Slashdot Mirror
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.
To summarize the summary [...]: people are a problem. - Douglas Adams
Also, fuck the fucking fuckers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/-)
-Styopa
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.
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.
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC