John Cleese Warns Campus Political Correctness Leading Towards 1984 (washingtonexaminer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Ashe Schow writes at the Washington Examiner that, "The Monty Python co-founder, in a video for Internet forum Big Think, railed against the current wave of hypersensitivity on college campuses, saying he has been warned against performing on campuses. "[Psychiatrist Robin Skynner] said: 'If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior,'" Cleese said. "And when you're around super-sensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next." Cleese said that it's one thing to be "mean" to "people who are not able to look after themselves very well," but it was another to take it to "the point where any kind of criticism of any individual or group could be labeled cruel." Cleese added that "comedy is critical," and if society starts telling people "we mustn't criticize or offend them," then humor goes out the window. "With humor goes a sense of proportion," Cleese said. "And then, as far as I'm concerned, you're living in 1984." Cleese is just the latest comedian to lecture college students about being so sensitive.

Comments

Obligatory

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

To summarize the summary [...]: people are a problem. - Douglas Adams

Also, fuck the fucking fuckers.

Re:Obligatory

[sycodon]

Not even 4 posts down and someone is defending the insane, thumb sucking, safe space needing, microagression fearing, losers that occupy campuses today.

Re:Obligatory

[gstoddart]

Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people? And at what point in Cleese's career has he ever done anything but? Satire and parody aren't intended to be inoffensive and in-controversial.

From what I've seen in the news, universities and colleges have become places where whiny little kids demand they only be shown a fair and just world which conforms to their worldview. Too damned bad.

There is no right to not be offended, and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.

Cleese is saying "to hell with these whiny kids, I'm simply not performing there because it's absurd".

I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.

It's censorship to serve your own ends -- which would be followed by whining about your freedom of speech if someone else tried to do the same to you.

This is about modern kids deciding that the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them.

And that's the biggest pile of idiotic, self-entitled bullshit I've heard in a long time.

Re: Obligatory

[Falos]

They're entitled to /try/. Being offended is voluntary.

Long before the Year of the SJW, I saw a youtube where Will Ferrel read some "fan messages". He read aloud a few hater emails that boiled to the "lol u suk faggot ur dumb and bad" fare, comfortably and unfazed. I suppose they might not even be real, not that it matters. Nowadays I think there's a whole series of "Celebrities read mean tweets" of the same routine.

Point is, "He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool."

Re:Obligatory

[ShanghaiBill]

Not even 4 posts down and someone is defending the insane, thumb sucking, safe space needing, microagression fearing, losers that occupy campuses today.

Indeed. The issue is not whether some people will be offended (someone will be offended by almost anything), but whether we cave in to the whiners, and censor speech. At a public university, censorship of speech is unconstitutional. If the KKK wants to hold a rally on the campus quad, they absolutely should have the same right to do that as anyone else.

Re:Obligatory

[TWX]

I like thinking in-terms of systems, in the sense of working or competing within the system, versus manipulation of the system itself.

There are definitely times when the system itself needs modification, because the system natively discriminates. A good example would be the Jim Crow Laws in the American South, where black people and arguably any non-white people were at a statute disadvantage right from the start because the very system was intentionally stacked against them. Minorities could not compete on a level playing-field with the majority population because they were legally hamstrung. That system needed to be changed to put everyone on the same plain, and given how slowly attitudes change, there's a compelling argument for the artificial structures enacted to help those changes become permanent. It took a hundred years post-civil-war to become what it became, I would not be surprised if it took a hundred years post-Civil Rights Act to normalize-out.

What I see with this current crop of arguments about safe spaces, "identification," and other concepts are that people are trying to take a system that starts out mostly on-the-level and they're trying to manipulate it to where it is imbalanced, citing their particular cause as a reason to do so. There are some initial merits to investigating how people are being treated, but the conclusions drawn, ie, safe spaces, are incorrect. Contrasting then to now, the Civil Rights Movement sought to be in clusive, while this current crop of movements seeks to be ex clusive. This approach would seek to further divide people into smaller and smaller groups instead of confronting the behaviors that cause the problems in the first place, and without teaching people how their choices will impact them.

And that leads to another difference, the nature of choice. I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change. On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual. They are not natural characteristics. Even areas of dispute, like intelligence and health, have degrees of choice in how people behave or how people take care of themselves.

Some of the College Campus Movements are based on characteristics beyond the control of the individual, but many of the movements, probably most of the movements, are based things that people have chosen for themselves. The world beyond College is not going to respect the individual and it has no obligation to, and it's not the College's mission to cater to people in this fashion.

Re: Obligatory

[gstoddart]

As someone who worked in a male dominated job where giving each other shit all day was the way to pass time, to a job with an HR department. I wonder if this sensitivity coincides with the entrance of women into the work place. Granted I'm generalizing a bit, but in the spirit of not offending someone, I blame women.

Bah, I've worked with many women who could give shit as well as anybody, and a few who swore enough to make a sailor blush. They're not all fragile and boo hoo.

I think it's a generation (or two) who have grown up so damned coddled and protected from anything remotely troubling they have no concept of how to deal with a reality which doesn't conform to their insulated little world view.

This is kids of both sexes who have been treated like fragile little objects, and are now incapable of having adult emotions and experiences without being overwhelmed, because they've been shielded from such things.

There's a reason why the term "precioius little snowflakes" is so widely used, and it has nothing at all to do with gender.

Re: Obligatory

[darkain]

It isn't women, It is the internet. The problem is a vocal minority. Before the vocal minority was just a whisper in the wind at any given location. They didn't know how to find others with the same ideals that they shared, so they were outcasts. Now they have the internet, a place of global reach to find others with a similar voice, and collectively come together on the 'net to bitch and moan about menial little things. And then they use this online collective to form physical location protests.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no fan of the label "SJW," but I understand its sardonic intent.

What people are really saying in response is, "you're a fucking busybody who is unhappy with the world, so you've decided everyone but you has to change."

THAT is offensive, misguided, authoritarian bullshit and I have no problem telling someone to shut up when they spew that garbage.

Re:Obligatory

[NotDrWho]

I have no problem with a SJW saying whatever the fuck they want. The problem is that they don't extend the same courtesy to anyone who disagrees with them. They're not only demanding the right to speak, but also demanding the authority to silence and bully anyone who disagrees with them.

Re:Obligatory

[vel-ex-tech]

It would also be advisable that when somebody relates the experience of a college campus being a hostile environment due to say a rape culture, to not presume they're a heterosexual male who sexually abuses women.

I find your speech offensive in that you believe that it's not possible for somebody assigned the male gender at birth to be a victim of sexism.

I find your speech annoying in that you desire to shut down any and all dialog about whether it's right to presume somebody is a sexual harasser and a rapist based either on their legal gender or what you presume their gender and sexual orientation are.

This is how we got into this mess in the first place.

I am an individual, and I will answer for no crime I have not committed. I will not feel guilty because of my assigned gender at birth. I will not feel guilty because women do not choose programming careers, because I am not the gaslighting asshole managers people like you keep mistaking me for who is chasing women out of tech. I will not feel guilty about rape, because I am not a rapist. I will not feel guilty about sexual harassment, because I do not sexually harass.

Let me use a better term than our ill-defined 3 letter acronym to describe you. You are a sexist. Plain and simple.

Re:Obligatory

[cayenne8]

Man, in today's college atmosphere...you could not have a Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Lenny Bruce or other great comedienne of the past (not THAT long past either).

Geez...WTF is with these young kids and their intolerance of everything that isn't happy happy, joy joy or Kumbaya (minus any religious associations of course).

When did everyone get so worried about someone being offended?

Is this the end result of everyone getting a fucking trophy as a kid just for showing up, and worrying about their fragile self esteem being nicked slightly?

Will everyone's ears bleed if they hear the word nigger or cracker or spic or wop or kraut or chink uttered?

They're words people...they won't hurt you. Grow a bit of skin and lighten up and quit looking to be offended.

Re:Obligatory

[johnlcallaway]

He's not whining about people being offended by his work. He's whining about those people doing something other than just not going to his next show. Things like trying to get him banned from future shows so that the 5 people who are offended get their way, but the hundreds that enjoyed it don't get theirs.

And he is 100% correct. Don't like guns or abortions or comics ... don't use them, have one, or go see one.

And then stop telling the people that have different opinions they can't have them.

