Universities are where the "speech police" are most prevalent. There have been numerous articles written about how it threatens dialogue and is generally unhelpful, but their authors are usually attacked (Jonathan Chait of New York magazine) for saying it's bad. Colleges are supposed to be where open discussions of realities can be discussed, but so many people are insanely (needlessly) sensitive about everything. Professors and students create an echo chamber that basically makes discussing anything with them pointless. And God help you if you're male, white, or both.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
This is very true. Universities, for all their supposed radicalism, are world innovators in self-censorship.
Political correctness has been mad for quite some time. Generations being brought up are inundated from an early age about the need to be accepting of others, such that the whole thing becomes a parody of itself. The amount of self-censorship that is enforced on younger generations now has also arguably had the opposite of the intended effect - people feel like their own sense of identity has been stripped away, so they look for other, more artificial ways to express their so-called individuality (such as Tumblr).
Then there are those who find whatever anti-discriminatory 'cause' they feel some connection to, and exaggerate it completely out of context. For example yesterday was Father's day, and my wall on Facebook got filled up with multiple posts about shouting out to all the single mothers who are doing the job of a father. In their determination to come across as righteous and modern, they look for issues where none exist, and instead end up creating more issues. False statistics are created to back whatever 'cause' they are created for and as justification for its supporters.
Plenty of actual, real discrimination still exists in the world - the biggest travesty of all is that it seems that a lot of this is now ignored, in favour of ridiculous stuff like what @Sir Matt and others have posted.
Then there are those who find whatever anti-discriminatory 'cause' they feel some connection to, and exaggerate it completely out of context. For example yesterday was Father's day, and my wall on Facebook got filled up with multiple posts about shouting out to all the single mothers who are doing the job of a father. In their determination to come across as righteous and modern, they look for issues where none exist, and instead end up creating more issues. False statistics are created to back whatever 'cause' they are created for and as justification for its supporters.
Plenty of actual, real discrimination still exists in the world - the biggest travesty of all is that it seems that a lot of this is now ignored, in favour of ridiculous stuff like what @Sir Matt and others have posted.
To be honest nowadays the question is has it gone too far, not too mad, that's to suggest its not mainstream like it was back in the 90s and early 2000s. Its gone mainstream, and its being used by governments, left wing and right wing ideologues etc to control and limit freedom of speech. But people are letting this happen because they seem to think that stopping people from being "offended" is good, and that stopping people from using words that are perceived to be whatever it is these people think it is is somehow not a free speech issue.
Kinda related (collages).
Interesting piece rebutting Seinfeld's recent comments about "over sensitive PC" types.
http://www.vice.com/read/a-history-of-political-correctness-killing-comedy-615
I tend to agree with the underlying point that people are often very quick to forget what actual restriction of speech is, and how recently we had it, when complaining about fleeting editorial rebuttals.
http://www.vice.com/read/a-history-of-political-correctness-killing-comedy-615
I tend to agree with the underlying point that people are often very quick to forget what actual restriction of speech is, and how recently we had it, when complaining about fleeting editorial rebuttals.
Not that long ago criticism of The Black and White Minstrel show resulted in calls of "It's PC gone mad".
More often than not people decrying PC are just behind the times.
More often than not people decrying PC are just behind the times.
Essentially part of what that article's saying. People love to use the likes of Lenny Bruce & George Carlin as examples of bygone halcyon free expression, ...despite the fact people like Bruce were actually arrested for their material, rather than just having someone write a nasty blog. Yes there's the occasional overzealous witch-hunt, but most "PC madness!!" is just right of reply.
Last edited:
Will be much more arresting down, down under.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/01/nz_swings_banhammer_at_trolls/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/01/nz_swings_banhammer_at_trolls/
He's focussing on comedy, where he's correct about people not being arrested for saying something unpleasant but there's plenty of examples of exactly that happening to people who say the wrong thing on twitter.
Going to quote myself here:
Getting back to comedy, the trial by social media of Dapper Laughs was a good example of a comedian being dragged over the coals by the politically correct. He wasn't actually arrested but his whole experience seemed excruciating all the same. That Newsnight interview was horrendous. He was a broken man.
Have you got stats, or a source for that? Even if it's true, it's still a bit of a skewed statement, considering the things you would've been jailed for "thinking" back then were more "Our King isn't very nice, is he?" or "Maybe the earth is round?" rather than racial slurs and bullying. Not that I agree with even arresting people for that most of the time, fwiw, it's just that it seems like the kind of easy, eye catching, contextless blurb a tabloid might print.
The Dapper Laughs thing may have seemed a bit excessive at the time, I agree (and I'm pretty sure I said so back then) but as you say, he wasn't arrested. He basically just had to come out and explain some nasty rape jokes. It was the national equivalent of your mum catching you saying something naughty. He wasn't forced onto Newsnight, either. Considering he's back doing exactly the same thing, I don't think it's affected him too much.
