John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)(youtube.com)
youtube.com
John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U
106 comments
> just look at the Gillette ads
Decrying political correctness and then complaining Gilette ran an ad with a message you didn't like, to the point of calling it oppression, is just... amazing. Is this satire?
Decrying political correctness and then complaining Gilette ran an ad with a message you didn't like, to the point of calling it oppression, is just... amazing. Is this satire?
It is an amusing example of cynical exploitation on behalf of advertising agencies, leveraging the expected controversy on social media fueled by PC culture.
This is just how the dishonesty of discourse works at this point. People aren't really prepared to defend to the death the right of Gillette to run adverts they don't like.
When I say I don't like something, it's free speech; when you say you don't like something it's cancel culture.
When I say I don't like something, it's free speech; when you say you don't like something it's cancel culture.
it sadly is not, these are genuine takes
[deleted]
Most folks are in favor of some form of "political correctness", in the form of polite manners.
The threshold should be different in comedy versus, say, the boardroom. It's not surprising Cleese, as a comedian, is focused on that aspect of things, but you can get equally Orwellian with fervent opposition to vaguely defined "PC" stuff too. People who lose their shit over "Happy Holidays", as an example.
The threshold should be different in comedy versus, say, the boardroom. It's not surprising Cleese, as a comedian, is focused on that aspect of things, but you can get equally Orwellian with fervent opposition to vaguely defined "PC" stuff too. People who lose their shit over "Happy Holidays", as an example.
Manners and tolerance are key. There are very few issues that cause me to "lose my shit", but as an observer, it seems to me that "Happy Holidays" is a response to people losing their shit over being wished Happiness in regards to a Holiday that they choose not to participate in.
I mostly try to stay out of the discussion because I think it's pretty much all ridiculous and a giant waste of time. Don't we he have more important things to be getting on with?
If somebody wished me Happy Hannukah, I would say "Thank You", even though I'm not Jewish. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over something like that.
Since I mostly fall into the WASP category (non-practicing I guess), perhaps I'm not qualified to talk about it since I've never actually been in the shoes of the minority, but I do have what I believe is evidence that I can bear careless words without "losing my shit":
My oldest daughter was born with Spina Bifida. Her legs are different, and not very strong. She can walk, but normally she uses crutches or a wheelchair. She is prone to falling without the crutches, and also with them. She's a great kid. It might happen sometimes that a person who has never been in our particular situation will compare her to "normal" kids. While I notice these things, I generally just let it slide. I know the intent is not malicious.
Even if someone says something like "Has she always been crippled?" (Yes it happens), I might politely mention that we don't really think of it that way, but I will certainly maintain composure, and I don't think I would lose a friend over it. Again, the person who says this most likely doesn't hate me, or despise her - they just don't relate to the particular issues that we are dealing with, and I can recognize this and accept it.
As you say, politeness and manners seem like a reasonable solution to most social problems from my perspective, but I guess a lot of folks disagree.
I mostly try to stay out of the discussion because I think it's pretty much all ridiculous and a giant waste of time. Don't we he have more important things to be getting on with?
If somebody wished me Happy Hannukah, I would say "Thank You", even though I'm not Jewish. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over something like that.
Since I mostly fall into the WASP category (non-practicing I guess), perhaps I'm not qualified to talk about it since I've never actually been in the shoes of the minority, but I do have what I believe is evidence that I can bear careless words without "losing my shit":
My oldest daughter was born with Spina Bifida. Her legs are different, and not very strong. She can walk, but normally she uses crutches or a wheelchair. She is prone to falling without the crutches, and also with them. She's a great kid. It might happen sometimes that a person who has never been in our particular situation will compare her to "normal" kids. While I notice these things, I generally just let it slide. I know the intent is not malicious.
Even if someone says something like "Has she always been crippled?" (Yes it happens), I might politely mention that we don't really think of it that way, but I will certainly maintain composure, and I don't think I would lose a friend over it. Again, the person who says this most likely doesn't hate me, or despise her - they just don't relate to the particular issues that we are dealing with, and I can recognize this and accept it.
As you say, politeness and manners seem like a reasonable solution to most social problems from my perspective, but I guess a lot of folks disagree.
