Has political correctness actually gone mad?

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...
On point as usual ;)
 
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...

Have you seen Four Lions? It's a brilliant satire on Islamic terrorism by Chris Morris, one of the UK's foremost comedic voices on TV in the past couple of decades. I don't recall anyone saying it was offensive, because it was very fecking good. I'm sure some Muslims would have been offended by it, but then I'd have said that, yeah, they were being completely unreasonable if that was the case.

You've also picked out one thing and ignored the rest of my post, which highlighted that the idea we're consistently going backwards in regards to what people can say/do on TV is nonsense. Again, before the 90s most mainstream TV shows strayed firmly away from swearing and nudity, and didn't air edgy content. The fecking Simpsons was seen as being outrageous when it first aired! Even though now it wouldn't be at all. Obviously plenty of films were pushing boundaries that TV wasn't, but within mainstream society content that was remotely edgy was generally shunned or seen as bad.

I'm all for making sure we keep in the right direction, for what it's worth, because progress isn't always linear, but the idea we're moving back from some bygone era of free speech where writers and directors could do anything they wanted on TV is clearly bizarre and incorrect.
 
freeurmind said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd assertion. I don't know the particulars of this UK specific issue but not everyone who is against no-platforming in general is Islamophobic.
 
crappycraperson said:
That's an absurd assertion. I don't know the particulars of this UK specific issue but not everyone who is against no-platforming in general is Islamophobic.
Click to expand...
I think you have to have followed our discussion to get the jist of what I way was saying. Though I probably should have said most of the "prominent" activists against non-platforming.
 



Just the most powerful man in the world implying the world’s most famous satirical sketch show should be illegal because it makes fun of him.

But please, keep telling us how the left are ruining comedy free speech guys.
 
Mockney said:



Just the most powerful man in the world implying the world’s most famous satirical sketch show should be illegal because it makes fun of him.

But please, keep telling us how the left are ruining comedy free speech guys.
Click to expand...


SNL should be illegal because it's shite and mostly unfunny.
 
Grinner said:
SNL should be illegal because it's shite and mostly unfunny.
Click to expand...

It’s always been mostly unfunny, tbf. Have you ever actually tried to watch any of the “classic” Belishi, Ackroyd, Murray sketches these days? They do not hold up! Everyone just thinks the era they grew up with was better ‘cos nostalgia, and “feels”, and the general cultural belligerence of anyone over 45..... You know, like with everything.

Still, it is probably the biggest comedy institution in the world. But in fairness, it’s not like he deplatformed some no-mark racist shock comic from a private venue, or asked anyone to apologise for being hideously homophobic. You know, the really insidious stuff. Bloody snowflakes just can’t lighten up and see the funny in a bit of light playful fascism.

Tbf, satire has been fighting a losing battle with reality for a good couple years now. I think the President of the United States basically pushing for the very concept of it to be banned is probably the point where we should just accept it’s dead. We lost guys. It was good for a while, but it ain’t recovering. We can’t go back. If it’s a straight choice between no satire or truth to power, and “everyone can be fully racist!” then feck it, let’s all just Keep Calm and wait for the bombs in manful stoic silence. Maybe put on some Dido? Or something equally beige and humourless. There’ll be plentiful digestive biscuits.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
Tbf, satire has been fighting a losing battle with reality for a good couple years now. I think the President of the United States basically pushing for the very concept of it to be banned is probably the point where we should just accept it’s dead. We lost guys. It was good for a while, but it ain’t recovering. We can’t go back.
Click to expand...
e8mgcqjpjh421.png
 
Mockney said:
It’s always been mostly unfunny, tbf. Have you ever actually tried to watch any of the “classic” Belishi, Ackroyd, Murray sketches these days? They do not hold up! Everyone just thinks the era they grew up with was better ‘cos nostalgia, and “feels”, and the general cultural belligerence of anyone over 45..... You know, like with everything..
Click to expand...


I've seen lots of different eras and they usually date very badly. SNL's best purpose is to find future comedy blockbuster stars. I don't think there is another vehicle for up and comers to hone their skills.

