Does Political Correctness stifle satire?

[SomeRandom]

You forgot white and nothing less than a middle class background. Those are pretty important, because they are the ones getting offended on everyone's behalf. Even those who don't agree with them. As well as those who think they are problematic. And they have an excuse for everything, like someone they claim to stand up for telling them to bugger off as being described as "sympathy towards their oppressors." And it's also important, because this is the epicenter of things such as "white guilt" and "all white people are racist." And it's important to continue to fight back against them, because nobody likes them and their Life-destroying and freedom-killing ideology already has too much influence as it is.

I was once a part of the anti SJW brigade. It made me toxic and unable to apply my usual snarky (bare bones basic) self criticism. In other words, I couldn’t keep myself honest.
I’m sure there’s merit to fighting against becoming too PC, sanitisation of art in particular is something one should fight against.
But since this SJW thing is mostly an American phenomenon, dealing with very American centred politics, I’m going to bow out. Because I’m not American.
By all means protect art, but don’t dismiss all criticism of it as just SJW oversensitivity either. Those annoying spoilt white kids may have a valid point every once in a while too.

 

[Father Heathen]

I find it kind of ironic that in the 80s the people who wanted to sanitise everything were vocal conservative Christian soccer mums. Now it’s oversensitive hippie kids. Perhaps in the next generation it will be oversensitive Heathens or Satanists.

There are a lot of similarities between religious conservatives and SJW liberals.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect what is actually happening with so called “political correctness” the younger generations are becoming far more aware of social and cultural biases. So they try their best to correct these norms. But being young, it’s easy to miss context and nuance as they are still learning. This causes a backlash from the older generation because they feel threatened and offended that they are being told they are racist/sexist/biased (which is sometimes accurate, sometimes not.)

I think it's deeper than that. Such as, those who claim all white people are racist. I have "read" studies similar to those they use, and they don't really reflect much, and they certainly don't assert all white people are racist. But this PC crowd--who also importantly really isn't age restricted--do commit a serious social sin of judging a person by the color of their skin. I have also encountered some who consider non-Anglo-Saxon whites to basically be the same, such as, it not really mattering the Irish and Scotts too came here as slaves, got much of the same crap treatment here they did in Europe as far back as being the Celts, and it doesn't matter many of our ancestors were building the railroads with the Chinese. Mentioning it can get you labeled as racist. You can't wear a headband with a feather on Halloween, but you can misuse Celtic imagery to the point people believe there are "Celtic Runes" and have no idea what all the knots are or where used for.
Really, I just think they want to accuse everyone else for their own racist behaviors, because they are indeed one of the most racially homogeneous groups out there. They live a very "white bread life," and they want to accuse others of doing basically the same things they are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was once a part of the anti SJW brigade. It made me toxic and unable to apply my usual snarky (bare bones basic) self criticism. In other words, I couldn’t keep myself honest.
I’m sure there’s merit to fighting against becoming too PC, sanitisation of art in particular is something one should fight against.
But since this SJW thing is mostly an American phenomenon, dealing with very American centred politics, I’m going to bow out. Because I’m not American.
By all means protect art, but don’t dismiss all criticism of it as just SJW oversensitivity either. Those annoying spoilt white kids may have a valid point every once in a while too.

American culture can spread like the plague, so you may want to remain vigilant. And, they do have some points, but no one should need a special label or title to be a decent human being. The Left is more secular, but this group does seem to channel a sort of religious zeal type of energy found among RW Conservative Evangelicals.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think it's deeper than that. Such as, those who claim all white people are racist. I have "read" studies similar to those they use, and they don't really reflect much, and they certainly don't assert all white people are racist. But this PC crowd--who also importantly really isn't age restricted--do commit a serious social sin of judging a person by the color of their skin. I have also encountered some who consider non-Anglo-Saxon whites to basically be the same, such as, it not really mattering the Irish and Scotts too came here as slaves, got much of the same crap treatment here they did in Europe as far back as being the Celts, and it doesn't matter many of our ancestors were building the railroads with the Chinese. Mentioning it can get you labeled as racist. You can't wear a headband with a feather on Halloween, but you can misuse Celtic imagery to the point people believe there are "Celtic Runes" and have no idea what all the knots are or where used for.
Really, I just think they want to accuse everyone else for their own racist behaviors, because they are indeed one of the most racially homogeneous groups out there. They live a very "white bread life," and they want to accuse others of doing basically the same things they are.

Perhaps. Like I said, this isn’t really a thing where I live. There are people who are very “PC” but I guess it’s filtered differently, since we have a different history than America. Like for example shops where I live still sell Golliwog dolls, because very few if any people will see that depiction as racist. Since we don’t have the same cultural reference points an American would have on such a doll.
People will always find a way to be tribalistic. People will try to overcompensate for the sins of the past. That’s really nothing new.
I think there are a lot of differing factors in play. But it’s mostly American focused, so I’m not inherently going to understand the nuance.