Unfortunately, many people are so easily offended that they're willing to vote in favor of laws that ban impolite expression across the board.
I love John Cleese but he's gotten a bit "Old man yells at cloud" in his dotage IMO.
(Odd trivia: John Cleese is into Gurdjieff, or was.)
Look, I'm a left-leaning SJW type, but I'll stand by the idea that when "PC" goes beyond common courtesy and starts becoming an OOC mob-power thing, that's bad.
There's a point to be made about historical context: women weren't allowed to wear pants until about twenty minutes ago; Black folks in America have had a bit of a rough time, and many still do; everybody everywhere reverts to savage form when pushed outside their comfort zone.
Things are a bit rough here. Let's all keep calm and be nice to each other, we're all in this together.
In re: PC in comedy, specifically, I have what I call the "Lenny Bruce test". When you feel the urge to tell an off-color joke to a mixed audience stop and ask yourself first, "Am I Lenny Bruce?" Check carefully and be sure. If you're Lenny Bruce, go ahead with the joke, it will probably land, and if it doesn't, who cares? You're Lenny Bruce. However, if you check and find that you're not Lenny Bruce, carefully put the joke down and back away. It's probably not worth it.
(In case it's not clear, that was [an attempt at] a joke. Comedians should say wtf they want. Only the worst sort of person kicks a Fool.)
(Odd trivia: John Cleese is into Gurdjieff, or was.)
Look, I'm a left-leaning SJW type, but I'll stand by the idea that when "PC" goes beyond common courtesy and starts becoming an OOC mob-power thing, that's bad.
There's a point to be made about historical context: women weren't allowed to wear pants until about twenty minutes ago; Black folks in America have had a bit of a rough time, and many still do; everybody everywhere reverts to savage form when pushed outside their comfort zone.
Things are a bit rough here. Let's all keep calm and be nice to each other, we're all in this together.
In re: PC in comedy, specifically, I have what I call the "Lenny Bruce test". When you feel the urge to tell an off-color joke to a mixed audience stop and ask yourself first, "Am I Lenny Bruce?" Check carefully and be sure. If you're Lenny Bruce, go ahead with the joke, it will probably land, and if it doesn't, who cares? You're Lenny Bruce. However, if you check and find that you're not Lenny Bruce, carefully put the joke down and back away. It's probably not worth it.
(In case it's not clear, that was [an attempt at] a joke. Comedians should say wtf they want. Only the worst sort of person kicks a Fool.)
Maybe I am wrong but since he is a comedian I get the impression that his issue is with the taboo nature of criticizing other cultures when criticizing western cultures has been allowed and applauded for his whole career. Think about all the self criticism of western culture that has happened in the past century from colonialism, religion, Woman's rights etc. and for the most part we are better for it. If you are to look at other cultures with the same lens, there is a lot to criticize, but if you do so you are accused of racism and xenophobia. Of course good comedy should be critical and should not be bound by taboos and must be more than "isn't it funny/weird how these people are different". Nevertheless I do feel it is very difficult to criticize outside ones own culture these days without unfair accusations even though these other cultures are now a part of your own country.
I just clicked to make sure someone flagged it already. We regresssed and are no longer able to have a civilized discussion even about trifles such as the usage of words like "dummy" in IT, so how on Earth could we be ready to discuss more fundamental isses John is talking about?
Political correctness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For all the right likes to bitch about cancel culture, they are always the ones who go: "you just lost a fan/customer!"
There is a significant difference between a person deciding to not buy a product or listen to a show than an outrage mob trying to get amazon to not sell a product at all or a network to cancel a show.
Right, one is ineffectual and the other is a successful boycott. I’m surprised to learn in this thread and a previous one on cancel culture that the anti-pc crowd really doesn’t have a leg to stand on. These complaints are meaningless.
“Vote with your wallet” is very different than actively making sure everyone else’s wallet is shut for that business.
Cancel culture is not about your right to not do business with X, is about trying to destroy X just because you don’t agree with it.
just to clarify:
you're saying it's ok to vote with your wallet, but not good to try and get other people to do the same?
you're saying it's ok to vote with your wallet, but not good to try and get other people to do the same?
