Does Political Correctness stifle satire?

[Shad]

Yes. It's an aggregate site. Two articles featured on it doesn't represent it overall, especially since they aren't that many critic reviews to begin with.

It is more than two articles. I quoted the actual reviews from your lazy quoting of a sentence. Try again.

You are still missing the point. Critics voted overwhelming against Dave. Many babbled about PC and offending people while the audience rating is completely opposite. Meanwhile Gadsby got raving reviews yet the audience score was in the tank. Ergo the reviewers are detached from the audience thus their reviews are useless. More importantly it demonstrates a bias and agenda.

 

[Erebus]

The better issue....
When is it right to stifle the speech of others?

A good question and one that has no easy answers. I think most people would accept that there must be some limitations on speech (the classic example being falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater) but where to draw the line gets tricky.

Even if you say that the line is when speech causes harm, it can be difficult to determine what constitutes harm, whether that harm was a result of the speech and what the context and intent of that speech was. A couple of examples here: There have been multiple cases in which people have taken their own life after being harassed, stalked and bullied online. On the flip-side, the British comedy show "The Goodies" killed a man as he laughed so much that it triggered a cardiac arrest.
In the first example, there's clear malice and the desire to make somebody suffer. In the latter example, the opposite is true.

So even speech/expression that results in death can have ambiguities. Going back to what I said earlier, context and intent are crucial when it comes to determining whether or not somebody's speech has gone too far and warrants legal action.*

*For the record, I personally don't believe that simply offending people warrants any sort of legal action. You need to go a hell of a lot further than just being tasteless before I'd consider such a course to be appropriate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean...THANKS Rev

Maybe because I am an indolent Roman...but why do people care?
Why do they care what others say?

I couldn't care less what the others' opinions are...
I am too self confident to care

Many people are intolerant of different beliefs & values.
It's one thing to advocate for one's own, & against others.
'But tis another to seek to silence the latter.

 

[Revoltingest]

A good question and one that has no easy answers. I think most people would accept that there must be some limitations on speech (the classic example being falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater) but where to draw the line gets tricky.

Even if you say that the line is when speech causes harm, it can be difficult to determine what constitutes harm, whether that harm was a result of the speech and what the context and intent of that speech was. A couple of examples here: There have been multiple cases in which people have taken their own life after being harassed, stalked and bullied online. On the flip-side, the British comedy show "The Goodies" killed a man as he laughed so much that it triggered a cardiac arrest.
In the first example, there's clear malice and the desire to make somebody suffer. In the latter example, the opposite is true.

So even speech/expression that results in death can have ambiguities. Going back to what I said earlier, context and intent are crucial when it comes to determining whether or not somebody's speech has gone too far and warrants legal action.*

*For the record, I personally don't believe that simply offending people warrants any sort of legal action. You need to go a hell of a lot further than just being tasteless before I'd consider such a course to be appropriate.

Rather than seeking to curb the speech of those I disagree with,
I prefer to persuade change with reason & civility....& bacon.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I quoted the actual reviews from your lazy quoting of a sentence. Try again.

It's actually also improper to quote entire articles. A sentence or two is ideally all one does quote. Facts are, claiming a source, especially an aggregate source, requires that actual source be posted; most of the critic reviews are negative, and PC stuff is mentioned, but it's not the only complaint, it isn't "almost all," and Rotten Tomatoes own page gives the impression it's a mixed bag that leans negative. In fact, I noticed a theme that gets ignored, is many people basically complained he sounds grumpy, and many agree with my thoughts that it just is not nearly as good as he used be.
And, of course, you found one example, online. Woo-hoo? And look at how weak of an example it is. There are real-life consequences for people when the Twitter mob comes, and your best example is comedian who's trying-but-not-really to remain relevant who upset a few people, no real harm done? Never mind the fact they're harming the norm of pulling people aside to quietly, calmly, and privately talk things out, gotta watch for this overall obscure and doesn't really matter example instead.
Are you really concerned or complaining because it's a talking point in the air? I'm not denying the total claim you made, but I do see where it isn't really what the claims being have portray it as. And its' a pretty poor example with a very limited sample, a handful of positive reviews, and criticisms that include far more than just "PC feelings."

 

[Shad]

It's actually also improper to quote entire articles.

You didn't even quote much from any article let alone a whole article. You quoted the small summaries on RT for most of your points.

Facts are, claiming a source, especially an aggregate source, requires that actual source be posted; most of the critic reviews are negative, and PC stuff is mentioned, but it's not the only complaint, it isn't "almost all," and Rotten Tomatoes own page gives the impression it's a mixed bag that leans negative. In fact, I noticed a theme that gets ignored, is many people basically complained he sounds grumpy, and many agree with my thoughts that it just is not nearly as good as he used be.

Except PC is a major theme in almost every negative review.

And, of course, you found one example, online.

Yes as that was my point about critics having a bias as per my comparison. Critics are detached from the audience

And look at how weak of an example it is.

Hardly considering I quoted alphabet and PC babble from the articles you cited. Try again

There are real-life consequences for people when the Twitter mob comes, and your best example is comedian who's trying-but-not-really to remain relevant who upset a few people, no real harm done?

It is comedy.... The twitter mob seems to be alphabet people and PC warriors. You just proved my point that people want certain jokes to be taboo merely because it targets them or their echo chamber membership.

Never mind the fact they're harming the norm of pulling people aside to quietly, calmly, and privately talk things out, gotta watch for this overall obscure and doesn't really matter example instead.

Off-topic babble. Dave isn't getting a mob to attack anyone. Now you have to create a conspiracy that Dave is only doing it to stay relevant. Hilarious.

Are you really concerned or complaining because it's a talking point in the air?

I think PC babble is ruining comedy as people have thin-skin and deeper issues with validation. Dave shatters that illusion so people are freaking out.

I'm not denying the total claim you made, but I do see where it isn't really what the claims being have portray it as. And its' a pretty poor example with a very limited sample, a handful of positive reviews, and criticisms that include far more than just "PC feelings."

When almost every review from that site babbles about alphabet people and PC specifically it shows a bias of the critics especially as per my comparison.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Well....satire is a Latin word ...something Romans kinda invented...

Sometimes, if you find something funny, you feel like wanting to express it to others by parodying a situation or a cultural aspect...for example...languages...

Do you think it is politically correct or fair?

For example...what about a video like this?

I like the pc crowd ... I guess because they're so easy to poke fun at. Makes for great and unforgettable satire if you ask me.