John Cleese on Political Correctness.

[Kestrel]

Relevant.

 

[Soulless]

@Brovo I'm not copying the whole post you had to respond to me but I'd also like to question how far this goes in terms of changing or forcing change. For example, I know a person who is accused of being politicially correct because they have a disability and have a blog reviewing how open certain media is to their disability. This can be seen as enforcing a particular world view of what is socially acceptable, in this case what is socially acceptable in how accessible an entertainment medium is.

Another thing I would like to ask in this same vein, is that similar pushes some time ago in my country (USA) resulted in the government enforcing laws that certain TV programs and cable television must have closed captioning in order to support deaf people. This is forcing television companies to have a particular view on the social acceptability of how accessible their shows are: i.e. they must support and provide a closed captioning so that the hard of hearing can also watch television. Is this political correctness because it also uses force?

I once again apologize if I'm not understanding your overall point. Again, I'm not trying to disagree with you or attack you or worldview. At this point my behavior is exploring the full encompassment of this worldview and how it applies to various circumstances and where these circumstances differ in the same worldview.

 

[Astaroth]

Fact time! Here's what speech is NOT protected by law (in the United States):

1. Obscenity (in a pornographic sense)

2. Libel, slander, and defamation (even against a group rather than just an individual)

3. Threat of violence or other criminal action

4. Incitement to riot or commit violent/criminal action

5. "Fighting words", which basically means that you're saying something obviously insulting or offensive to another person and the law is looking at you going "you oughtta know that they would automatically punch you for saying that, you're being a deliberately provoking little shit"

6. Harassment

7. Hoaxes, fraud, and false advertisement

8. Perjury

9. Revealing the content of classified documents or information, including government and military intelligence, trade secrets, or court orders

10. Violation of copyright or patent


Most of the time, what constitutes hate speech is a violation of exceptions 2-6. If you're not careful, what constitutes "not PC" can qualify as that shit as well.

Many other countries explicitly prohibit hate speech- for example, Canada, which prohibits any speech that incites hatred against any identifiable group (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) excepting statements of fact, public debate, or religious creed. The reason the U.S. doesn't have a law like that is that our Freedom of Speech exceptions have been found to generally cover all the bases in punishing asshats anyway.

 

[Brovo]

@Brovo I'm not copying the whole post you had to respond to me but I'd also like to question how far this goes in terms of changing or forcing change. For example, I know a person who is accused of being politicially correct because they have a disability and have a blog reviewing how open certain media is to their disability. This can be seen as enforcing a particular world view of what is socially acceptable, in this case what is socially acceptable in how accessible an entertainment medium is.

The line between doing something for political correctness and doing something to protect a minority who have no rights is admittedly a blurry one, because sometimes you do need laws to protect the weak and the needy from the maliciously strong. I generally like to figure it out with a couple of points.

#1: Who's doing it and what power do they have over the world?
The guy who runs a disability blog thing talking about how open certain media is to their disability isn't necessarily pushing a politically correct agenda, neither are they themselves a force for political correctness. They're evaluating content and wondering how much of it is accessible to people of a certain demographic. (Disabilities people.) Where it would switch from inquiry, research, or criticism, into the realm of political correctness, would be if said blog was openly advocating for the repression of a person's creative rights in order to force more handicapped people into the media... Think of it this way.

A: "I would love to see more female action stars, and I would go out of my way to pay for movies which contain female action stars." <- This is stating your point of view and call for more content which you would enjoy. This isn't political correctness, since all you're asking for is more of what you enjoy, without taking away from the content which others enjoy.
B: "I would love to see more female action stars, and the government should force a gender quota on Hollywood until we have perfect parity." <- This is demanding that everyone else conform to you and your desires through brute force of censorship and (presumably) criminal penalties for those who refuse to accept your desires.

Where things get tricky is with the second and third points.