To let your opinion known? Sure! To force other people to think like you? No!
Can you name one example of someone being forced to think like someone else using these tactics?
Who's being forced to do anything by people not patronizing a business?
People need to realize that there's as much political correctness on the right as there is on the left.
Not only political correctness, but the fascination with erecting cultural walls.
Very true, and it has been around significantly longer as well. It's rooting in puritanism, and is pretty strict about moral decency. I suppose you could say the Left version is as well, but with a different idea of what moral means.
The difference, and the reason I think people are in a panic about the more recent left version, is the difference in enforcement. It feels like we're starting watching the Left take their turn at McCarthyism, but largely using technology instead of government.
The difference, and the reason I think people are in a panic about the more recent left version, is the difference in enforcement. It feels like we're starting watching the Left take their turn at McCarthyism, but largely using technology instead of government.
Perhaps worth noting: This is the same John Cleese that has decried London becoming a multicultural city that is "no longer English."
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/john-cleese-is-cancel...
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/john-cleese-is-cancel...
How is this worth noting at all? Either he's correct or he's not, ad hominem is fallacious.
Please engage with ideas on their merits rather than by reading through the author's tweets until you eventually find something unfashionable and unrelated.
Please engage with ideas on their merits rather than by reading through the author's tweets until you eventually find something unfashionable and unrelated.
Because the Big Think was recorded in 2016. It's interesting to see where the Big Thoughts have led him in the intervening 3 years.
Engaging ideas on their merits isn't the same as engaging them in a vacuum.
Engaging ideas on their merits isn't the same as engaging them in a vacuum.
Where have the big thoughts led him? Maybe you could post that directly instead of some vague innuendo and save us all some wasted time.
It goes to his definition of "political correctness." It seems that what he feels needs to be culturally protected is his right to make unfunny, inaccurate claims about the nature of London without criticism. While (to my knowledge) nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims, the notion that he's heading towards an "Orwellian nightmare" because people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfunny claims and will call him to task for such nonsense is a bit silly.
> inaccurate claims
What is inaccurate about the claims. The English are an ethnic minority in London. That is a fact. You can say oh Englishness isn't the same as the Ethnic English, but to do that you are stripping English people of their ethnic identity and their culture.
> nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims
Yes, please do believe that. Lots of them. It may shock you but in much of the world there isn't free speech. Imagine that. Do you think in China you can go around criticizing the government?
> people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfunny claims and will call him to task for such nonsense is a bit silly
No, they are claiming the speech itself is unsafe and trying to cancel people. There is a huge difference which you don't seem to get. And it's not silly. It's primarily about intimidation and fear that if you say the wrong thing you will lose your job, get cancelled, ect. Tolerance to intolerance is not tolerance.
I sometimes wonder, do people who think like you actually know how many people died in the so called "cultural revolutions" around the world (such as in China and Russia) which happened during just the last century. It's in the tens of millions. Intellectuals and dissidents rounded up to be killed or put in gulags. People forced to pledge loyalty to causes and leaders and to be re-educated.
The cultural revolution leaders in our country have already started to get rid of any kind of meritocracy (racist tests they claim). UC schools functionally banned the tests just recently. My brother was telling me that UCSF med school removed standardized testing from its admissions and in one year the Asian population went from 60% to 20%. Across academia now your ability to get in will be based on your ability to show how you contribute to the goal of diversity (via skin pigmentation of course).
But I guess to some it's all silly.
What is inaccurate about the claims. The English are an ethnic minority in London. That is a fact. You can say oh Englishness isn't the same as the Ethnic English, but to do that you are stripping English people of their ethnic identity and their culture.
> nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims
Yes, please do believe that. Lots of them. It may shock you but in much of the world there isn't free speech. Imagine that. Do you think in China you can go around criticizing the government?
> people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfunny claims and will call him to task for such nonsense is a bit silly
No, they are claiming the speech itself is unsafe and trying to cancel people. There is a huge difference which you don't seem to get. And it's not silly. It's primarily about intimidation and fear that if you say the wrong thing you will lose your job, get cancelled, ect. Tolerance to intolerance is not tolerance.
I sometimes wonder, do people who think like you actually know how many people died in the so called "cultural revolutions" around the world (such as in China and Russia) which happened during just the last century. It's in the tens of millions. Intellectuals and dissidents rounded up to be killed or put in gulags. People forced to pledge loyalty to causes and leaders and to be re-educated.
The cultural revolution leaders in our country have already started to get rid of any kind of meritocracy (racist tests they claim). UC schools functionally banned the tests just recently. My brother was telling me that UCSF med school removed standardized testing from its admissions and in one year the Asian population went from 60% to 20%. Across academia now your ability to get in will be based on your ability to show how you contribute to the goal of diversity (via skin pigmentation of course).
But I guess to some it's all silly.
> The English are an ethnic minority in London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London
63% of London was born in the UK. You mean white English, I presume? Even there, they're a plurality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London
63% of London was born in the UK. You mean white English, I presume? Even there, they're a plurality.
Ethnically English. Can you read?
English isn’t an ethnicity.
> English isn’t an ethnicity.
That’s pretty clearly not true, though the boundaries of that ethnicity will be perceived differently by different people.
“The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles').”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
That’s pretty clearly not true, though the boundaries of that ethnicity will be perceived differently by different people.
“The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles').”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
Has John Cleese been canceled? Because, I mean, we're talking about him right now.He doesn't seem any more ignored or paid attention to than any other member of the Python gang.
I love Cleese but my impression is that among the left he's definitely not liked for a number of (sorta legitimate) reasons. just FYI.
It's unfunny and inaccurate for you; other people might have a different opinion.
Not the first time this kind of ad-hominem's happened in relation to PC culture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19750395
Notice the reasoning that person gives for calling Murray a racist. Among other things, because he refuses to call some other bloke called Robinson a racist.
Notice the reasoning that person gives for calling Murray a racist. Among other things, because he refuses to call some other bloke called Robinson a racist.
Because decrying the loss of ethnic purity is a negative signal. History and reason should make one weary of such statements.
This is a little bit QED.
If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational, and well on our way back to less open and enlightened culture.
If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational, and well on our way back to less open and enlightened culture.
It is a failing of some philosophical debate to try and consider ideas in a vacuum.
When considering something John Cleese said, one can consider where John Cleese has gone in the 3 years since he said it.
In Cleese's case, our understanding of his idea of "political correctness" is informed by his subsequent exiting of the UK because he feels London is "no longer English."
When considering something John Cleese said, one can consider where John Cleese has gone in the 3 years since he said it.
In Cleese's case, our understanding of his idea of "political correctness" is informed by his subsequent exiting of the UK because he feels London is "no longer English."
Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said.
I think only in the context of identity politics.
Those subtleties of messaging can certainly indicate affiliation.
But that's exactly what I'm saying. If that's become more important than the actual arguments, were headed down.
Those subtleties of messaging can certainly indicate affiliation.
But that's exactly what I'm saying. If that's become more important than the actual arguments, were headed down.
> Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said.
Would you mind clarifying the difference between the two for me? It sounds an awful lot like we're talking about thought crimes.
Would you mind clarifying the difference between the two for me? It sounds an awful lot like we're talking about thought crimes.
(not the person you were replying to, but)
"What they technically said" are the words that were actually used. "What they actually said" are the likely intended meaning, since (as I'm sure you would agree) any given moderately-complex sentence could have a number of interpretations, especially in different contexts.
"We must protect our people" is a sentence of five simple words, but has a radically different meaning when spoken by: * A warlord invading another country * A fighter resisting an invasion * A doctor speaking about medical treatment
In this case, the OP is probably making the (reasonable) point that a speaker who has previously made overblown claims about the racial composition of a country, and has demonstrated xenophobia, can be reasonably assumed to also be on sketchy evidential grounds in his claims about political correctness
"What they technically said" are the words that were actually used. "What they actually said" are the likely intended meaning, since (as I'm sure you would agree) any given moderately-complex sentence could have a number of interpretations, especially in different contexts.