Re: Obligatory

[Jason Levine]

I was just having this conversation with a co-worker. It's the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the Internet. You can use it to find people who are into tabletop gaming, sports, photography, or any other interest you might have. Unfortunately, you can also use it to find people who agree with you in your hatred of GROUP A, that society would be great if we could turn back the clock to before emancipation, that nobody should offend anybody ever, or any other fringe group. And the same multiplier effect that lets one blogger take on a giant corporation can be used by a roving band of random kooks to harass a person for activities that society at large would find completely normal. (For example, a person I know is being harassed by white supremacists because she has 2 white kids and 2 black kids.)

The trick is figuring out how to prevent the abuse of the Internet's power while not limiting the good uses of its power. Unfortunately, I don't think this is solvable.

Re:Obligatory

[Grishnakh]

It's the helicopter parents: they're ruined everything.

Re:Obligatory

[tnk1]

While I see the point you're trying to make, some people believe that killing unborn children is the same thing as killing any other person. And I don't think you'd consider it odd that someone would protest against legalized mass killing if it was in another context.

Many people would consider it odd if your response to people killing other people was: well if you don't like killing people, don't kill them and leave me alone so I can kill them in peace. Protests against it make sense, as do the protests where the other side suggests that there is a privacy or health issue. I wouldn't consider telling either side to shut up about it.

Other people believe that guns kill people, which they do. Of course, the connection is not as direct, as guns don't automatically kill people, sometimes they kill animals, or paper targets.

That said, they can certainly be used to kill people. I am actually more on the side of Second Amendment liberties than not, but even I would not suggest that someone has no right to protest against guns. Guns can be used by one person to kill innocent people. I'd call that a concern. If you feel strongly about it, by all means protest one way or another.

The above two issues are places where it makes sense that the other side might ask for the "thing" to be outlawed. They're dangerous to someone who has no choice about avoiding them.

In this case, really, the only example where you can say, "just don't go see it," is comedy. And I agree with that 100%. When I went to college and everyone went to go to the leftist student protest, I didn't call for it to not be allowed, I just stayed away. I would think that the student body or the small fraction thereof who is offended by a protest or a comedy show would be capable of simply not going. And that is why things are going off the deep end in colleges and elsewhere.

There do exist events which are simply free speech where the offended majority now just wants to shut down *speech*. Speech should not be shut down by offense. Even if the speech is asking for something like "safe and legal abortion" to be continued or made illegal, or guns, or even racial prejudice, the *speech that either side uses to make their case* is what should not be blocked, even if you disagree with it or even find it offensive. And that is exactly what is at stake with over-sensitivity.

Re:Obligatory

[Golddess]

There is no right to not be offended,

Correct.

and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.

Incorrect. You have the right to say something offensive, but they absolutely have the right to say "I'm offended by that". And of course, you have the right to respond back "tough shit". Because Freedom of Speech goes all ways.

I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.

And those church-ladies have every right to do that, because Freedom of Speech goes all ways. Allowing those people to say those things is not "tyranny of a very vocal minority", it is the very essence of Freedom of Speech.

Re:Obligatory

[Vanderhoth]

I fully support equal air time. For starters, the best way to out bigots is to just let them speak. The other major reason is it seems to me people only advocate for no-platforming when one side might make a better argument and sway more people.

Otherwise, If someone wants to claim we lived with dinosaurs or the earth is flat, let them, we'll all have a good laugh. If someone wants to be racists and go around screaming the N word at black people or how dumb they think women are, let them, they'll be the ones unemployable. The only thing to be afraid if is they'll actually make a good argument and convince people they're not wrong, or they'll completely crash and burn their own cause and no one will take them seriously.

But not giving equal air time to all sides of an issue, it's just too easy to no-platform someone with a "controversial" (re: different or not politically correct, but not hateful) view. All you have to do is call them sexists, racists, homophobic, say they associate with stormfront, the KKK or random internet trolls, petition venues where they're suppose to speak and post continually about how ignorant they are while pointing to things that specific person has never actually said or supported. No one will ever hear their side, or at least won't admit to it, for fear of being lumped in with all the evils of the world. By the time anyone is will to speak on their behalf the damage is done.

Re:Obligatory

[LynnwoodRooster]

“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” - George Carlin. Labeling others idiots and maniacs is micro-aggression! Aggrieved, aggrieved! Ban him, ban him!

Re:Obligatory

[Zaelath]

Right, so you're telling me the Affluenza kid is a democrat?

