Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Drainy said:
Freedom of speech is about your freedom to say what you think without the tyranny of either the government or other people silencing you.
If you don't like someone then don't listen to them and their words won't hurt you.

However, if you defame a person then you hurt them even if they cannot hear you say it... there is a quite clear difference that if you think about it objectively should be pretty obvious
Click to expand...

But how do we determine what comes under freedom of speech and what is defamation, though? Because any decision on which is which is ultimately going to be, to an extent, an opinion. I completely agree that defamation should result in punishment, of course, but Milo's general shtick is the opposite of this...any criticism of offence he causes or anything he says about someone else is brushed off as him exercising his free speech.

If he gets to demand an apology because someone hurt his feelings and called him a white nationalist, do left-wing people get to demand an apology for being called 'precious snowflakes' or people trying to prevent freedom of speech? Where's the line? And wherever that line is, why's it fine for Milo to cross it...but not for people on the other side?
 
Cheesy said:
But how do we determine what comes under freedom of speech and what is defamation, though? Because any decision on which is which is ultimately going to be, to an extent, an opinion. I completely agree that defamation should result in punishment, of course, but Milo's general shtick is the opposite of this...any criticism of offence he causes or anything he says about someone else is brushed off as him exercising his free speech.

If he gets to demand an apology because someone hurt his feelings and called him a white nationalist, do left-wing people get to demand an apology for being called 'precious snowflakes' or people trying to prevent freedom of speech? Where's the line? And wherever that line is, why's it fine for Milo to cross it...but not for people on the other side?
Click to expand...

To state that someone is a white nationalist is to say that they hold particular views which are defined and would discredit them in the eyes of the majority and would harm their reputation so may lead to consequences for the victim beyond hurt feelings.

To say nasty comments about a person or a group of people may hurt their feelings but are unlikely to lead to wider consequences.

If you haven't already, I recommend reading 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill. It's pretty much the free-speech bible and explores the harm principle.
 
@Cheesy

Actually that said, I've just remembered that he did defame Leslie Jones by retweeting fake tweets, and I don't think he ever apologised, so your central point of him being a hypocrite is correct.
 
Drainy said:
@Cheesy

Actually that said, I've just remembered that he did defame Leslie Jones by retweeting fake tweets, and I don't think he ever apologised, so your central point of him being a hypocrite is correct.
Click to expand...

Aye, as I've said I have no problem with defamation laws and for the most part agree with them fully. But if Milo's general shtick is defending absolutely everything he says as being in the name of free speech, then people calling him all sorts of shite should absolutely be allowed to do the same if we're looking at it from his flawed viewpoint.
 
Private institutions cancelling prior engagements has little to do with free speech. At least constitutionally. Free speech, as an enshrined ideal, is about the individual's ability to air their views without the threat of criminal prosecution. Dickhead anarchists forcing Berkley to cancel Milo's talk may be undeniably idiotic (not to mention counter productive) but is still the choice of Berkley, and not the state. Milo is still free to air his awful views on any number of public platforms, without threat of arrest or genuine, all compassing censorship. It's technically no different to a pop concert being cancelled. Sadly, the media reaction to it is precisely what the likes of him thrives off, and probably the very reason he scheduled a talk at such a prominently liberal institution in the first place.

cnut.
 
Last edited:
yes and no. the difference is that Berkeley receives a lot of government funding (imo about 50%), which makes the whole thing a bit more complicated. Anyway. the only reason that an imbecile like Milo can exist is, because people react to him. Why do people bother? I mean, how on earth can someone like him wind up anyone on twitter or any other social media platform? Just ignore or block him. Protesting against someone whose only goal in life is to gain attention is rather mindless as well.
 
Mrs Smoker said:
The Mayor apologized.

Freakin' bitcoins.

Click to expand...

Clearly the person who used the pepper spray it's a massive arsehole but just in terms of personal safety why the feck is she wearing a Trump hat ? You get the feeling with a lot of Trump supporters and people like Milo that they see this as one big joke, a sort of stick prodding exercise.

The reality is the complete opposite.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
Clearly the person who used the pepper spray it's a massive arsehole but just in terms of personal safety why the feck is she wearing a Trump hat ? You get the feeling with a lot of Trump supporters and people like Milo that they see this as one big joke, a sort of stick prodding exercise.

The reality is the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

Her clothing was asking for it alright
 
PedroMendez said:
yes and no. the difference is that Berkeley receives a lot of government funding (imo about 50%), which makes the whole thing a bit more complicated. Anyway. the only reason that an imbecile like Milo can exist is, because people react to him. Why do people bother? I mean, how on earth can someone like him wind up anyone on twitter or any other social media platform? Just ignore or block him. Protesting against someone whose only goal in life is to gain attention is rather mindless as well.
Click to expand...
Just winding people up on Twitter is not all Milo does though. He actively galvanises a hateful section of society to harass other people.
 
Sweet Square said:
Clearly the person who used the pepper spray it's a massive arsehole but just in terms of personal safety why the feck is she wearing a Trump hat ? You get the feeling with a lot of Trump supporters and people like Milo that they see this as one big joke, a sort of stick prodding exercise.

