Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Thats a weird example.
Point being opinions arent always "hey man it's just my opinion dont be so sensitive". If we can act as a community to shut down some opinions then why not.
But it wouldn't be poking fun at Islam though, just in the same way the original film wasn't poking fun at Christianity. It was a film about mistaken identity & how the masses reacted to it.
You can’t deny that the Middle East seems a world behind the West when it comes to religion though. Even America is behind ‘secular Europe’ as its referred to over there. They’re very, very offended by anything even remotely poking fun at religion and react accordingly. Even if a large percentage aren’t the ones sending the death threats, a large percentage agree that it’s warranted for making the joke in the first place. I certainly don’t think it’s a small enough amount to pretend you don’t know what people are talking about when it’s brought up.
As for the second paragraph, I don’t know if PC is the antidote to that. Free speech should permit you to say that, but people should also be free to call you a fecking weirdo. That isn’t really PC, I think that’s just free speech at work.
I haven’t seen it in years tbf.
But who gets to say what opinions are acceptable ? Some people might be offended if you called his horse gay.
It was a just a wee joke, but to answer your question; the reason is in a question. Who gets to decide whats right? Me? You? We can agree that "liking little boys" is sick, and we have the ability with freedom of speech to say that. The people with the power to say what is and isnt sick changes. What if someone who thought liking little boys wasnt sick started making the rules? Remember that the idea of a woman showing her ankles in public was once considered sick. Educate, rather than stifle. Tell them why liking little boys is wrong. We both know why, so telling them shouldnt be difficult.
I really really wish you had used another example.
I dunno, who decides what is and isn’t ok to say? You? The best way to deal with things like that is to talk about them, using free speech. You say what you want, and other people say why they think you’re mental. That’s how society moves past out-dated ideas, not by banning them and sending them underground.
I don't get how anyone could think Life of Brian wasn't at the very least poking fun at Christianity, possibly to the point of outright derision. Took the piss nicely out of the left-wing student politics of the time too.
That's exactly the point Rowan Atkinson made in that video clip. Curtailment of free-speech will eventually affect everyone.
I think having Freedom of Speech in any society is important and I'm against any legislation that would limit speech barring the common sense yelling "fire" in a crowded area type laws and those pertaining to defamation. However I think it's ludicrous for people to think there aren't consequences to the things that they say publicly. Should you go to jail for saying "Blacks are all lazy and all they do is have children they can't take care of"? No. But if I run a company that has black people as part of its client base or just has an image to protect, I definitely should be allowed to fire you for saying something like that publicly.
Oh yeah definitely. That’s where I’m against political correctness, and I certainly don’t think you’re automatically part of the bigoted ‘PC gone mad’ brigade when you point out than it can on occasion go too far, like in this instance. Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry are both people who have spoken against it in recent times, and I definitely wouldn’t have them down as like that.
Like I said above, free speech is great but it isn’t speech without consequence. You have the right to say things, and other have the right to react to them. If that means non-platforming them, sacking them etc or even just calling them a fecking idiot, that’s your right. Free speech just means you can’t be locked up for it, and it’s definitely been commandeered by bigots who don’t understand what it means as an excuse to say horrible things.
This is something I find interesting.
If you have a speaker coming to University for example, and a small minority of very vocal students speak out to get them cancelled, is that fair game? Despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinion.
If you don't want to listen to somebody talk, then you don't have to do so, but stopping the entirety of your University from hearing what they have to say seems very entitled to me.
What about if you have a speaker coming to University and the government decrees they should be cancelled despite the fact that a lot of other people would have wanted to listen to their opinions?
Can't say it any better myself.
I think the government has absolutely no business saying certain people can't give a speech at a university however reprehensible they feel the opinions are.
Then why is this discussion online always centred around students being whiney little so and sos who should be forced to listen to fascists, transphobes, homophobes or whatever and never about Prevent?
The latter is being used on increasingly flimsy grounds by the government to dictate to subject experts about what material they can and can't use, but gets half the attention from people who profess to care about free speech as arseholes like Bannon.