American culture can spread like the plague, so you may want to remain vigilant. And, they do have some points, but no one should need a special label or title to be a decent human being. The Left is more secular, but this group does seem to channel a sort of religious zeal type of energy found among RW Conservative Evangelicals.

Careful of your hubris there, yankee. Or should I say, check your privilege?
Not everyone waits with baited breath to see what America does in order to copy you. We have our own issues and histories.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Careful of your hubris there, yankee
Not everyone waits with baited breath to see what America does in order to copy you. We have our own issues and histories.

True, however, PC is something that needs to have very limited spread, ideally none. And it's not hubris but rather that it appears America picked up the torch from England when it comes to having a global hegemonous presence. Things such as Starbucks, KFC, McDonalds, and 711, they've spread very far beyond American boarders. Hollywood has also gotten pretty far. Of course not everything spreads, such as Ayn Rand pretty much being an American thing, but I'd definitely want to be ready to identify PC upon arrival to shoot it dead.

 

[SomeRandom]

True, however, PC is something that needs to have very limited spread, ideally none. And it's not hubris but rather that it appears America picked up the torch from England when it comes to having a global hegemonous presence. Things such as Starbucks, KFC, McDonalds, and 711, they've spread very far beyond American boarders. Hollywood has also gotten pretty far. Of course not everything spreads, such as Ayn Rand pretty much being an American thing, but I'd definitely want to be ready to identify PC upon arrival to shoot it dead.

I don’t know if “PC” is inherently evil. I agree that oversensitive people should not get to dictate what is acceptable art or jokes. But society always changes and cultural sensitivity always changes. I mean there are entire lists of movies from previous eras that no one would show the common populace. Or indeed without a lengthy foreword explaining the context. Or even just restricting such portrayals to scholarly critiques. But those movies were perfectly acceptable for their times.
I mean there are some 30s and 40s looney tunes shorts that I probably wouldn’t show to my nieces or nephews anytime soon, if you catch my drift?
Political Correctness is supposed to be about introspection and the consequences art can have on society and culture. I do find myself disagreeing most of the time with the “PC brigade.” But those are still good traits to keep in mind. Art doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is powerful and it can help shape perceptions. Our “free speech” can often reveal something about ourselves that is worthy of re-examination. To be aware of this or to point this out is valid. To go too far and call for censorship is of course not something I endorse.

 

[Lichtgeschwindigkeit_]

Political correctness tends to stifle everything.

That said, there are people who genuinely are somewhat racist but hide behind the veil of "just doing satire" and "fighting against political correctness".

 

[PureX]

They have that right, but don't lie or pretend otherwise. They are as opposed to free speech...

No they aren't. They are opposed to what is being said. They oppose the content of the speech. That is the difference.

They have their right of free speech, but their ideology and rhetoric are anti-free speech.

Only in the minds of those who confuse content with intent.

 

[PureX]

Then what about a Ricky Gervais joke that was labeled transphobic even though it wasn't? What about Tweets that condemn a British man for quoting Churchill? If it doesn't exist, why are legit criticisms of Islam shut down as "Islamophobic?"

Again, that's called free speech: the right to object to the content of another person's speech. Just because someone objects to what someone else says doesn't mean that they are trying to stop anyone from speaking their mind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, that's called free speech: the right to object to the content of another person's speech. Just because someone objects to what someone else says doesn't mean that they are trying to stop anyon from speaking their mind.

Demanding silence and censorship are beyond mere free speech. They are anti-free speech, and it shouldn't be pretended they are anything other than that.

Only in the minds of those who confuse content with intent.

And yet it happens. Our do you want to act like it's no problem that the SPLC has labeled Middle Eastern Muslims who criticize their cultural elements that had them running here for their life as Islamophobes? Or did a joke with a woman who killed a man while driving as the butt of the joke not get labelled as transphobic?

No they aren't. They are opposed to what is being said. They oppose the content of the speech. That is the difference.

Yes. But they demand silence and strong arm those they disagree with into silence. That's extremely problematic and terribly unhealthy for a free society. They are **** at honoring the free speech rights of others.

 

[PureX]

Demanding silence and censorship are beyond mere free speech. They are anti-free speech, and it shouldn't be pretended they are anything other than that.

Except that almost no one is demanding that. And freedom of speech ends when the speech does or inspires harm to someone else. So there ARE limits. And people do occasionally need to call for those limits to be enforced. But that isn't because of political correctness, it's because of both the spirit and rule of law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except that almost no one is demanding that.

Is that why colleges have cancelled booked speakers?

And people do occasionally need to call for those limits to be enforced. But that isn't because of political correctness, it's because of both the spirit and rule of law.