Re:Obligatory

[Grishnakh]

The problem with conservatives is that they're generally hypocrites. For individuals, they're usually in favor of completely free speech (which is good), but then if you say anything against corporations, they want to pass laws against it, like they have in North Carolina (where it's illegal to expose cruelty to animals on farms, or to soldiers at veterans' centers, or elderly in nursing homes).

Also, conservatives don't seem to mind you talking about things like being gay much, but they'll definitely resist any attempts to allow gay people to get married; conservatives tend to try to push their religious morality on everyone using the law.

Now, as we're seeing, the far-left is getting pretty nutty. But I think most of that is the under-30 crowd. The "normal" liberals over 30 or so don't seem to have these problems, and outside the US wouldn't even be considered very "left" at all. But because the right-wing is so far right in this nation, and full of corporation and money-worshiping religious loons who all follow Prosperity Doctrine, just believing in individual freedom (like to marry who you want, smoke what you want, etc.) and wanting a little bit of government regulation to keep the corporations from going out of control automatically makes you a leftist.

Most of the collage kids these days a whiny babies

[mmiscool]

If you don't learn how to deal with real people in real life how do you expect to be a function adult. They can take there PC bullshit some where else.

This guy gets it

[Anonymous Coward]

He gets it. I disagree with him on a few topics. However, I would never dare to silence him. He has as much right to his opinions as I do. If you silence him I can be pretty sure I am next.

you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next
Truer words have never been spoken. I have worked with a few people over the years like this. You have no idea what will set them off. I have seen work places go from pretty fun joking around to people looking over their shoulders to make sure 'the right kinda people are around'. The very attitudes you are trying to squash out can become even more focused and harmful.

Re:This guy gets it

[Archtech]

"The very attitudes you are trying to squash out can become even more focused and harmful".

Maybe that's because "trying to squash out... attitudes" is a thoroughly bad idea - and probably impossible. Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.

It seems to me that trying to squash out attitudes is a lot like trying to pound the triangular piece into the circular hole. It might be very annoying and frustrating that it is so uncooperative, but no matter how much force you apply it really won't go in. Unless you use so much force you smash the whole thing to pieces.

If you are absolutely certain that different races or sexes do not have different abilities (in any way at all), what should you do when you come across someone who disagrees? Perhaps a bit of listening might come in handy; after all, can you really be sure that you are absolutely right? If so, how can you be so sure? Maybe your interlocutor will tell you something you hadn't known, or hadn't fully understood, that might change your mind - or at least open it a crack.

'In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion'.
- Carl Sagan, Keynote address at CSICOP conference (1987), as quoted in Do Science and the Bible Conflict? (2003) by Judson Poling, p. 30
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Go one step back in the reasoning

[Thanshin]

Complaints about stupid things aren't a problem because of the impact of the solutions. They are a problem because of the decision of responding to all complaints, regardless of their legitimacy.

e.g.: When someone complains about hurt feelings, the problem isn't that the solution will destroy criticism and humor. The problem is taking action based on the complaint without analyzing its merit.

And, if one decides to go even one step before that, the problem is that the constant erosion of the teaching of critical thinking creates a population unable to think critically, which in turn makes that population incapable of deciding which situations are problems that have to be dealt with, and which are nonsense that has to be ignored.

It's: [Eliminate the teaching of critical thinking.] -> [Population takes action over silly complaints.] -> [Illogical action has consequences.]

Don't focus on the last step.

I think the problem is overstated

[damn_registrars]

I hear a lot of people getting attention for this claim, but I see very little evidence actually supporting the claim. Yeah, there are some PC nazis on some campuses for sure, just as there are soldiers of all other stripes around as well. But the comedians who make such a stink about reactions on certain campuses are, IMHO, taking a small sample set and extending it to all of academia. No college campus I have worked at resembles this in any meaningful way, and I've been on campuses in very blue states where it would seem reasonable to expect this to be a really big prevalent matter.

Re:I think the problem is overstated

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "overstated" in that it's just words most of the time, which are not *that* big a deal. It's not like people are being locked up in Room 101 if they don't conform or something. But on the other hand if people start voluntarily stifling their feelings and the words that go with them purely out of the fear that they might offend some overly-sensitive person who can't take a crass joke, or who thinks certain topics are completely out-of-scope for satire and/or criticism, or if someone is taking offence at almost anything that doesn't acknowledge their special and precious little flower status, then there is a problem. People need to grow thicker skins and realize that the entire world is not necessarily going to conform with their preferences, and thus they should not try too vigorously to impose their wishes on the rest of the world. It's one thing to try to sway people to your position with a rational argument. It's another to try to bully them.

