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.
"Reached for comment, a representative of the Ministry of Silly Talks said that Mr. Cleese's talk wasn't very silly at all, and thus would not qualify for a grant."
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.
"hmor"? What the fuck is "hmor"?
This became a big deal at Mizzou, where protests, a hunger strike, and the football team going on strike resulted in the chancellor and university president both being ousted. Now there were some legitimately offensive things that took place on campus like someone smearing a poop swastika on a wall. While such an incident should be handled by the university police, it doesn't seem like the chancellor and president need to get involved. Another issue was someone yelling a racial slur at the student body president off of campus. It seems like it's totally outside the jurisdiction of the university, yet it was another factor cited for the protests. The failure of the university to address the riots in Ferguson also was given as a reason. Sure, there are reasons to be offended by the actual incidents, but the protests because the administration didn't act quickly enough when really it probably wasn't their responsibility to get involved at all is totally absurd. My understanding is that one of the demands was for all students to have mandatory sensitivity training. In other words, you're presumed to be an insensitive bigot without actually doing anything bigoted at all. I'm ashamed of my alma mater and what's going on in there in the name of being politically correct. Are we so quick to be offended that we'll demand punishment from people who had nothing to do with the offenses at all?
I hate all anonymous shitbags. Log in, you filthy bastards.
1/6
Now try to find the other errors.
Jimmy Carr replaced his previously shortest joke: "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (which doesn't work as well for Americans, because it relies on the British expression for "expensive" . . .) with the even shorter: "Dwarf Shortage". He followed up with "If you’re a dwarf and you’re offended by that, grow up.” Complaints have been filed with the broadcast regulators about his "discriminatory" "hate speech".
His insensitivity to people who "walk funny" is just intolerant and cannot be abided by.
Shame on you Sir!! I hope I find you soon!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Riiii-ight.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/twhyla...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/out...
You missed such a grand opportunity to say that the squeaky wheel gets the Cleese. For shame.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
"I'm triggered by silliness!" cried a campus snowflake.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I disagree with your comment. There is plenty of evidence, and the only way to overlook all of it is to purposely avoid looking.
Just to list some example from top of my head: rape epidemic moral panic, cultural appropriations moral panic, trigger warnings, prevalence of victimhood culture, campus sexual assault kangaroo courts, media-free safe spaces.
Ask the administration at the University of Missouri (a state school in a red state, no less) if the problem of SJW bullying is exaggerated.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
Slashdot improvement suggestion #18...a fucking edit button.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I have a family member who went through a period in their life when they were hypersensitive to perceived slights. Some of the problem was real pressure to conform to other’s expectations that were unreasonable. But the inability to tolerate it and blow it off turned out to be caused by a hormone disorder.
I think that some of these hypersensitive people are just whiny babies who can’t handle an environment with a more diverse set of ideas. But for some people who get so overwhelmed that they need to run off and hide in a “safe place,” they may want to look into getting their endocrine levels checked (thyroid, adrenal, and various pituitary).
However, we live in a culture where we blame everyone else for our own failures, so it’s unlikely that most such people would ever even imagine that the problem originates in their own bodies.
As a decoupage kid, I hate collage kids.
Prosecuting outsiders to bond members of your own tribe seems to be an inescapable human need. Liberal activists who boo comics and ensure that anyone who dares to have a different personal opinion of, say, homosexuality loses their job are just bible thumpers and Saudi Arabia morality police going by another name. They have to continuously crank up the extremes of zero tolerance for anyone who deviates from their ideas about women, minorities, native americans and so on to bond with each other and maintain self image of superior human beings who have full right to bully and discriminate against savages.
For the record, I fully believe that LGBT and all other minorities including polygamists have a right to equal, productive lives, and so should a baker who doesn't want to make a cake for their wedding. It's just that activist groups who claim to support either side are actually just on a power trip to prop up their own self esteem and find a legitimate excuse to bully others.
as Ricky Gervais once said: Everyone has the right to be offended. Everyone has the right to offend. But no one has the right to never be offended.
Great video that explains the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTmwyKpz0o
Dawkins was deplatformed for twitting this satirical (and hilarious) video.
Feminists Love Islamists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
Please, everybody here, take an active stance and post that video on your twitter and/or facebook accounts. Let the feminists/Islamists know that there censorship efforts are counter productive.
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.
Very insightful video
Pat Condell - Dumbing Down University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjN8xP0i6Ak
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.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
rape epidemic moral panic... campus sexual assault kangaroo courts
The term rape culture accurately sums up these things.