There is no rule, law, or right to not be offended. There is nothing in the law that even suggests someone who criticizes conservative Middle Eastern Muslim culture can't be a graduation commencement speaker at a college. There is nothing to suggest you are entitled to an apology or have a right to demand one. There is nothing legal to indicate people have to be sensitive to your feelings.

 

[Shad]

If "political correctness" existed beyond the biased the inflamed insanity of right-wingnut political hyperbole, it would certainly INVITE satire.

Take a look at how Dave Chappelle's show in August was rated by "critics" and the audience compared to Hannah Gadsby's special.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Take a look at how Dave Chappelle's show in August was rated by "critics" and the audience compared to Hannah Gadsby's special.

Someone else here tried that, but no evidence was ever provided to confirm that is actually how the critics felt. The number of critics and how the rated it was all that was provided, which of course only proves how critics rated it and nothing beyond that.
Myself, I just didn't find his new stuff that funny, but I did find it remarkably forgettable.

 

[Shad]

Someone else here tried that, but no evidence was ever provided to confirm that is actually how the critics felt. The number of critics and how the rated it was all that was provided, which of course only proves how critics rated it and nothing beyond that.
Myself, I just didn't find his new stuff that funny, but I did find it remarkably forgettable.

Read the reviews of the critics.

Here is a gem

What happened to Dave Chappelle: The cruelty of "Sticks & Stones" is a sign of the times

Or this with Fox News dropped in.

Sticks & Stones Isn’t Very Funny

 

[PureX]

Is that why colleges have cancelled booked speakers?

They respond to the demands of their students. That'show a business is supposed to work. And colleges are businesses; especially now days. There is no rule that says a college has to let anyone who wants to speak, do so. And if their students object to a speaker coming, or want a speaker to come, then why shouldn't they be accomodated? After all, the students are paying for the college's existence.

There is no rule, law, or right to not be offended. There is nothing in the law that even suggests someone who criticizes conservative Middle Eastern Muslim culture can't be a graduation commencement speaker at a college. There is nothing to suggest you are entitled to an apology or have a right to demand one. There is nothing legal to indicate people have to be sensitive to your feelings.

The students pay the bills, so they get to decide who they want to hear speak at their school and who they don't. I see nothing wrong with that.

And if the students are strongly divided about a speaker, the college may decide it's too risky to bring them in, which I also see nothing wrong with.

None of this has anything to do with the denial of free speech.

 

[PureX]

Take a look at how Dave Chappelle's show in August was rated by "critics" and the audience compared to Hannah Gadsby's special.

Phfffttt!

 

[wellwisher]

They respond to the demands of their students. That'show a business is supposed to work. And colleges are businesses; especially now days. There is no rule that says a college has to let anyone who wants to speak, do so. And if their students object to a speaker coming, or want a speaker to come, then why shouldn't they be accomodated? After all, the students are paying for the college's existence.
The students pay the bills, so they get to decide who they want to hear speak at their school and who they don't. I see nothing wrong with that.

And if the students are strongly divided about a speaker, the college may decide it's too risky to bring them in, which I also see nothing wrong with.

None of this has anything to do with the denial of free speech.

When you go to college, you are required to take courses you may not like. If you like math and science, you might prefer to avoid the humanities. If you like humanities you may prefer to avoid math and science. Even though students pay to go to college, the colleges will force certain requirements on all the students because they want the students to have a more well balanced education. They do not want lopsided people to remain lopsided. They know the students will appreciate the full experience, someday.

Part of the college experience is taking chances and trying new things. Many students go from the quiet nerd in high school to the party animal in college. It is not about staying lopsided, afraid to try new things. It is about that unique opportunity to live outside the box where anything can happen.

Political lopsidedness is a negative aspect of Progressive run education. It robs the students of the chance to live outside the political box. The Progressive dogma is based on fiction and lies, and like a magic trick, it needs the audience aligned for the trick to be effective. If it was based on truth, it could stand on its own. They would be less fear of free speech upsetting the magic trick.

The conservative students are subjected to Liberalism all the time, yet they maintain a firm foundation. Only the left wing majority, is afraid to listen outside the box. They prefers to hide and remain lopsided.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They respond to the demands of their students.

That's not how colleges function. If they take that route, before long they really won't be teaching grammar. And that is highly problematic, because colleges and universities are supposed to be bastions and beacons of learning, and that can't be don't if opposing viewpoints are silenced. And colleges generally aren't business. Most are public institutes, meaning they recieve tax payer money and are obliged to uphold the freedoms granted by the constitution. In the case of Bill Maher, his being canceled was inappropriate as it turned an event that should have been about the graduates into somethig abiut the speaker. Amd he was disinvited over bs reasons and claims to begin with

Only the left wing majority, is afraid to listen outside the box. They prefers to hide and remain lopsided.

Should I begin posting of times when Conservatives snowflakes have wailed and gnashed their teeth and demanded censorship and silence?