"We must protect our people" is a sentence of five simple words, but has a radically different meaning when spoken by: * A warlord invading another country * A fighter resisting an invasion * A doctor speaking about medical treatment
In this case, the OP is probably making the (reasonable) point that a speaker who has previously made overblown claims about the racial composition of a country, and has demonstrated xenophobia, can be reasonably assumed to also be on sketchy evidential grounds in his claims about political correctness
Proposing the idea that people do not always make arguments in good faith or say what they actually mean is "thought crime"?
In logic it is considered a logical fallacy to attack the speaker rather than the message.
It generally indicates that you don't have a rational refute to the argument.
It generally indicates that you don't have a rational refute to the argument.
It's not unreasonable to evaluate someone's comments in the context of their past statements on related matters.
Of course, it's called 'context'.
But arguing that previous miss-steps invalidate current arguments is irrational.
But arguing that previous miss-steps invalidate current arguments is irrational.
[deleted]
No disagreement there. I shared the link to give context.
It does give a little context if their support for free speech ends when your skin isn't white; only white British should be able to shape London.
Of course he has a point. We should absolutely resist creating thought crimes and police states, but we should also prohibit hateful action.
We can do both, sensibly. Shouting about every slippery slope on the way doesn't help anyone.
Of course he has a point. We should absolutely resist creating thought crimes and police states, but we should also prohibit hateful action.
We can do both, sensibly. Shouting about every slippery slope on the way doesn't help anyone.
This is totally QED, including the fact that this is the topmost comment now, and the article has been flagged.
Unfortunately, I'm not savvy enough on the lingo to know what "This is totally QED" means beyond Q.E.D. referring to "Quod erat demonstrandum."
> This is the same John Cleese that has decried London becoming a multicultural city that is "no longer English."
That's a weird, centuries-late complaint about the natural consequence of world-spanning empire.
You can't just colonize half the world without getting anyone else’s culture in your capital.
That's a weird, centuries-late complaint about the natural consequence of world-spanning empire.
You can't just colonize half the world without getting anyone else’s culture in your capital.
He's rather right about London and many parts of the EU, Europe has been losing its cultural identity for years.
Cultural identity? Sounds pretty Orwellian to me, rather like group think.
I don't think immigration/multiculturalism is the cause of that (though maybe it’s an accelerator). The world is homogenizing. Travel to any city in the developed world and all coffee shops, fashion, etc look the same.
Looks like he is consistent
Why do you feel this is relevant in the context of PC?
I believe it sheds light on Cleese's definition of both political correctness and intolerance of un-PC attitudes.
Well, it's true. So how is that related to the topic we're discussing?
collyw(2)
This is like a bingo chart of right-wing fearmongering rhetoric. Because it's hard to sympathize with a rich comedian who can't make some jokes without criticism anymore, you have to spin it up into this grand narrative of how this is actually the end of civilized society itself. Unless, of course, we[1] start "fighting back". Whatever horrible thing "fighting back" actually entails in the current context is completely obscured by that point.
[1] meaning "rich white male people like me"
[1] meaning "rich white male people like me"
"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior."
Prophetic
Prophetic
I can understand how some people see complete validity in Cleese's argument that those hurt by someone's words/behavior should "control their own emotions" rather than demand that the offending party be more considerate of their emotions, but I do not.
Black people should not have to "control their own emotions" when a non-Black person uses the N-word to get a cheap laugh, like, etc. at their expense.
Muslims should not have to "control their own emotions" when bullies taunt someone with the name Osama.
Women should not have to "control their own emotions" when they see evenly qualified, hard-working, and valuable (and often less qualified, hard-working, and valuable) male colleagues getting most of the kudos, visibility, raises, and promotions within their organizations and industries.
(Disclosure: I am a non-Black Muslim male who does not have the name Osama)
Emotions are things you feel deep down, and when those emotions are justified, they matter more to me than an inconsiderate asshole's ability to open their trap with no filter, or behave badly with no fear of consequences. I'm not saying offensive words/behavior should land people in jail, but I have no problem with corporations, journalists, social media, and private individuals imposing their own consequences.
Black people should not have to "control their own emotions" when a non-Black person uses the N-word to get a cheap laugh, like, etc. at their expense.