As a rule I don't agree with silencing other people's opinions, except in very specific circumstances. Especially in an environment like a University where the point is to learn and have your views challenged, if there are views you find despicable then go up and argue against them rather than removing them from the sphere of debate.
My University was a bit of an echo chamber if I'm being honest, and I feel like it's the same across the country right now. My lecturer went on a marxist rant in the middle of a history seminar on Japanese modernisation, and you always got the sense when writing essays that if you tried to argue a different perspective you would get marked down from it.
I feel like the first part did? I don't agree with people being shut down, be that by the government or by other students.
If there is an appetite amongst students for a certain speaker to come, then that speaker should be able to go and put his views across. I also think that if there is also people who totally disagree, then that speaker should have to agree to have his/her views challenged on stage.
Are you sure he wasn't just using marxist historiography as a method to explain some aspect of Japanese modernisation? You certainly don't have to be a Marxist politically to find some value in marxist historiography, and the rapid modernisation and industrialization of a country certainly seems to apply. And in any case history is best viewed through several different lenses.
So why don't you care about the real free speech scandal in universities, which is that the government are vetting courses, speakers, and teaching via Prevent?
No, he was pretty well known for being very pro Marxism and often using seminars/lectures as an attempt to push marxist ideology. It wasn't a case of him explaining Japanese modernisation, he went on some tangent about capitalism and consumerism.
Its really not as straight forward as I thought when I was younger.
It's not helped one side being self righteous ego maniacs who believe they are right side of history, and the good guys which makes most people on the other side the bad guys.
While the other side of the free speech discussion has actual neo-nazis who use 'western values' like free speech, the scientific method and discussions to resolve conflict like Hamas use schools and hospitals.
The anti-free speech people do have the point that charisma and emotion are as, or more persuasive than facts to most people and where it crosses the line it can endanger the lives of others. They do however seem to paint with a broad brush, ignore context to win points and use underhanded tactics to gain power by dis-empowering others in debates rather than being correct on merit.
It's not helped one side being self righteous ego maniacs who believe they are right side of history, and the good guys which makes most people on the other side the bad guys.
While the other side of the free speech discussion has actual neo-nazis who use 'western values' like free speech, the scientific method and discussions to resolve conflict like Hamas use schools and hospitals.
The anti-free speech people do have the point that charisma and emotion are as, or more persuasive than facts to most people and where it crosses the line it can endanger the lives of others. They do however seem to paint with a broad brush, ignore context to win points and use underhanded tactics to gain power by dis-empowering others in debates rather than being correct on merit.
Last edited:
Because usually that's how the debate gets framed. Most of the people arguing against so called "non-platforming" at universities usually have pretty Islamophobis views themselves and by my understanding its been mostly Islamic groups and speakers who have been mostly affected by the Prevent strategy. Like you say, for these Bannon types the "free speech" argument is basically a way for them to argue that they should be able to say morally reprehensible things without being challenged or criticized but are fine when others' speech is curtailed when they disagree with whoever is speaking. That's why you saw Hannity and Shapiro both support CNN firing Marc Lamont. If Lamont had been someone who espoused conservative or libertarian viewpoints, you can almost certainly bet they would have come out in support of him.
Isn't Prevent aimed at stopping the spread of extremist ideology, thus trying to prevent terrorism? Like I said, there are some specific circumstances where a speaker might encourage violence, and in those circumstances free speech rules don't really apply.
I'd argue there's a difference between that, and Milo Yiannopolous for example wanting to go up on stage and talk about how the wage gap doesn't exist.
Prevent may be well intentioned, but it still doesn't change the fact it's being used to dictate to subject experts about what material they can and can't teach in their classroom and to vet speakers who attend universities. If you were in the sector and had heard some of the examples of things people were being flagged up for with it you would be very worried.
But this is the point; we probably agree that free speech rules don't apply to those preaching violence, but that's the rationale behind no-platforming too. The fact we only ever talk about one side of this debate (the 'no platforming' side, rather than the 'prevent' side) when we're supposedly just people concerned with free speech shows how dishonest the discussion is. It's being led by people who are upset they can't preach their own intolerance in universities and don't care to slightest about free speech who simply hope they can hoodwink well meaning but gullible people.