#2: If it's a call to enforce a law or change in society through force, is it for a greater equality for individuals, or the collective?
Something like the Equal Pay Act of 1963 infringes on the right for a person (employer) to decide how much they're willing to pay for a service... However, it does so in order to enforce the individual worth and value of everyone, regardless of their ethnicity or gender. Laws which abridge certain freedoms to give literally everyone greater human rights are generally always acceptable, and even if they were politically correct agendas, a broken clock can always strike right twice. So, if it's a rule that affects everyone equally, regardless of what they are, to enhance their sacrosanct set of human rights? Probably a good idea to use some level of force to ensure that those who would refuse it, would have no choice in the matter. It serves the greater good.

Though, what if it's a collective right?

#3: If it's a collective right directed to a specific group, is it done for a genuine slight or issue that can be readily seen, or is it for something that is largely imaginary and assumed?
Take handicap people. Specifically, those in wheelchairs. Nobody chooses to be born into a wheelchair, or to sustain an injury that puts them into a wheelchair. It's a genuine, easily perceived disadvantage that puts them into a position where they cannot reasonably accomplish certain tasks that others can anymore. Like climbing stairs: Giant wheels suck dick at stairs. So therefore, for some facilities (like schools, hospitals, et cetera) which everyone should have access to? It makes sense to legislate a law that requires said complexes to have wheelchair ramps through force of law. Yes, it makes certain institutions more expensive to construct and maintain, but it's legitimately done to improve the state of a group of human beings who sincerely need it.

Now, conversely, if someone makes jokes about people in wheelchairs? That's not repressing or stopping people in wheelchairs whatsoever. If, however, there was a call to force people who make jokes about wheelchair-bound citizenry to be silenced, censored, and shut down? That's taking away the rights of the comedian (censorship), to "improve" the lives of handicapped people in no perceivable fashion. That, is political correctness. That's when it goes from trying to make the lives of a minority group better, to simply bullying someone for refusing to tow the party line.

If you're trying to get rid of something because it offends you through law and repression, that's political correctness. If you want to see something change and run a blog encouraging it without calling for laws to force it, that's not political correctness. Also, if the blog in question is pointing out discrimination in the industry of media (ex: "We can't have crippled weather men! That would look ugly!") that's legitimately something to get up in arms over, because stopping someone from getting a job they could do because of what they physically are is limiting their individual human rights.

tl;dr: Human rights come first (which apply to everyone), then laws abridging certain freedoms to enforce a greater equality for all individuals (which still apply to everyone but primarily serve to prevent discrimination). Lastly, if certain collective minorities possess handicaps which prevent them from playing at the same level as others (mental or physical), and the only way to reasonably improve their ability to play equally is through law (ex: closed captioning, wheelchair ramps, et cetera), then it's acceptable to legislate laws for them, so long as you're not suppressing people's core human rights first and foremost. (Ex: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, et cetera.)

 

[Soulless]

tl;dr: Human rights come first (which apply to everyone), then laws abridging certain freedoms to enforce a greater equality for all individuals (which still apply to everyone but primarily serve to prevent discrimination). Lastly, if certain collective minorities possess handicaps which prevent them from playing at the same level as others (mental or physical), and the only way to reasonably improve their ability to play equally is through law (ex: closed captioning, wheelchair ramps, et cetera), then it's acceptable to legislate laws for them, so long as you're not suppressing people's core human rights first and foremost. (Ex: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, et cetera.)

Okay, I suppose one more question in this case:

In your opinion, why is it that the first core human right is freedom of speech and association, and not, say, accessibility or equal treatment amongst all humans (eg. the equal pay act)? For example, if there was a push that how one spends money is a freedom of speech issue, would forcing people to pay money to build accessibility structures like ramps be infringing a freedom of speech and therefore people shouldn't have a right to get around because the core human right is speech, and not the ability to physically be able to exist and get around in society?

For example, there is commonly an issue in censorship when less-diverse media. If there was a movement to not go to a movie that didn't have enough diversity, directors may be "forced" in order to keep their jobs to get more diversity. Is this political correctness and should instead everyone be "forced" to attend movies without regarding diversity?