Muslims should not have to "control their own emotions" when bullies taunt someone with the name Osama.
Women should not have to "control their own emotions" when they see evenly qualified, hard-working, and valuable (and often less qualified, hard-working, and valuable) male colleagues getting most of the kudos, visibility, raises, and promotions within their organizations and industries.
(Disclosure: I am a non-Black Muslim male who does not have the name Osama)
Emotions are things you feel deep down, and when those emotions are justified, they matter more to me than an inconsiderate asshole's ability to open their trap with no filter, or behave badly with no fear of consequences. I'm not saying offensive words/behavior should land people in jail, but I have no problem with corporations, journalists, social media, and private individuals imposing their own consequences.
You have correctly pointed out a few scenarios where Cleese's "control their own emotions" argument would not be valid. Are you also able to think of any scenarios where his point would be valid, or do you believe that in all instances of human behavior on the planet across time, emotional reactions are accurate, and the subsequent actions taken justified? "I do not" implies you do not, but I feel I may be misinterpreting that phrase.
ralmidani(1)
[deleted](1)
From one perspective, the rise of Politically Correct English evinces a kind of Lenin-to-Stalinesque irony. That is, the same ideological principles that informed the original Descriptivist revolution---namely, the rejections of traditional authority (born of Vietnam) and of traditional inequality (born of the civil rights movement)---have now actually produced a far more inflexible Prescriptivism, one largely unencumbered by tradition or complexity and backed by the threat of real-world sanctions (termination, litigation) for those who fail to conform.
This is funny in a dark way, maybe, and it's true that most criticisms of PCE seem to consist in making fun of its trendiness or vapidity.
This reviewer's own opinion is that prescriptive PCE is not just silly but ideologically confused and harmful to its own cause.
...
Forget Stalinization or Logic 101-level equivocations, though. There's a grosser irony about Politically Correct English. This is that PCE purports to be the dialect of progressive reform but is in fact---in its Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself---of vastly more help to conservatives and the US status quo than traditional SNOOT prescriptions ever were.
Were I, for instance,a political conservative who opposed using taxation as a means of redistributing national wealth, I would be delighted to watch PC progressives spend their time and energy arguing over whether a poor person should be described as "low-income" or "economically disadvantaged" or "pre-prosperous" rather than constructing effective public arguments for redistributive legislation or higher marginal tax rates.
(Not to mention that strict codes of egalitarian euphemism serve to burke the sorts of painful,unpretty, and sometimes offensive discourse that in a pluralistic democracy lead to actual political change rather than symbolic political change. In other words, PCE acts as a form of censorship, and censorship always serves the status quo.)
"Authority and American Usage", 1999
This is funny in a dark way, maybe, and it's true that most criticisms of PCE seem to consist in making fun of its trendiness or vapidity.
This reviewer's own opinion is that prescriptive PCE is not just silly but ideologically confused and harmful to its own cause.
...
Forget Stalinization or Logic 101-level equivocations, though. There's a grosser irony about Politically Correct English. This is that PCE purports to be the dialect of progressive reform but is in fact---in its Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself---of vastly more help to conservatives and the US status quo than traditional SNOOT prescriptions ever were.
Were I, for instance,a political conservative who opposed using taxation as a means of redistributing national wealth, I would be delighted to watch PC progressives spend their time and energy arguing over whether a poor person should be described as "low-income" or "economically disadvantaged" or "pre-prosperous" rather than constructing effective public arguments for redistributive legislation or higher marginal tax rates.
(Not to mention that strict codes of egalitarian euphemism serve to burke the sorts of painful,unpretty, and sometimes offensive discourse that in a pluralistic democracy lead to actual political change rather than symbolic political change. In other words, PCE acts as a form of censorship, and censorship always serves the status quo.)
"Authority and American Usage", 1999
This is an amazing DFW essay and probably one of the only places that notes American Black English as an actual entity and a tricky issue to deal with, especially as an educator.
It is exceptionally well written.
Cultivating a Democratic Spirit is very hard to do, and harder still 20 years on since he wrote it.
