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.

54 of 669 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Also, fuck the fucking fuckers.

    1. Re:Obligatory by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Obligatory by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re: Obligatory by Falos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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."

    4. Re:Obligatory by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Obligatory by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re: Obligatory by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Obligatory by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fortunately one of the requirements is that you not be a member of a criminal organization.

      That's not true, they allow political parties. If ever there was a band of thieves they qualify.

    8. Re: Obligatory by darkain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Obligatory by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Obligatory by DriveDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      People act like there's only one problem, that is, political correctness or whatever name it has this week which prevents people from expressing themselves, but the other very large issue is the crazy notion that everybody deserves equal air time, equal coverage, etc. no matter the ignorance or illogicality of their words and ideas.

    11. Re:Obligatory by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Obligatory by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    13. Re: Obligatory by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative
      It happened when we became more worried about some poor little soul's self esteem more than teaching kids how to prepare for life, and how to win (and lose)...

      And it is getting worse.

      Hell, now it is ok to be fat, slovenly, unkept...unmotivated..because, well...you can't coach better behavior in folks because it might make them feel bad about how they are now.

      Isn't that kind of the fucking POINT? Point things out so folks will try to improve themselves?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re: Obligatory by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:Obligatory by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    16. Re:Obligatory by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:Obligatory by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    18. Re:Obligatory by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:Obligatory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      “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!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:Obligatory by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  2. Most of the collage kids these days a whiny babies by mmiscool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. This guy gets it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This guy gets it by Archtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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/...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    2. Re:This guy gets it by tbannist · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Actually, the smart kid figures out that all the pieces go in very quickly if you take the top off...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  4. Go one step back in the reasoning by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Been saying it for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Been saying it for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to say "Merry Christmas" all the time, now I say "Happy Holidays" just to annoy all the people telling me to say "Merry Christmas"

  6. And the next time you see a Code of Conduct by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Real liberals need to stop this by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Real liberals need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Real liberals need to stop this by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Quote of the day. Reposting in case anyone missed it due to AC filters.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  8. Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    1/6

    Now try to find the other errors.

  9. Jimmy Carr's new "shortest joke" is a fine example by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

  10. Ban HIM!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
    This John Cleese needs to be BANNED from any college, especially in the US!!!

    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.........
    1. Re:Ban HIM!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Ban HIM!! by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Funny

      A comic! Burn him! Burn him!

      Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether he is a comic.
      Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
      Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with comics?
      Peasant 1: Burn them.
      Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from comics?
      Peasant 1: More comics.
      Peasant 2: Wood.
      Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do comics burn?
      Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
      Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether he is made of wood?
      Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of him.
      Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
      Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
      Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
      Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw him into the pond!
      Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
      Peasant 1: Bread.
      Peasant 2: Apples.
      Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
      Peasant 1: Cider.
      Peasant 2: Gravy.
      Peasant 3: Cherries.
      Peasant 1: Mud.
      Peasant 2: Churches.
      Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
      King Arthur: A Duck.
      Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
      Peasant 1: If he weighed the same as a duck... he's made of wood.
      Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
      Peasant 2: ...A comic!

  11. Re:I think the problem is overstated by Calydor · · Score: 5, Funny

    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=-
  12. Re:I think the problem is overstated by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  13. Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab by ganv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab by sycodon · · Score: 3

    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.
  15. Hypersensitivity can be a medical problem by Theovon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a decoupage kid, I hate collage kids.

  17. Feminists deplatform Richard Dawkins from NCSS by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Freedom of Speech is the key. by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  19. Remove the motivator and you'll fix this. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Remove the motivator and you'll fix this. by sinij · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You correctly pointed out that there is a strong motivator, but I think you missed the mark that it is money via lawsuits. After all, only tiny minority of such cases ever go that far, and it is typically against college administrators overreach and overreaction.

      I think real motivator is that victimized is a coveted social status. When group concept of privilege mutated and misapplied to become highly socially disadvantageous label applied to an individual, it is natural that maintaining social standing now demands negation or qualifiers of such label privilege. How you do that? You invent slights, blow trivial offenses out of proportion and proceed to claim to be oppressed by this or that -ism based on these.

      I blame Social Sciences for creating this monster. They invented and promoted the idea that in order to have a valid opinion, one must necessary experience things first-hand. If you didn't, then you are privileged, and should just act as you told. Nobody likes doing that, so everyone suddenly jumps on the victimhood bandwagon just to not get silenced at every turn.

  20. Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

  21. Re:Most of the collage kids these days a whiny bab by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3

    "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.

  22. Re:I think the problem is overstated by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  23. Have you seen X-Files this week? by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  24. Re:I think the problem is overstated by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:Jimmy Carr's new "shortest joke" is a fine exam by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll throw one in since this is a techie site: "Microsoft Works"