I think Keenan Thompson needs to accept that he's doomed to be a forever cast member. He probably already has.
 
That's all good and everything but let's focus on the real problems in the world please.

Like this charming lady being offended by a hula girl figurine on a lyft driver's dashboard because of the pillaging of the "continent" Hawaii.



I like her beautiful voice.
 
Vato said:
That's all good and everything but let's focus on the real problems in the world please.

Like this charming lady being offended by a hula girl figurine on a lyft driver's dashboard because of the pillaging of the "continent" Hawaii.



I like her beautiful voice.
Click to expand...

It seems that if we find certain things like that to be ridiculous it also means that we're upset we can't go around calling people racist names.
 
Grinner said:
I've seen lots of different eras and they usually date very badly. SNL's best purpose is to find future comedy blockbuster stars. I don't think there is another vehicle for up and comers to hone their skills.

I think Keenan Thompson needs to accept that he's doomed to be a forever cast member. He probably already has.
Click to expand...

That’s why it’s the juggernaut it is, for sure. Michaels is basically the world’s foremost comedy talent scout. As a Brit, it’s way more interesting as a cultural fascination than a sketch show. Like watching Academy games on MUTv and trying to guess who’ll make it. It’s a coke fuelled comedy boot camp, that occasionally catches the zeitgeist or throws out the odd great viral parody or silly song a year. It’s one of those things that you’re glad exists, and serves an important cultural function, but you can never really justify ‘liking’.... but then again, that’d be true of any near 50 year old institution. It’s always gonna be as cool to hate as it is to love...then be cool to love again when you get to the nostalgic age where you retroactively pretend everything you rebelliously hated in your teens, was actually brilliant, and better than the empty dross they have now...

As long as you occasionally get absurdist shit like this, then “eh, cool, whatever.”




They need to stop wheeling out Robert De Niro as Muller though. He’s a live comedy black hole, who seems pathologically incapable of reading cue cards naturally, or not fecking up the “live from New York, bit”.... you know, the only singular consistent iconic line from the shows 45 year history that shouldn’t need any off stage prompting!

Also - and in a desperate attempt to get somewhat back on topic! - it’s unassailable status makes it the best barometer of what’s acceptable mainstream comedy at any time. So if SNL can still be occasionally un-PC, or manage to annoy the sitting President enough to call for it’s banning, then there’s literally no grounds for claiming snowflake lefty politics is ruining comedy’s edginess.

Cos again, when the President of the United States is saying SNL should be illegal, is the occasional comic being pressured to apologise for rampantly homophobic jokes really any kind of deal at all?

No, is the answer. The answer is no.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
free speech is when no one calls me a racist so snl should be banned
Click to expand...

Literally two pages about whether the dastardly PC lefties might complain about some old sketches, based on a comically unnuanced misunderstanding of universally beloved satirical bits... but not a peep when the right wing US President actually encourages banning the world’s biggest and longest running sketch show.

I mean, it’s almost as if there’s a whole other agenda at work here? That isn’t based on the subjective merits of comedy at all! If only there was some indication of what that could be? It’s a fecking mystery, innit? I guess we’ll just never know.
 
Grinner said:
I've seen lots of different eras and they usually date very badly. SNL's best purpose is to find future comedy blockbuster stars. I don't think there is another vehicle for up and comers to hone their skills.

I think Keenan Thompson needs to accept that he's doomed to be a forever cast member. He probably already has.
Click to expand...

I'd say he's definitely made his peace with it, he's probably thinking it could be worse he could be Kel.
 
Mockney said:
Literally two pages about whether the dastardly PC lefties might complain about some old sketches, based on a comically unnuanced misunderstanding of universally beloved satirical bits... but not a peep when the right wing US President actually encourages banning the world’s biggest and longest running sketch show.