The reality is the complete opposite.
Click to expand...
What the heck? It's a college campus, why can't you wear clothing to show your political allegiance? The event was organized by the Cal College Republicans so you think some of them might support Trump and want to show it.
 
Sweet Square said:
Clearly the person who used the pepper spray it's a massive arsehole but just in terms of personal safety why the feck is she wearing a Trump hat ? You get the feeling with a lot of Trump supporters and people like Milo that they see this as one big joke, a sort of stick prodding exercise.

The reality is the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that post is a bit of a joke mate. She shouldn't be allowed to express her political views? The hat doesn't even mention Trump but even if it did, she has every right to support him.

I'm trying to decipher your point because it seems like this post was a bit of a troll or stick prodding exercise. Do you think that she shouldn't be allowed to express her political viewpoint? Presumably you will say she should be able to but it was stupid to do it there... so I guess you are agreeing that these rioters are thugs who want to shut down and attack anyone with alternative views?
 
Sweet Square said:
Clearly the person who used the pepper spray it's a massive arsehole but just in terms of personal safety why the feck is she wearing a Trump hat ? You get the feeling with a lot of Trump supporters and people like Milo that they see this as one big joke, a sort of stick prodding exercise.

The reality is the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

I don't care much for Milo, and don't care at all for Trump, but that whole Berkely debacle was just a spectacular failure. Trump needs to be restrained and fought with tooth and nail, but this is not the way to go about it. Physically attacking someone because they wear a fecking Trump cap is disgraceful and so is rioting because someone on the other side of the fence is having a speech

Yes, Milo is a professional WUM, it's what he does for a living, but these complete idiots are playing right into his hand and at the same time weakening their own stance. If these progressives think having a shit fit is the appropriate response to fighting Trump then they are fecking morons and will probably only make sure he gets reelected
 
Bobcat said:
Yes, Milo is a professional WUM
Click to expand...

Exactly this. If they stopped reacting to him, the entertainment value of his act would be almost entirely diminished and he would go back to irrelevance.

His act is based on him saying 'prohibited' things and people finding it amusing, particularly when it gets SJW jimmies all a-rustled.
Let him say what he's going to say, don't attend and don't react and the magic will wear off quickly- when it becomes a debate about perspective and ideas the good ideas will eventually win out, the bad ones will die off and the world will keep turning.

Making it into a fist fight just hurts everyone, and leads to escalation. It didn't take long for the violence to turn from being aimed at 'Nazis' to people in red hats- who is next?
 
The Purist said:
To be honest, that post is a bit of a joke mate. She shouldn't be allowed to express her political views? The hat doesn't even mention Trump but even if it did, she has every right to support him.

I'm trying to decipher your point because it seems like this post was a bit of a troll or stick prodding exercise. Do you think that she shouldn't be allowed to express her political viewpoint? Presumably you will say she should be able to but it was stupid to do it there... so I guess you are agreeing that these rioters are thugs who want to shut down and attack anyone with alternative views?
Click to expand...
That was my point.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The phrase alluded to in the title always used to wind me up. Political correctness is a good thing and comes as a result of a decades long struggle for equality. Who cares if we sometimes err on the side of being too cautious about causing offence?

Reading articles like this, though, makes me wonder if it really has gone a bit too far. Especially with social media empowering loony tunes crusades by anyone, anywhere, who takes offence at anything.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Its gone mad
 
Drainy said:
Exactly this. If they stopped reacting to him, the entertainment value of his act would be almost entirely diminished and he would go back to irrelevance.

His act is based on him saying 'prohibited' things and people finding it amusing, particularly when it gets SJW jimmies all a-rustled.
Let him say what he's going to say, don't attend and don't react and the magic will wear off quickly- when it becomes a debate about perspective and ideas the good ideas will eventually win out, the bad ones will die off and the world will keep turning.

Making it into a fist fight just hurts everyone, and leads to escalation. It didn't take long for the violence to turn from being aimed at 'Nazis' to people in red hats- who is next?
Click to expand...

This, and what happened with debate around Uni campuses anyways? These days it seems it's only speeches and lectures where one (often very biased) person or group present their views to the crowd, what happened with good old debate and discourse?

I'm pretty sure if they had debates instead of this nonsense, keyboard warriors and WUM's like Milo would quickly fade away, as i am pretty sure he would be properly schooled by someone with more knowledge and gravitas. If the left in the US wants to get back in the game, they need to do it the proper way, not throw childish tamper tantrums
 
Statement by the Uni -

Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent out this message today in response to the events of last night:

UC Berkeley condemns in the strongest possible terms the actions of individuals who invaded the campus, infiltrated a crowd of peaceful students and used violent tactics to close down the event. We deeply regret that the violence unleashed by this group undermined the First Amendment rights of the speaker as well as those who came to lawfully assemble and protest his presence.

