ok to say? You? The best way to deal with things like that is to talk about them, using free speech. You say what you want, and other people say why they think you’re mental. That’s how society moves past out-dated ideas, not by banning them and sending them underground.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point Rowan Atkinson made in that video clip. Curtailment of free-speech will eventually affect everyone.
 
I think having Freedom of Speech in any society is important and I'm against any legislation that would limit speech barring the common sense yelling "fire" in a crowded area type laws and those pertaining to defamation. However I think it's ludicrous for people to think there aren't consequences to the things that they say publicly. Should you go to jail for saying "Blacks are all lazy and all they do is have children they can't take care of"? No. But if I run a company that has black people as part of its client base or just has an image to protect, I definitely should be allowed to fire you for saying something like that publicly.
 
redman5 said:
That's exactly the point Rowan Atkinson made in that video clip. Curtailment of free-speech will eventually affect everyone.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah definitely. That’s where I’m against political correctness, and I certainly don’t think you’re automatically part of the bigoted ‘PC gone mad’ brigade when you point out than it can on occasion go too far, like in this instance. Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry are both people who have spoken against it in recent times, and I definitely wouldn’t have them down as like that.
 
freeurmind said:
I think having Freedom of Speech in any society is important and I'm against any legislation that would limit speech barring the common sense yelling "fire" in a crowded area type laws and those pertaining to defamation. However I think it's ludicrous for people to think there aren't consequences to the things that they say publicly. Should you go to jail for saying "Blacks are all lazy and all they do is have children they can't take care of"? No. But if I run a company that has black people as part of its client base or just has an image to protect, I definitely should be allowed to fire you for saying something like that publicly.
Click to expand...
Like I said above, free speech is great but it isn’t speech without consequence. You have the right to say things, and other have the right to react to them. If that means non-platforming them, sacking them etc or even just calling them a fecking idiot, that’s your right. Free speech just means you can’t be locked up for it, and it’s definitely been commandeered by bigots who don’t understand what it means as an excuse to say horrible things.
 
2 man midfield said:
Like I said above, free speech is great but it isn’t speech without consequence. You have the right to say things, and other have the right to react to them. If that means non-platforming them, sacking them etc or even just calling them a fecking idiot, that’s your right. Free speech just means you can’t be locked up for it, and it’s definitely been commandeered by bigots who don’t understand what it means as an excuse to say horrible things.
Click to expand...

This is something I find interesting.

If you have a speaker coming to University for example, and a small minority of very vocal students speak out to get them cancelled, is that fair game? Despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinion.

If you don't want to listen to somebody talk, then you don't have to do so, but stopping the entirety of your University from hearing what they have to say seems very entitled to me.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
This is something I find interesting.

If you have a speaker coming to University for example, and a small minority of very vocal students speak out to get them cancelled, is that fair game? Despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinion.

If you don't want to listen to somebody talk, then you don't have to do so, but stopping the entirety of your University from hearing what they have to say seems very entitled to me.
Click to expand...

What about if you have a speaker coming to University and the government decrees they should be cancelled despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinions?
 
2 man midfield said:
Like I said above, free speech is great but it isn’t speech without consequence. You have the right to say things, and other have the right to react to them. If that means non-platforming them, sacking them etc or even just calling them a fecking idiot, that’s your right. Free speech just means you can’t be locked up for it, and it’s definitely been commandeered by bigots who don’t understand what it means as an excuse to say horrible things.
Click to expand...
Can't say it any better myself.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
This is something I find interesting.

If you have a speaker coming to University for example, and a small minority of very vocal students speak out to get them cancelled, is that fair game? Despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinion.

If you don't want to listen to somebody talk, then you don't have to do so, but stopping the entirety of your University from hearing what they have to say seems very entitled to me.
Click to expand...

NinjaFletch said:
What about if you have a speaker coming to University and the government decrees they should be cancelled despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinions?
Click to expand...

I think the government has absolutely no business saying certain people can't give a speech at a university however reprehensible they feel the opinions are.
 
freeurmind said:
I think the government has absolutely no business saying certain people can't give a speech at a university however reprehensible they feel the opinions are.
Click to expand...

Then why is this discussion online always centred around students being whiney little so and sos who should be forced to listen to fascists, transphobes, homophobes or whatever and never about Prevent?

The latter is being used on increasingly flimsy grounds by the government to dictate to subject experts about what material they can and can't use, but gets half the attention from people who profess to care about free speech as arseholes like Bannon.
 
NinjaFletch said:
What about if you have a speaker coming to University and the government decrees they should be cancelled despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinions?
Click to expand...

As a rule I don't agree with silencing other people's opinions, except in very specific circumstances. Especially in an environment like a University where the point is to learn and have your views challenged, if there are views you find despicable then go up and argue against them rather than removing them from the sphere of debate.

My University was a bit of an echo chamber if I'm being honest, and I feel like it's the same across the country right now. My lecturer went on a marxist rant in the middle of a history seminar on Japanese modernisation, and you always got the sense when writing essays that if you tried to argue a different perspective you would get marked down from it.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
As a rule I don't agree with silencing other people's opinions, except in very specific circumstances. Especially in an environment like a University where the point is to learn and have your views challenged, if there are views you find despicable then go up and argue against them rather than removing them from the sphere of debate.