I mean, it’s almost as if there’s a whole other agenda at work here? That isn’t based on the subjective merits of comedy at all! If only there was some indication of what that could be? It’s a fecking mystery, innit? I guess we’ll just never know.
Click to expand...
Can't answer for others, but I'll try for myself.
I think there is some weird shit going on amongst my fellow lefties. Most of those times are probably me misunderstanding the intent or point, but every now and then there are genuine cases of PC gone mad. It's funny, but not nearly as harmful as the stuff "the other side" does. I laugh and criticise the batshit pc stuff because it's something I can laugh at. Right-wing politics is something I have very little energy to spend on as I, like Silva, think very little of those people (in general). When it comes to Trump and Co, nothing they do will truly shock me and I have to believe that at some point, preferably before they kill the earth, they'll be losing the power they have been abusing.
So ill continue to laugh where I think pc has gone mad, because the other shit is too depressing to laugh at. And that's before going into the politics of my part of the world which is also going towards the right-wing (which still would be left of the Democrats).
 
Tbf loads of people can and do laugh at this stuff. That's why I originally popped into the thread, I thought it would be funny. It's mostly been low effort stuff making mountains out of molehills, although some folk seem to get really wound up by it (lol). Been a few decent conversations too...
 
Jippy said:
Putting aside how bizarre it is to have that oath clause, how on earth would they police whether she buys Israel made goods?
Click to expand...
afrocentricity said:
Tbf loads of people can and do laugh at this stuff. That's why I originally popped into the thread, I thought it would be funny. It's mostly been low effort stuff making mountains out of molehills, although some folk seem to get really wound up by it (lol). Been a few decent conversations too...
Click to expand...

the guardian thread is great for those laughs. poop size was an all-timer
 
redman5 said:
OK, let me throw the question out there. What is, & what isn't, acceptable as satirical humour ? Is religion as a whole fair game ? Or are certain religions exempt from being lampooned ? Throughout my life I've seen many sketches taking the piss out of priests, vicars, nuns etc. I ask the question because, ironically enough, the BBC had quite a lot of complaints a few years ago when Harry Enfield & Paul Whitehouse were involved in a sketch making fun of a young girl in a burka. So should your bolded statement above count for everyone ?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...fun-girl-burka-latest-comedy-sketch-show.html
Click to expand...

Everything is fair game as far as I'm concerned. Let the public judge, and I don't mean the shouty SJWs.
 
Halftrack said:
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take their version events with a shovel of salt.

Given that the only sites reporting on this are ultra-conservative, and provide no sources, I'm going to go ahead and assume they've massively distorted the truth, if not outright fabricated the whole story.
Click to expand...

If you finish you’re outrage with “I’m a Liberal Democrat” I’m thinking it’s made up as feck. :lol:
 
Halftrack said:
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take their version events with a shovel of salt.

Given that the only sites reporting on this are ultra-conservative, and provide no sources, I'm going to go ahead and assume they've massively distorted the truth, if not outright fabricated the whole story.
Click to expand...

 
Slightly more complex than the above gives credit for;

1) the most frequent right wing opinion is that the baker cannot deny service to someone based on a characteristic, but to demand a bespoke production that is against the owner's moral code would infringe on the business owner's rights. Declining to host conservatives, or giving preferred service to left wingers, would be more the former than the latter

2) There are a lot of bakers who would be willing to bake the cake- Youtube/twitter/facebook are basically the major public forums for discourse and restricting access to would detrimentally affect the ability of a person to communicate - with no viable competitors, and new competitors that allow right wing speech being restricted by decisions of payment processors there is a risk of monopoly, if there isn't already one.

Whether you are left, right or centrist, do we really want Google, Twitter and Facebook, along with the payment processors to control the boundaries of political speech? It's the big question of the next 10 years or so. Even if you 100% agree with decisions made to date, at any point their monopoly could be exploited and given that they control the primary way of communicating these days it might be too late.
 
Silva said:
esik25symn521.png
Click to expand...
My first amendment professor showed us a Peterson video complaining about this and at the end apologised for giving him another view.

Let’s not forget the times Ben Shapiro forgot he was mr free speech and showed his true colours:



These pricks don’t give a shit about free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.