You seem to be more focused on political correctness as a speech and censorship issue, but the rhetoric presented seemed to also cover overall issues such as lawmaking as a whole for social issues such as disabilities. I do apologize if I'm misinterpreting or somehow not getting it. Am I correct that you're more focused on political correctness a an exclusively freedom of speech issue or closely related issues?

 

[Astaroth]

For example, I know a person who is accused of being politicially correct because they have a disability and have a blog reviewing how open certain media is to their disability.

Another thing I would like to ask in this same vein, is that similar pushes some time ago in my country (USA) resulted in the government enforcing laws that certain TV programs and cable television must have closed captioning in order to support deaf people. This is forcing television companies to have a particular view on the social acceptability of how accessible their shows are: i.e. they must support and provide a closed captioning so that the hard of hearing can also watch television.

People still threw a fit when Facebook made significantly more options to gender available, no? Because it was politically correct?

Going back to something more in line with my first point in this thread: Generally, when the subject of political correctness comes up or there is outcry against it, THIS is the kind of thing people are complaining about. People like @Brovo have their own definition of political correctness, but the term is used much more loosely and broadly than all that.

People complain about what Brovo defines as "diversity" under the label of "political correctness".

For example, one of the biggest outcries this past holiday season was over Starbucks choosing to use blank red coffee cups instead of Christmas-themed cups like they'd used in previous years. This literally restricted the rights of NO ONE. Everyone could still get coffee, were still free to celebrate whatever holiday they wish, and there was still a specially decorated (at least, colored) cup to celebrate the season. The choice was made in an effort to be more inclusive of non-Christmas-celebrating customers. But people LOST THEIR SHIT about it, claiming that the PC agenda was taking away their Christmas. (Kind of like all the people flipping out on me for saying "Happy Holidays".)

Similarly, I remember an incident in my sixth grade year where my (private) school decided to call the Christmas pageant a "Holiday Pageant" instead. My classmates and their parents complained about "those non-Christian kids ruining it". One guy in particular actually said, verbatim, "I hate those non-Christian kids". I was eleven years old and terrified they would find out that I wasn't Christian.

Another recent public issue that got a lot of media attention was the whole deal with Target deciding not to separate toys into gendered sections anymore. Again, they didn't remove any toys with a particular gender association. They still stocked all of the same toys and kept them in relatively similar sections, grouped by class of toy. This was done in an effort to make kids feel less ashamed about what toys they want to play with. And people flipped out, accusing Target of being part of the gay agenda or trying to take away their rights to... make their sons feel bad about liking dolls, I guess?

Here's the bottom line: When I hear people campaigning against political correctness, it's generally shit like this. Meanwhile, the fact that we have Freedom of Speech and a long, loooong history of upholding such in the Supreme Court pretty much ensures that things like Brovo's hypothetical Facebook scenario would never fly for a second.

 

[Brovo]

In your opinion, why is it that the first core human right is freedom of speech and association, and not, say, accessibility or equal treatment amongst all humans (eg. the equal pay act)?

Because we are all human first. Before you are rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, tall or short, blue eyed or brown eyed, conservative or liberal, or whatever other dividing line you'd like to make, we are human first... And when you damage that, when you infringe upon someone' s human rights in the name of anything else, you are devaluing their humanity for someone else's humanity. When you punch a hole in the proverbial ship we all sail on, we're all damaged.

Granted, I won't lie. It's not as easy as a "yes or no" answer. Life isn't nearly so convenient. So you need laws like the equal pay act to ensure that someone's human rights aren't trampled on. We have laws against murder to protect someone's right to life. Laws against theft to protect private property... And laws about wheelchair ramps to protect someone's right to personal autonomy and access to basic services that everyone needs.

You abridge freedom when someone's freedom abridges someone else's right to that same freedom. Equal pay act? Freedom to work and live independently is protected by preventing malicious employers from fucking with women. Minimum wage? Same idea.

It's a balancing act, but, at the end of the day, equality without freedom and rights is giving every bird the same cage. It doesn't matter if we are all equal if it comes at too high a cost to our individual souls.

 

[Jorick]

Others have already gone on at length about this topic with positions similar to mine and I've gotten my verbosity for the morning out of the way in the form of some roleplay writing, so I'll keep it relatively short.