Here's the thing. This is sort of my bigot detector kit. Criticize a rape culture for creating a hostile environment, and somebody will fly out of the woodwork and leap to the conclusion that one is:
#1 Male
#2 Heterosexual
#3 Sexually abusive towards women
That's how one knows one has a bigot on one's hands. Apparently if the environment is hostile towards trans women and men, who are informed by university policy that they are already considered guilty of rape, that the task campus officials have is one of actively trying to catching you in the act, that they have their eye on you are are trying to find some excuse to expel you after taking your money, it doesn't count.
It's telling that expulsions and suspensions because of rape cultures don't lead to criminal prosecutions.
Another way to use the bigot detector kit is to ping on someone completely misinterpreting what Cleese is saying here to conclude he's an asshole. He might be an asshole. I find him to be funny as hell.
Basically, if somebody who is not of the correct demographic raises a concern about wrongful pro/persecution or notes that they feel they are in a hostile environment with unfair policies, and that's the basis for somebody else to conclude that the person raising the concern not only has never been on the receiving end of sexism but acts unethically or rudely on a daily basis, that somebody else, not the person raising the concern who's of the wrong demographic, is a bigot, plain and simple.
But hey, I'll never have the privilege of being unaware of what it's like on the receiving end of sexism and sexual harassment!
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
I have this as a macro in World of Warcraft to signal the other players that I'm being attacked by something.
The problem is that it's a lot of isolated incidents that are piling up. There was a famous case from several years prior where someone was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book about the KKK because some other prat found it offensive. It wasn't even a book praising the Klan, but rather one about how people had stood up to them. You see it in plenty of other areas where campuses ban something because some group found it offensive. A Canadian university canceled a yoga class because some precious fuckwit was whining about cultural appropriation.
If someone wants to protest against something, that's their right, but it's another thing entirely to capitulate to the demands of those who seem to be looking for new ways to be offended. Look at the Mizzou professor who shoved a student journalist who was attempting to report on the protests there. It's not just the students who are participating in the idiotic ideology that makes the Tea Party look sane by comparison. The people getting offended are the kind of rabid zealots that want to shove their views on everyone else, not the type of people who will politely disagree or engage in some kind of dialog.
It featured a fantastic, humorous episode written by Darin Morgan about a monster who is bitten by a man and turns into one. Its a beautiful satire about an alien trying to make sense of human behavior (working 9 to 5, lying about sexual prowess, our love for fast food) and, at one point, he gets hit by a transgender which leads to an hilarious exchange with Duchovny trying to explain transgenderism to Darby.
So i've just found out that Slate actually run a story on their LGBTQ section titiled Did The X-Files use a transgender character for cheap laughs?. Why, yes. Yes they did. It doesn't matter that the treatment wasn't offensive at all, or that the entire episode was making fun of the human race as a whole, or even that it actually was in line with the transition theme that was the entire point of the episode. Some people got their panties in a bunch because a transgender character threw a punch.
Cleese is absolutely right here. Then again, he usually always is.
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.
I'll throw one in since this is a techie site: "Microsoft Works"
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
You are talking about someone with PTSD.
Is that any different than your example with the dog? Or someone who's been raped, assaulted, or experienced some other traumatic event? If so, why is it appropriate to label some potential triggers and not others? Who gets to decide what does and doesn't make the cut? The same goes for safe spaces. You can't use it outside of a specific professional setting without abuse or you get someone who decides that they're "triggered" by Muslims because of their own irrational fears and that their store is now a "safe space" where Muslims are not allowed. Even if someone legitimately believed all of that, it's still a horrible outcome when viewed objectively.
The problem is that the people who want all the trigger warnings are the same people who have no training and want to use them to actively avoid any exposure or to wield them like a club in order to effectively censor those things that they do not like.They want to live in a bubble walled off from the rest of the world and are demanding them everyone else accommodate their demands. If someone has had such a traumatic experience that they can't function in regular society, they need help and probably shouldn't be going to university until they can get to a healthier place. If something makes a person uncomfortable, they should seek the kind of professional help to get them beyond their past experiences. Demanding that anything which gives them discomfort be removed is ripe for abuse and history has shown no shortage of moralist busybodies who do exactly that.
Suggesting that the people at university who are clamoring for trigger warnings or safe spaces are using these appropriately is deluding yourself beyond all credibility. One group of students even published such in a list of demands that they presented to the administration. They directly state a demand for exclusive safe spaces on campus, which would be racially segregated. The idiots making these demands aren't using trigger warnings or safe spaces in the clinical and professional manner in which they might be helpful. Even in the case where individuals want (and it might even be a good idea to have) a private setting to discuss something, that does not entitle them to use public property and demand it be treated as a safe space where dissenting opinion is prohibited. Even less so in an institution where the youth of the world should be having their ideas challenged.
Careful, you might get bombed by association ;)
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
I thought the edit button was labelled "preview".