The university went to extraordinary lengths to facilitate planning and preparation for this event, working in close concert with the Berkeley College Republicans. Dozens of police officers were brought in from UC campuses across the state. Numerous crowd-control measures were put in place. But, we could not plan for the unprecedented. Last night the Berkeley campus was invaded by more than 100 armed individuals clad all in black who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent, destructive behavior designed to shut the event down. At that point the University of California Police Department concluded that the speaker had to be evacuated from campus for his own safety, thereby bringing the event to an end.

For the campus police, the primary objective is always the safety and well-being of our students and the public. That is what informs their strategies and tactics. In that context we are relieved that, as of now, there have been no reports of serious injuries.

We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the Free Speech Movement. While we have made clear our belief that the inflaming rhetoric and provocations of Mr. Yiannopoulos were in marked opposition to the basic values of the university, we respected his right to come to campus and speak once he was invited to do so by a legitimate student group. The violence last night was an attack on the fundamental values of the university, which stands for and helps to maintain and nurture open inquiry and an inclusive civil society, the bedrock of a genuinely democratic nation. We are now, and will remain in the future, completely committed to free speech as essential to our educational mission and a vital component of our identity at UC Berkeley.
Click to expand...
 
Last night the Berkeley campus was invaded by more than 100 armed individuals clad all in black who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent, destructive behavior designed to shut the event down.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I bet they genuinely were hardened social justice warriors and absolutely not hired goons. :rolleyes:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I'm presuming tbf but the people who ran amok at the inauguration were definitely anarchists and this lot do seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...

yeah actually, one of the videos in the link above they were chanting about 'no nations' so they would have to be some pretty confused Marxists to want that!
 
The Christmas messages filling my inbox were hate-filled and disgusting, but of their common themes, only one was scary: some declared their intention to get me fired from my own (nontenured, adjunct) job teaching journalism. They never did call my bosses, but the bullying tactic struck me as disturbingly familiar.

That’s because I’d also encountered it from online liberals.

Much has been written about the toxicity of internet “call out” culture over the past five years. But less has been said about the prevalence of efforts to fire people, one of that culture’s creepiest and most authoritarian features.

Some of the specific examples are well known. Justine Sacco was fired from her PR job after making an anti-racist joke widely misunderstood as a racist joke (humor on the internet often goes awry in this way). Journalists have been particularly vulnerable given the obligation to tweet with a distinct voice and be “controversial.” In 2011, Nir Rosen, a writer on the war in Iraq, was forced to resign from his fellowship at New York University Law School after tweeting (with inexcusable callousness) about CBS correspondent Lara Logan’s rape during the Egyptian uprising.
...
Identitarians didn’t invent the tactic, and the self-styled “alt-right” aren’t the first conservatives to use it. During Gamergate, reactionaries on Reddit organized to try to fire people they disagreed with, and pro-Israel groups have a long record of petitioning universities to dismiss academics for criticizing Israeli policy. And as Ellen Schrecker showed in her 1994 book, The Age of McCarthyism, the punishments for political dissent during the Red Scare were mostly economic. Accused communists lost jobs in many industries. What’s going on now hasn’t been comparable to McCarthyism yet, only because social justice Twitter didn’t have state power, but now that the alt-right has a man on the National Security Council, the historical parallel may draw, uncomfortably, closer.

“You’re fired” tactics make sense for the alt-right, which is crusading for a meaner society in which bullies reign and workers can be fired more easily. Progressives, supposedly, are fighting for the opposite vision. That the threat to get an interlocutor fired from her job would become a common mode of political discourse even for progressives shows how deeply neoliberalism pervades our culture. Particularly in the educated classes, many now view themselves as little managers, or entrepreneurs. Those who offend become the poorly-performing help. Their livelihoods are disposable, and they deserve to be made to feel their precarity. Only in a society with almost no safety nets, in which few people have the job security afforded by union protections or tenure, could random bullies on the internet terrify us by tagging our bosses. People who do this are not serving any kind of progressive movement; indeed they are working hard at strengthening neoliberalism in all its ruthlessness and anxiety. When workers feel less secure, only bosses benefit.

Some will protest that self-identified feminists tagging a man’s boss over a sexist tweet are not engaged in a morally equivalent project from that of the white yahoos threatening the employment of my friend George, who was making fun of racism. But the two projects are the same, and not only because both violate the (important) principle of free speech. If you’re looking to create a society with less racism and sexism, you should be especially opposed to “You’re Fired” liberalism, because—as recent elections in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere have demonstrated—precarity and economic terror tend to exacerbate exactly such bigotries.
Click to expand...

https://thebaffler.com/blog/youre-fired-featherstone
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If found this article a really fascinating read, for anyone who is curious about the origin story behind the online element of the alt-right.

@Adebesi
Click to expand...

Haven't read the whole thing but it's very interesting. Manages to really show the alt-right as this sort of confused, uncertain group...a group who kind of recognise the bullshit of old, typically conservative values to an extent, and yet find themselves alienated from modern, liberal culture (or at least what they perceive as a liberal culture) and thus end up in their own little sub-group, sort of hateful to just about everyone who isn't them, but with an additionally startling lack of self-awareness in spite of the fact that they really try to be (and seemingly think they are) quite self-aware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.