I've seen plenty of examples of no-platforming which don't only stop those preaching violence. If that was the case I'd have no issue with it. For example, in 2014 at Oxford University there was to be a debate centred around the existence of 'abortion culture', in which the speakers would discuss the impact having legal abortion has had upon society. Students had organized and OK'ed the debate, but then a small group of activists forced it to be shut down, partly because of they believed that people without a uterus shouldn't discuss the topic.
You're right that we need to discuss it from both sides (the prevent movement as well) and I do think overall we need a clearer definition of what free speech actually means. In my view, anybody should be able to go up and speak to a group of people as long as they aren't inciting violence, as long as a group of people exists that want to hear it. And if other people disagree with what is being said, they also have the right to be there and challenge those views through fair and civilised debate.
It's a very fair point that the debate is very one sided though (with not enough focus on prevent), i'll totally admit that. Needs to be more discussion about both sides of that coin for sure.
I'm not knowledgeable on this so it's only a question, but maybe if people speaking publicly are inciting violence they should be charged with inciting violence, or racial or religious discrimination? If there isn't an appropriate law to allow that then perhaps we need one.
Laws do exist which separate free speech from hate speech. So if you're considered to be inciting violence, inciting racial hatred, inciting terrorism etc then you're no longer protected by your freedom of expression. Other countries like the US have different laws, in some European nations I know that on certain topics there is very limited scope for discussion.
However, there are obviously differing opinions on what qualifies as 'inciting racial hatred' for example, so it's not that clear cut. Some people would argue that Ben Shapiro incites racial hatred by suggesting that African Americans accounting for a disproportionate number of crimes is due to a problem with black culture, rather than racism. It's really not always so easy to decide what falls in to which category, hence why you get no platforming etc. People just can't really agree on what is acceptable to discuss.
I hope I understand that, but I can't help thinking that if what a person says isn't wrong enough to be prosecuted then they're not wrong enough to be no-platformed either. The danger is that no-platformers are just imposing their own opinions by force, and that can't be right. I'm not trying to defend any particular group by the way, I'm all for prosecuting nasty people where it's warranted.
I mostly agree. If what you're saying isn't considered hate speech by law, then you should be permitted to speak if an audience wishes to hear you.
Nah I wouldn't say so, I agree with your post. I'm not saying I particularly like the sort of non-platforming you see on university campuses, especially not if it's a very small minority that disagree with them. That to me looks like trying to silence opinions you don't agree with. But the onus is on the universities to uphold that, and if they do decide to give in to that small minority, it's their right to do so.
On point as usual
Have you seen Four Lions? It's a brilliant satire on Islamic terrorism by Chris Morris, one of the UK's foremost comedic voices on TV in the past couple of decades. I don't recall anyone saying it was offensive, because it was very fecking good. I'm sure some Muslims would have been offended by it, but then I'd have said that, yeah, they were being completely unreasonable if that was the case.
You've also picked out one thing and ignored the rest of my post, which highlighted that the idea we're consistently going backwards in regards to what people can say/do on TV is nonsense. Again, before the 90s most mainstream TV shows strayed firmly away from swearing and nudity, and didn't air edgy content. The fecking Simpsons was seen as being outrageous when it first aired! Even though now it wouldn't be at all. Obviously plenty of films were pushing boundaries that TV wasn't, but within mainstream society content that was remotely edgy was generally shunned or seen as bad.
I'm all for making sure we keep in the right direction, for what it's worth, because progress isn't always linear, but the idea we're moving back from some bygone era of free speech where writers and directors could do anything they wanted on TV is clearly bizarre and incorrect.
That's an absurd assertion. I don't know the particulars of this UK specific issue but not everyone who is against no-platforming in general is Islamophobic.
I think you have to have followed our discussion to get the jist of what I way was saying. Though I probably should have said most of the "prominent" activists against non-platforming.
Just the most powerful man in the world implying the world’s most famous satirical sketch show should be illegal because it makes fun of him.
But please, keep telling us how the left are ruining comedy free speech guys.
snl should be illegal because its painfully unfunny