Political correctness as a personal standard for public behavior is fine. You do you, if you want to completely avoid any chance of offending people that's cool, good on you for being considerate of other people's feelings I guess.

Political correctness as an enforced broad standard for public behavior (such as on college campuses run by very politically correct student unions) is, to be completely un-PC about it, fucking retarded. Trying to impose your personal standard of thought and behavior on others is called authoritarianism, and authoritarianism is garbage. The typical counter to "stop trying to force people to think and behave how you want them to" tends to be something along the lines of "but people are being hurt by non-PC stuff and we have a moral obligation to stop it," and that's also bullshit. People are responsible for their own feelings, so trying to foist the responsibility for making sure they're not offended onto everyone else is both foolish and patronizing as hell. It's essentially saying that people are so emotionally fragile that they cannot cope with people saying crude, harsh, or even nasty things near, about, or to them. That is nonsense. Anyone who is that sensitive and frail needs to either toughen the fuck up or seek psychiatric help to assist with whatever crippling condition is preventing them from leading a normal life. Your feelings are not other people's responsibility, end of story.

That said, freedom of speech is a lovely thing. I support both the freedom for people to spew ignorant and hateful bullshit AND the freedom for people to call them out and explain why they're garbage. There's a massive difference between having a discussion or debate about a topic and trying to shut down and censor a position you don't like; trying to enforce political correctness as rule of law is absolutely and without a doubt censorship. Calling out a white supremacist for being a racist piece of shit and explaining to him why he's garbage is totally fine. Trying to make laws to make the expression of such thoughts a criminal offense is censorship; trying to get someone banned from a social media platform for expression opinions you dislike is censorship; trying to ruin a person's life (say by doxxing them and getting them fired) for having shitty opinions is censorship. Censorship is the first defense of intellectual lightweights and the last defense of people who know they are wrong. If you know your ideas to be true and far better than whatever shit someone else is spewing, then you should make it known by explaining why, because trying to silence the other person rather than slapping them with superior ideas makes you look like an idiot or a fool who can't accept the truth. The worst part of even trying that tactic is that censorship never works for long: the ideas don't die just because you shove them into a dark hole, they brood and fester and spread in secret, which just makes it harder to combat with reasoned counterpoints. Always go the route of smashing shitty ideas rather than sweeping them under the rug, because eventually that filth will build up too much to be contained and become far worse than it was when you first shoved it away.

TL;DR Political correctness as a personal ideology is fine, but trying to force others to be politically correct is foolish on all levels. Freedom of speech > all.

 

[Kooriryu]

I MEAN IF WE'RE IN THE HABIT OF USIN' OTHER VOICES TO SPEAK FOR US LIKE COMEDIANS'N SHIT WHY NOT LOOK AT ME DO IT TOOOHOHOHOHOOHOHOHOOHOHOOHOHOOHO

PUHEEHEEHEEHEE
The classics of Western culture are out, not being taught, replaced by second-rate and Third World texts. White males are a victimized minority on campuses across the country, thanks to affirmative action. Speech codes have silenced anyone who won't toe the liberal line. Feminists, wielding their brand of sexual correctness, have taken over. These are among the prevalent myths about higher education that John K. Wilson explodes.

The phrase "political correctness" is on everyone's lips, on radio and television, and in newspapers and magazines. The phenomenon itself, however, has been deceptively described. Wilson steps into the nation's favorite cultural fray to reveal that many of the most widely publicized anecdotes about PC are in fact more myth than reality. Based on his own experience as a student and in-depth research, he shows what's really going on beneath the hysteria and alarmism about political correctness and finds that the most disturbing examples of thought policing on campus have come from the right. The image of the college campus as a gulag of left-wing totalitarianism is false, argues Wilson, created largely through the exaggeration of deceptive stories by conservatives who hypocritically seek to silence their political opponents.