The Dapper Laughs thing may have seemed a bit excessive at the time, I agree (and I'm pretty sure I said so back then) but as you say, he wasn't arrested. He basically just had to come out and explain some nasty rape jokes. It was the national equivalent of your mum catching you saying something naughty. He wasn't forced onto Newsnight, either. Considering he's back doing exactly the same thing, I don't think it's affected him too much.
Last edited:
The source was a review of the book mentioned above. I presume he expanded on that point a bit within. I haven't read it, so can't give any more context myself. There's definitely been a bunch of people arrested for trolling on twitter, though. That's definitely a thing. So we might not have comedians being dragged off-stage in handcuffs but it's disingenuous for the bloke who wrote that Vice article to imply that getting arrested for being offensive is a thing of the past.
It might not have affected him that much but I was using that to counter the idea that comedians today have it so much easier than they did in the past. Just to quote that Vice article:
I mean, two nights in jail and a fine is a bit grim but I doubt it was the end of George "Hoppy" Hopkins either. In a way, that sort of short, sharp shock would be easier to take and less detrimental to a comedian's career than what Dapper Laughs went through. Petitions to stop him performing (resulting in cancellation of gigs) and that toe-curling interrogation on national TV. As far as earning a living as a comedian goes, that's a fairly extreme ordeal. I would agree with Seinfeld that comedians today face a very real threat to their career due to the potent combination of political correctness and online lynch mobs. The only difference to the bygone age referred to in the Vice piece is the fact that they face trial by social media, rather than in a court of law.
Speaking of Seinfeld, another example would be that horrendous clip of Michael Richards saying the "n-word". I've no idea if he was saying that word out of hate, or it was a lame attempt at making some sort of joke, while in-character, that backfired spectacularly but that youtube video pretty much finished his career, even though I don't think he faced criminal charges. Just to be clear that's not an example of over-zealous political correctness. What he said was obviously wrong. But it is an example of the power of social media to destroy a comedian's career.
Last edited:
You're equating social media with "ending careers" as if neither the acts, or their fans had any choice. As long as they aren't being actually, physically, forced to stop, then they did and do have. Those careers were "ended" because the people in question fell out of popularity, for saying something silly, as many people have done before social media, and as many people who's livelihood depends on public popularity do constantly. That's the nature of their business.
Commedians are either popular or not popular depending on how well recieved their material is. No one is being forced to stop liking them, following them or supporting them. People like Jim Davidson and Chubby Brown were being shunned from the mainstream long before social media. If people like Richards and Dapper are less successful now that speaks more to the consequences of their poor material choices than it does some kind of enforced PC blitzkrieg. Social media isn't a new concept, it's just a tool that lets a very old concept reach a wider audience.
I definitely have sympathy with ordinary people who're hounded for flippant remarks. But much less so for public performers who are very aware, and always have been, that their popularity depends on the quality of their material.
Commedians are either popular or not popular depending on how well recieved their material is. No one is being forced to stop liking them, following them or supporting them. People like Jim Davidson and Chubby Brown were being shunned from the mainstream long before social media. If people like Richards and Dapper are less successful now that speaks more to the consequences of their poor material choices than it does some kind of enforced PC blitzkrieg. Social media isn't a new concept, it's just a tool that lets a very old concept reach a wider audience.
I definitely have sympathy with ordinary people who're hounded for flippant remarks. But much less so for public performers who are very aware, and always have been, that their popularity depends on the quality of their material.
Last edited:
I think you're (deliberately?) ignoring the capacity social media has to escalate and exaggerrate something which might previously have been quickly forgotten about. Dapper Laughs is synonymous with rape jokes because of a youtube clip from one of his gigs where he dealt with a heckler with a particularly ill-advised response. Next thing that clip goes viral and hating on him is a twitter cause celebre and you have petitions being written and gigs being cancelled up and down the country.
This is definitely a new phenomenon and not just people deciding they don't like his material. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the vast majority of those crusading to shut him down have never even watched any of his material apart from that one, 30 second clip! These pitchfork-wielding online mobs whip themselves up into a frenzy based on second and third-hand opinions about the person they're trying to crucify, rather than watching their work and forming their own opinion. Plus, there's a huge difference between deciding a specific comedian isn't for you and actively campaigning to prevent other people from watching him.
See edit.
I think edit obsessives like you and me need to have a tacit agreement to give a good 5-10 minutes between responses, to allow for all the frenzied editing after the initial post.
I think edit obsessives like you and me need to have a tacit agreement to give a good 5-10 minutes between responses, to allow for all the frenzied editing after the initial post.
I don't think the edit changes much tbf. Everything you said is "new" is precisely what Whitehouse, Muggeridge et all were doing in different eras. The Life of Brian was banned by 39 local authorities in this country, only a few decades ago. That's a little harsher than an internet commedian getting a student gig at Scala cancelled 'cos of a rape joke.