It's worse than words if people go on witch hunts to get people fired for saying something inappropriate. Then there is genuine reason for fear. I still remember the first training I received from HR on harassment in the workplace, and the standard was essentially "if someone feels harassed, then they're harassed". Maybe that's okay in some theoretical sense (if people feel harassed it must get honest and dedicated attention), but on a practical basis I don't know how to respond to something I can't possibly fathom unless I can read the mind of another person and guess what they're thinking. I can try to be considerate and respectful. I can try to be compassionate and understanding. I make a genuine effort. But that's about it. I never know when I might trip over a verbal land-mine and suddenly have my job on the line. I'm not stupid, and I largely agree with the effort to improve understanding of differences between people. Nevertheless, there's a rather dark cloud hanging over a society that takes that effort too far.

People should have the freedom to offend and to make mistakes. *Small* ones. There are limits to this, of course, but if you turn up the amplification too high then you start turning rather minor things into huge issues that have serious implications even if people only lack a bit of tact or have a momentary lapse of judgment.

It used to be if you were offended you'd call someone rude or naive and move on. Now you'd have a gang of people on a witch hunt for the transgressor to be immediately fired, and there would be loud, demanding, bullying protests until they are. When it is for minor things that's when it's gotten ridiculous. True, it doesn't happen on every campus or every situation, but it's still too common and is a dangerous trend if it is allowed to become the norm at the level that some really nasty bullies are advocating. There are videos of people making impassioned and rational pleas for free speech on campus, yet they get yelled at and literally pushed around for stating those views. They get accused of all sorts of hateful things. Unfortunately if you oppose the *extreme* examples you get accused of being prejudiced against whatever the subject is rather than merely opposed to aggressive and bullying tactics being used.

Where has the principle gone of disagreeing completely with someone but defending their right to say it? That's what we're losing, and I'm glad a respected comedian like Cleese is speaking up about it.

Re:I think the problem is overstated

[alvinrod]

Trigger warnings are part of the problem. If you're still having problems dealing with dogs years after being attacked or bitten, that's not healthy. Professionals even tell you that continuing in that behavior is not good for a person and that they need to work to get over that fear.

But let's pick an example to illustrate exactly why they're bad. Let's suppose we have a woman named Karen who was mugged. Her mugger was black. Can Karen demand a safe space that contains no black people because that triggers her? Can she demand a new cashier at a store or a new server at a restaurant because black people trigger her? How can you distinguish between someone who may have actually been mugged and someone who's just a racist prick that wants to use trigger warnings to harass others or be a jerk? Outside of a therapy group designed to treat such problems, trigger warnings or safe spaces have no reason to exist. Being used otherwise, only leads to further infantilizing individuals and reinforcing their negative and unhealthy stereotypes.

Karen might have well been mugged and now has an unhealthy attitude toward black people. I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain can see why that isn't something to be coddled. The same goes for anything else, even truly horrific events. It might take a lot of help and expert therapy, but leaving someone in a state that prevents them from functioning in society, or perhaps even their daily lives is horrible. The people demanding trigger warnings and safe spaces are only making people worse, not helping them.

Re:I think the problem is overstated

[AmiMoJo]

Trigger warnings are part of the problem. If you're still having problems dealing with dogs years after being attacked or bitten, that's not healthy.

While entirely true, there are probably some ex-military people would agree but point out overcoming traumatic events is not as easy as just doing therapy for six months. Don't belittle mental injuries.

Let's suppose we have a woman named Karen who was mugged. Her mugger was black. Can Karen demand a safe space that contains no black people because that triggers her? Can she demand a new cashier at a store or a new server at a restaurant because black people trigger her?

You are talking about someone with PTSD. They need help. It might be reasonable to have some white cops/doctors help her at first, since she can't be blamed for suffering from an acute mental injury, but in the longer term then it wouldn't be reasonable to expect black people to avoid her.

These things are never simple, and the line is not well marked. Mistakes will be made. Often, as in this example, it's a case of balancing harm to one person against harm to another.

Been saying it for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

In no way, shape, or form does any legal document, like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva Convention, et al, does it say "You have the right not to be offended". in other words "You do NOT have the right, not to be offended".