Many of today's most controversial topics are here: multiculturalism, reverse discrimination, speech codes, date rape, and sexual harassment. So are the well-recognized protagonists in the debate: Dinesh D'Souza, William Bennett, and Lynne Cheney, among others. In lively fashion and in meticulous detail, Wilson compares fact to fiction and lays one myth after another to rest, revealing the double standard that allows "conservative correctness" on college campuses to go unchallenged.

WAHAHAHAHAHA
Some thinkers today question the centrality of Western culture itself as the culture of reference, just as feminists have questioned the traditional view of male experience as normative and universal. But theorists who critique hierarchy and domination certainly do not seek merely to invert hierarchies or to establish their own hegemony in reality or in academic debate. Even within the theoretical perspectives that opponents of political correctness indiscriminately lump together there are wide-ranging debates about the relations between theory and the quest for a more just society.

&

Many of us encourage greater sensitivity to the needs and fears of all members of a changing university community and hope this will be accomplished by means other than codes, largely by education itself. Is having to think, before speaking, about the effects of one's speech on others an unreasonable price to pay for a more hospitable and educational campus environment?

To encourage more conscious, self-reflective, sensitive language and behavior is not to tyrannize. To advocate conscientiously constructed codes that address rare and egregious infractions of common decency and civility is not to call for a thought police. Universities already regulate behavior and speech (e.g., plagiarism, residency, alcohol use). In the wider community, zoning laws acknowledge that some locales are inappropriate for some forms of speech and conduct. Defamation and obscenity among other forms of speech are already regulated. Societies perennially weigh the rights of individuals against the needs of the community.

ABLOOBLOOBLOOBLOO LOOKIT ME USE SCARE QUOTES DOWN BELOOOWOHOHOHOHOHO
We consider political correctness as a "brainwashing" programme and as simple good manners; and we examine the interaction of PC-inspired relabelling initiatives with notions of taboo and censoring. Because it is politically driven, political correctness will obviously attract more attention, and certainly more hostility, than most acts of linguistic censoring. We assume that PC language "reflects", and also seeks to "enforce", social change. Nonetheless, speakers typically "dislike" being told to "change" their linguistic "habits", which they see as an "attempt" to "manipulate" their thinking.

BECAUSE, LIKE, OOOOMG U GAIZ, LANGUAGE IS SOOOOOO, LIKE, FUNNY! 8DDD

 

[Brovo]

Wilson compares fact to fiction and lays one myth after another to rest, revealing the double standard that allows "conservative correctness" on college campuses to go unchallenged.

Pfftthahahahahaha

Aside from the constant, unending stream of conservative speakers banned on a basis so hilariously regular that nobody bats an eye anymore. This is some pretty fantastic comedy. :')

 

[Astaroth]

So, college campuses- which is, of course, what John Cleese's point is really aimed at- are one legitimate example of where a politically correct stance can be detrimental. Obviously, a learning environment which precludes discourse concerning any topic cannot be conducive to forming educated opinions.

But here's why schools take a politically correct stance so often:

1. Colleges and universities survive off of the funding they receive through tuition and donation. Much like a commercial company, they can lose the money they need to keep going if they piss off the wrong people. They're going to want an environment that doesn't lend itself to alienating potential sources of funding.

2. In the case of public institutions, they have to abide by similar rules to most government-run institution or government employee: They cannot take a public political/religious/etc. stance while performing their office. What this means is that they will avoid tacitly endorsing ANY potentially offensive viewpoint in order to maintain an appearance of objectivity. They're going to turn away the radical feminist who recommends chemical castration of men along with the comedian who refuses to cut fag jokes from his repertoire.

3. Most institutions, much like your workplace, are going to have guidelines about what is considered appropriate discussion. This is to maintain a professional atmosphere and reduce chance of confrontational incidents between coworkers/students/etc. It's about keeping the peace and keeping a good reputation with the public.

Do they sometimes go overboard? Absolutely.

Are they likely to stop taking these factors into consideration? No.

 

[Kestrel]

1. Colleges and universities survive off of the funding they receive through tuition and donation. Much like a commercial company, they can lose the money they need to keep going if they piss off the wrong people. They're going to want an environment that doesn't lend itself to alienating potential sources of funding.