My University was a bit of an echo chamber if I'm being honest, and I feel like it's the same across the country right now. My lecturer went on a marxist rant in the middle of a history seminar on Japanese modernisation, and you always got the sense when writing essays that if you tried to argue a different perspective you would get marked down from it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you had a horrible lecturer.

Doesn't answer the question though.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Sounds like you had a horrible lecturer.

Doesn't answer the question though.
Click to expand...

I feel like the first part did? I don't agree with people being shut down, be that by the government or by other students.

If there is an appetite amongst students for a certain speaker to come, then that speaker should be able to go and put his views across. I also think that if there is also people who totally disagree, then that speaker should have to agree to have his/her views challenged on stage.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
My University was a bit of an echo chamber if I'm being honest, and I feel like it's the same across the country right now. My lecturer went on a marxist rant in the middle of a history seminar on Japanese modernisation, and you always got the sense when writing essays that if you tried to argue a different perspective you would get marked down from it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure he wasn't just using marxist historiography as a method to explain some aspect of Japanese modernisation? You certainly don't have to be a Marxist politically to find some value in marxist historiography, and the rapid modernisation and industrialization of a country certainly seems to apply. And in any case history is best viewed through several different lenses.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
I feel like the first part did? I don't agree with people being shut down, be that by the government or by other students.

If there is an appetite amongst students for a certain speaker to come, then that speaker should be able to go and put his views across. I also think that if there is also people who totally disagree, then that speaker should have to agree to have his/her views challenged on stage.
Click to expand...

So why don't you care about the real free speech scandal in universities, which is that the government are vetting courses, speakers, and teaching via Prevent?
 
niMic said:
Are you sure he wasn't just using marxist historiography as a method to explain some aspect of Japanese modernisation? You certainly don't have to be a Marxist politically to find some value in marxist historiography, and the rapid modernisation and industrialization of a country certainly seems to apply. And in any case history is best viewed through several different lenses.
Click to expand...

No, he was pretty well known for being very pro Marxism and often using seminars/lectures as an attempt to push marxist ideology. It wasn't a case of him explaining Japanese modernisation, he went on some tangent about capitalism and consumerism.
 
Its really not as straight forward as I thought when I was younger.

It's not helped one side being self righteous ego maniacs who believe they are right side of history, and the good guys which makes most people on the other side the bad guys.

While the other side of the free speech discussion has actual neo-nazis who use 'western values' like free speech, the scientific method and discussions to resolve conflict like Hamas use schools and hospitals.

The anti-free speech people do have the point that charisma and emotion are as, or more persuasive than facts to most people and where it crosses the line it can endanger the lives of others. They do however seem to paint with a broad brush, ignore context to win points and use underhanded tactics to gain power by dis-empowering others in debates rather than being correct on merit.
 
Last edited:
NinjaFletch said:
Then why is this discussion online always centred around students being whiney little so and sos who should be forced to listen to fascists, transphobes, homophobes or whatever and never about Prevent?

The latter is being used on increasingly flimsy grounds by the government to dictate to subject experts about what material they can and can't use, but gets half the attention from people who profess to care about free speech as arseholes like Bannon.
Click to expand...
Because usually that's how the debate gets framed. Most of the people arguing against so called "non-platforming" at universities usually have pretty Islamophobis views themselves and by my understanding its been mostly Islamic groups and speakers who have been mostly affected by the Prevent strategy. Like you say, for these Bannon types the "free speech" argument is basically a way for them to argue that they should be able to say morally reprehensible things without being challenged or criticized but are fine when others' speech is curtailed when they disagree with whoever is speaking. That's why you saw Hannity and Shapiro both support CNN firing Marc Lamont. If Lamont had been someone who espoused conservative or libertarian viewpoints, you can almost certainly bet they would have come out in support of him.
 
NinjaFletch said:
So why don't you care about the real free speech scandal in universities, which is that the government are vetting courses, speakers, and teaching via Prevent?
Click to expand...

Isn't Prevent aimed at stopping the spread of extremist ideology, thus trying to prevent terrorism? Like I said, there are some specific circumstances where a speaker might encourage violence, and in those circumstances free speech rules don't really apply.

I'd argue there's a difference between that, and Milo Yiannopolous for example wanting to go up on stage and talk about how the wage gap doesn't exist.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Isn't Prevent aimed at stopping the spread of extremist ideology, thus trying to prevent terrorism? Like I said, there are some specific circumstances where a speaker might encourage violence, and in those circumstances free speech rules don't really apply.

I'd argue there's a difference between that, and Milo Yiannopolous for example wanting to go up on stage and talk about how the wage gap doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Prevent may be well intentioned, but it still doesn't change the fact it's being used to dictate to subject experts about what material they can and can't teach in their classroom and to vet speakers who attend universities. If you were in the sector and had heard some of the examples of things people were being flagged up for with it you would be very worried.

