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.

22 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 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  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.

  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.

  8. 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".

  9. 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!

  10. 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=-
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.