The problem is that this is very short-sighted of universities. Also kind of stupid. I don't storm out of a romcom showing and demand my money back at the front because there wasn't enough Arnold Schwarzenegger quotes and ass-kicking in it. Want to know who the graduates are going to blame when they can't hold a job or close the pay gap with their gender studies degrees? Not their own choices, that's for sure. They're going to blame their environment or the university not preparing them properly for their environment. Short-term glasses are a problem for a lot of companies in general, don't get me wrong, that's one of the inherent flaws of having stock, but... Yeah. Most of the world kind of stops giving a fuck about you want and starts to care about what you can do for them, after you graduate.

2. In the case of public institutions, they have to abide by similar rules to most government-run institution or government employee: They cannot take a public political/religious/etc. stance while performing their office. What this means is that they will avoid tacitly endorsing ANY potentially offensive viewpoint in order to maintain an appearance of objectivity. They're going to turn away the radical feminist who recommends chemical castration of men along with the comedian who refuses to cut fag jokes from his repertoire.

... There are courses on teaching men not to rape. That is pretty offensive, if you ask me. 'cause, you know, I'm hard-pressed to believe the average guy doesn't know the difference between a consensual sex and rape. I mean when your partner says no and tries to push you away, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out they're probably not crazy about going back to your place. So basically having these courses are telling young men on campus they're whacked in the head. But here's the kicker; this insult goes under the pretence of social justice. This kind of extremism disguises itself as a good thing to get away with horrendous shit. Imagine a mandatory course for women not to kill babies. I'd get my popcorn ready for that one. You could back it up too, women make up for the majority of infanticide. "But those women are fucked in the head!" I'd hear people say. Well, guess what about rapists.

I mean you're not wrong about the reasoning, but... Well, it's factors that are taken advantage and so shitty consequences are born.

 

[Astaroth]

The problem is that this is very short-sighted of universities.

I mean you're not wrong about the reasoning, but... Well, it's factors that are taken advantage and so shitty consequences are born.

Yep.

 

[Astaroth]

Oh, also, side-note on the anti-rape course thing:

Those "anti-rape courses" are actually gender-neutral sexual consent courses which teach about refusing consent, understanding what constitutes consent, how to react if you are a witness to sexual assault, and general information about sexual misconduct. Most of those courses are two-hour online courses that are taken prior to registering for classes.

Now, does that mean that individual teachers and courses don't present an offensive stance regarding men vs. women as regards sexual assault? Of course some of them do. Is that wrong? Of course it is. But you might as well argue that they're inherently offensive to women because it's telling them that none of them know how to say no. This is all tied to really unfortunate cultural norms regarding gender, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh @Astaroth, we all know women don't have agency over their own lives and behaviours. That's why we big strong men must protect them.

 

[Brovo]

Those "anti-rape courses" are actually gender-neutral sexual consent courses which teach about refusing consent, understanding what constitutes consent, how to react if you are a witness to sexual assault, and general information about sexual misconduct. Most of those courses are two-hour online courses that are taken prior to registering for classes.

No offense intended, but I have never once heard of a "teach women not to rape" campaign. I've heard many, many instances of the opposite, however.

Also, even if it is (very laughably) gender neutral, that makes it no less insane. How little faith does one need to have in people to decide that college students need to be taught not to rape? They can understand history and the sciences before they enter college, but seriously haven't figured out that rape is illegal yet? Really? I mean, this is where I have a hard time following the logic. It just sounds like more fear mongering to me.

 

[Astaroth]

Man, so much regret on my part for trying to correct an inaccuracy. I did NOT want to cause a derail.

I already explained that those courses aren't actually "don't rape" how-to classes, but include education for victims and bystanders of any kind of sexual misconduct. Just like most employers require training regarding sexual harassment. I also made a point about how women can be arguably insulted differently by the same courses. I am not sure why I have to repeat all that since it is in my last post, but apparently it bears repeating.

Anywho, gents, this is not a topic about sexual conduct courses. If you want to argue about this more, take it elsewhere.