Cultivating a Democratic Spirit is very hard to do, and harder still 20 years on since he wrote it.
He said "can lead to" in 2016.
I think he would say "has landed us in" today.
I think he would say "has landed us in" today.
It's hard for me to take seriously claims that we're in an Orwellian world when there is so much open controversy on so many topics.
If anything, I think we're in a Huxleyan dystopia, not an Orwellian one; so much distraction, there's no way for an average person to gain enough footing to expend energy with practical utility.
If anything, I think we're in a Huxleyan dystopia, not an Orwellian one; so much distraction, there's no way for an average person to gain enough footing to expend energy with practical utility.
"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour."
"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour."
Watching the current state of the western world, apparently only very few people have the ability to reflect on themself enough to realize this. Hopefully this is only a loud minorty.
I maybe the wrong person to judge, but imho, we need to resolutely oppose the PC- and cancel culture.
Watching the current state of the western world, apparently only very few people have the ability to reflect on themself enough to realize this. Hopefully this is only a loud minorty.
I maybe the wrong person to judge, but imho, we need to resolutely oppose the PC- and cancel culture.
(disclaimer - I haven't watched the video, because a. it's a video, come on, and b. John Cleese's attitudes are already well-known to me from many other sources, interviews, etc.)
> If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour.
Yes, this statement is exactly true - but not in the way that John, and you, seem to think.
One interpretation - yours, if I may be forgiven for assuming - is "PC-culture only exists because people do not have a thick-enough skin to simply regulate their own emotional well-being. If they would only toughen up, then there would be no need for all this nonsense - we could finally express ourselves freely once again".
The alternative interpretation - and one that I really hope you can find your way to understanding - is "some people are subjected to so much pain, aggression, discrimination, and hatred - or, some other people witness so much of that pain in others - that, no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot suppress their responses to it - nor should they. Rather, they speak up about the injustices they see, and try to change them."
The classic anti-PC attitude of "toughen up and stop complaining" is so monumentally selfish and short-sighted that it feels like parody. If someone is stepping on your foot, the appropriate response is not to "control your response" - it's to ask them to stop stepping on your foot. If their response is "I'm not" - then you either need to educate them that they are, in fact, doing so (and you would know better than them), or take the initiative to physically prevent them from continuing to do so.
> If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour.
Yes, this statement is exactly true - but not in the way that John, and you, seem to think.
One interpretation - yours, if I may be forgiven for assuming - is "PC-culture only exists because people do not have a thick-enough skin to simply regulate their own emotional well-being. If they would only toughen up, then there would be no need for all this nonsense - we could finally express ourselves freely once again".
The alternative interpretation - and one that I really hope you can find your way to understanding - is "some people are subjected to so much pain, aggression, discrimination, and hatred - or, some other people witness so much of that pain in others - that, no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot suppress their responses to it - nor should they. Rather, they speak up about the injustices they see, and try to change them."
The classic anti-PC attitude of "toughen up and stop complaining" is so monumentally selfish and short-sighted that it feels like parody. If someone is stepping on your foot, the appropriate response is not to "control your response" - it's to ask them to stop stepping on your foot. If their response is "I'm not" - then you either need to educate them that they are, in fact, doing so (and you would know better than them), or take the initiative to physically prevent them from continuing to do so.
I think there is probably a balance somewhere in between. Surely you can also agree that there are people at large currently yelling at people that they only imagine are standing on their foot. And the tone of response is important: see my previous comment about tact and manners. If everyone escalates the issue at the first opportunity, things get scary fast.
Precsisely. What has changed about the Internet in the past several decades is a huge chunk of humanity is on it, and what has changed about humanity in the past several decades is the Internet exposes them---bidirectionally and with fewer authority-figures as filters---to portions of the world they could not previously easily see.
The pressures to living in that new ecosystem are enormous.
The pressures to living in that new ecosystem are enormous.
The fix is not to demand everybody to trash their boots.
Make no mistake, American society is to a large extent Machiavellian in nature, especially the urbanite population and even more so the technocratic elite. Political Correctness is merely a tool of oppression and cynical exploitation at this point (just look at the Gillette ads if you still are unconvinced).