But this is the point; we probably agree that free speech rules don't apply to those preaching violence, but that's the rationale behind no-platforming too. The fact we only ever talk about one side of this debate (the 'no platforming' side, rather than the 'prevent' side) when we're supposedly just people concerned with free speech shows how dishonest the discussion is. It's being led by people who are upset they can't preach their own intolerance in universities and don't care to slightest about free speech who simply hope they can hoodwink well meaning but gullible people.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Prevent may be well intentioned, but it still doesn't change the fact it's being used to dictate to subject experts about what material they can and can't teach in their classroom and to vet speakers who attend universities. If you were in the sector and had heard some of the examples of things people were being flagged up for with it you would be very worried.

But this is the point; we probably agree that free speech rules don't apply to those preaching violence, but that's the rationale behind no-platforming too. The fact we only ever talk about one side of this debate (the 'no platforming' side, rather than the 'prevent' side) when we're supposedly just people concerned with free speech shows how dishonest the discussion is. It's being led by people who are upset they can't preach their own intolerance in universities and don't care to slightest about free speech who simply hope they can hoodwink well meaning but gullible people.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of examples of no-platforming which don't only stop those preaching violence. If that was the case I'd have no issue with it. For example, in 2014 at Oxford University there was to be a debate centred around the existence of 'abortion culture', in which the speakers would discuss the impact having legal abortion has had upon society. Students had organized and OK'ed the debate, but then a small group of activists forced it to be shut down, partly because of they believed that people without a uterus shouldn't discuss the topic.

You're right that we need to discuss it from both sides (the prevent movement as well) and I do think overall we need a clearer definition of what free speech actually means. In my view, anybody should be able to go up and speak to a group of people as long as they aren't inciting violence, as long as a group of people exists that want to hear it. And if other people disagree with what is being said, they also have the right to be there and challenge those views through fair and civilised debate.

It's a very fair point that the debate is very one sided though (with not enough focus on prevent), i'll totally admit that. Needs to be more discussion about both sides of that coin for sure.
 
I'm not knowledgeable on this so it's only a question, but maybe if people speaking publicly are inciting violence they should be charged with inciting violence, or racial or religious discrimination? If there isn't an appropriate law to allow that then perhaps we need one.
 
711 said:
I'm not knowledgeable on this so it's only a question, but maybe if people speaking publicly are inciting violence they should be charged with inciting violence, or racial or religious discrimination? If there isn't an appropriate law to allow that then perhaps we need one.
Click to expand...

Laws do exist which separate free speech from hate speech. So if you're considered to be inciting violence, inciting racial hatred, inciting terrorism etc then you're no longer protected by your freedom of expression. Other countries like the US have different laws, in some European nations I know that on certain topics there is very limited scope for discussion.

However, there are obviously differing opinions on what qualifies as 'inciting racial hatred' for example, so it's not that clear cut. Some people would argue that Ben Shapiro incites racial hatred by suggesting that African Americans accounting for a disproportionate number of crimes is due to a problem with black culture, rather than racism. It's really not always so easy to decide what falls in to which category, hence why you get no platforming etc. People just can't really agree on what is acceptable to discuss.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Laws do exist which separate free speech from hate speech. So if you're considered to be inciting violence, inciting racial hatred, inciting terrorism etc then you're no longer protected by your freedom of expression. Other countries like the US have different laws, in some European nations I know that on certain topics there is very limited scope for discussion.

However, there are obviously differing opinions on what qualifies as 'inciting racial hatred' for example, so it's not that clear cut. Some people would argue that Ben Shapiro incites racial hatred by suggesting that African Americans accounting for a disproportionate number of crimes is due to a problem with black culture, rather than racism. It's really not always so easy to decide what falls in to which category, hence why you get no platforming etc. People just can't really agree on what is acceptable to discuss.
Click to expand...
I hope I understand that, but I can't help thinking that if what a person says isn't wrong enough to be prosecuted then they're not wrong enough to be no-platformed either. The danger is that no-platformers are just imposing their own opinions by force, and that can't be right. I'm not trying to defend any particular group by the way, I'm all for prosecuting nasty people where it's warranted.
 
711 said:
I hope I understand that, but I can't help thinking that if what a person says isn't wrong enough to be prosecuted then they're not wrong enough to be no-platformed either. The danger is that no-platformers are just imposing their own opinions by force, and that can't be right. I'm not trying to defend any particular group by the way, I'm all for prosecuting nasty people where it's warranted.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree. If what you're saying isn't considered hate speech by law, then you should be permitted to speak if an audience wishes to hear you.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
This is something I find interesting.

If you have a speaker coming to University for example, and a small minority of very vocal students speak out to get them cancelled, is that fair game? Despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinion.

If you don't want to listen to somebody talk, then you don't have to do so, but stopping the entirety of your University from hearing what they have to say seems very entitled to me.
Click to expand...

Nah I wouldn't say so, I agree with your post. I'm not saying I particularly like the sort of non-platforming you see on university campuses, especially not if it's a very small minority that disagree with them. That to me looks like trying to silence opinions you don't agree with. But the onus is on the universities to uphold that, and if they do decide to give in to that small minority, it's their right to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.