People are idiots, and that idiocy grows exponentially as the number of people in a group increases.

So, just to piss off the morons of the world.

It's "Merry Christmas" - not "Happy Holidays".
There can only be 1 (one) Winner, everyone else is just a loser.
Your child's "right" to have an education ends where your child's behavior jeopardizes my child's education, health or physical well-being.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and everyone else's stinks.
Your freedom of speech does not mandate that anyone has to listen to it.

To anyone who disagrees with anything above, fuck off you bloody wanker.

And the next time you see a Code of Conduct

[MikeRT]

Remember that the identical arguments made for safe spaces on college campuses are being used against FOSS communities. They have every intention of setting themselves up to be the arbiters of what can be said and done, even outside of campus or a FOSS project. Calling these people Fascists is an insult to real Fascists because they've never been as petty and domineering in the minutia as SJWs.

Real liberals need to stop this

[PeeAitchPee]

I have found lately that when I ask my liberal friends about this phenomenon (the erosion of free speech on college campuses by Generation Butthurt), they either feign ignorance or say that "it's no big deal" and quickly change the subject to whatever evil they think the Republicans are pulling lately. This is weak, and frankly I don't know how a true liberal would stand for such an encroachment on their own civil liberties. If these opposing views are so terrible, let them out there to be discussed and torn apart on the public eye, and force those espousing them to defend their viewpoints. Of course, that means you have to be able to defend your viewpoint as well, which is what this is all about.

Re:Real liberals need to stop this

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I have noticed is that while conservatives are uniformly more likely to be consistently hateful, if you trigger the ire of liberals, they win all the awards for being truly vitriolic.

Conservatives don't care what you think, as long as you do as you are told. Liberals don't care what you do, as long as you think as you are told.

Re:Ban HIM!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I broke my hip as a kid and it never healed right so now I'm one of those people with a "funny walk." John's outreach makes me feel included in one of the best comedy troops of all times.

Sorry that you can't agree but I'm part of a greater scene so piss off, tosser.

Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab

[ganv]

Some college students have been raised in an environment where unpleasant experiences are carefully avoided and so they are oversensitive. College should be a place for these students to grow up. But the extreme political polarization of our era makes that difficult. I see the biggest culprit in the 'oppression studies' focus on many college campuses. Everyone claims membership in some oppressed group, looks to take offense, and wants special treatment. Once you are looking for oppression, you are guaranteed to find it and along the way lose focus on the hard work necessary to succeed in our highly competitive global economy. Oppression exists and it is a terrible burden holding people back. But the PC response on college campuses mostly makes it worse.

Freedom of Speech is the key.

[argStyopa]

As Martin NiemÃller sagely said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Political correctness* stems from a perfectly reasonable idea: be nice to other people.

But as the Founding Fathers wisely intuited 240 years ago, to INSIST on that itself is at root a sort of social tyranny, which indeed then opens the slippery-slope question "according to whom?"

A multicultural society CANNOT function in which everyone has to constantly try to anticipate everyone else's triggers.

The only reasonable solution is a general promotion of freedom of speech and internalizing the idea that offense is self-created. This isn't to say people shouldn't be offended; in my view much of the progress of humanity has stemmed from people being offended at something or another. They certainly have the right to their offense. But when this offense fuels actions that are then designed to constrain other peoples' right to their own freedom of speech - there a line is crossed, and the corrosion of free speech begins.

(And for the pedants, yes, I'm aware that the Constitutional provision about free speech only applies to the behavior of the Federal government; I'm speaking more broadly in terms of cultural values.)

*the real comedy is that there are still people who ardently insist there IS "no such thing" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/24/781372/-)

Remove the motivator and you'll fix this.

[geekmux]

John is obviously right about people being hypersensitive, but him talking to people isn't going to do fuck-all about the problem.

And the problem isn't that we're suddenly oversensitive towards each other, or that some specific generation or age group perpetuates it.

No, the REAL fucking problem here is that humans can sue the living shit out of other humans for nothing more than being "offended", and those cases are winning in courtrooms. THAT is the real problem here.

And the fix is simple. Remove the element of reward (monetary gain) for being "offended", and you'll suddenly find humans aren't so damn sensitive towards each other anymore. Anything short of doing this is pointless and not identifying the real problem.

And yes, once again, we have our greedy, corrupt legal system to thank for this bullshit.