I honestly find it difficult to have sympathy for those who, allegedly, have 'had their lives ruined'. For me, this current trend of sticking up for the perpetrators and placing the blame elsewhere is of a piece with the often shameless expediency of defence lawyers, and political buck-passing. We see this kind of shit so regularly in major trials (e.g. "Oscar Pistorius is the real victim here") and now it's seeped into the non-legal world.
I would argue it's far easier and quicker for a single intemperate comment to blow up into a massive shit-storm than it ever was before. Whitehouse, Muggeridge et al had to take issue with a documented body of work, rather than seizing on a moment's foolishness.
Anyway, that's not the crux of my point. Which is getting back to that Vice article, implying comedians had it much harder back in the day. They had it different but not necessarily harder.
I think we probably got to a fairly good balance in the not too distant past, where political correctness had eliminate most of the crass, nasty stuff that needed to be eliminated. People had to watch what they say but not to ludicrous extremes. I think it's gone/going too far now. With university lecturers being told they can't discuss Greek tragedies because they might include trigger warnings and people losing their jobs over a single, lame joke they crack on Twitter. That shit is bananas and pointing out that comedians used to get fined for foul and offensive language doesn't make it any less nuts, or worthy of flagging (which is what Jerry Seinfeld did).
I tihknk members of the public taken to task for innocuous foolishness (which I agree is bad) and public figures who's profile is built specifically on saying things in the public forum for public approval, being disavowed by the public for unpopular material, are two very seperate things. Dapper Laughs still has an audience. Just as Jim Davidson does. You can book tickets to see him next month if you like (or indeed, Jimbo).. He's just got less of a populist audience because more people are aware of his schtick.
I don't buy that social media is killing careers. What I do find interesting about the PC debate, is that the left now seem to be the arbiters of censorship, where traditionally it was the right.
I don't buy that social media is killing careers. What I do find interesting about the PC debate, is that the left now seem to be the arbiters of censorship, where traditionally it was the right.
Last edited:
Plus the current population is 10 times that in 1720. So the headline should be "The proportion of people being prosecuted for what they think/say has risen to 10% of that in the early 1700's".
I'm never going to work for News Corp am I?
Anyone who calls themselves Dapper Laughs deserves to be ridiculed and ostracised.
I may write to Mary Whitehouse about it.
I may write to Mary Whitehouse about it.
Ok, so Dapper Laughs might be a bad example because it's very hard to feel any sympathy for such a blatant tool. And yes, his career hasn't been finished by all the drama but he sure did hit a hell of a speed bump.
If you accept that the power of social media now means members of the public can be fecked over by innocuous foolishness then surely you accept the possibility that this could happen to a comedian as well? After all, they find a lot of their laughs by mining that fine line between humour and offensiveness. So isn't it possible that a joke or two which offends the finely tuned sensibilities of the twitterati could harm their career?
I don't know enough about comedy (or spend enough time on twitter) to come up with any examples but Jerry Seinfeld obviously thinks it's an issue and he knows a thing or two about the genre, so there's a good chance his concerns are valid.
Great observation about the way that people who take offence for a living seem to have swung from one end of the political spectrum to the other. I hadn't thought of that before. It's very strange.
They only incidences that come to mind recently are
.An online petition to stop Bill Maher from giving a talk about Free Speech at a US collage(The petition could be signed by anyone including people who have never being at the collage)
.When Trevor Noah got The Daily Show gig(as host)people instantly when back through everything he posted on twitter to find something to get angry about.
. Daniel Tosh coming under fire after making rape jokes
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tosh#Rape_Joke_Controversy)
.And the Dapper Laughs stuff already mentioned
Still in the end nothing happen(Maher got to do the talk, Tosh is still a huge star and Noah is still going to be the host).
.When Trevor Noah got The Daily Show gig(as host)people instantly when back through everything he posted on twitter to find something to get angry about.
. Daniel Tosh coming under fire after making rape jokes
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tosh#Rape_Joke_Controversy)
.And the Dapper Laughs stuff already mentioned
Still in the end nothing happen(Maher got to do the talk, Tosh is still a huge star and Noah is still going to be the host).
I image what Seinfeld is talking about is censor notes he get's before appearing on tv stuff(Although censor notes have always been a bit weird)or abuse he get's on the twitter but that's just me guessing.
From listen to a lot of smaller comedians interviewed(Mainly on the great podcast comedianscomedian.com)the biggest hurdle is still racism and sexism(Gina Yashere has said some pretty shocking things and Frankie Boyle has said a few times that producers will stop him getting female comedians on shows).
The only slightly problem I have with the Vice article that Mockney posted was that it missed out the part of Lenny Bruce being a pretty much smack head(You can listen to set's where he's completely off his tits)and was arrested twice for possession, which would have played a part of him getting banned from clubs. Although he did get arrested more times for obscenity and as the article points out it happen to other comedians also.
But in overall I agree with the article that for a Comedians today it is easier then ever before and most of the time when it a comedian complains about the ''PC Police''(That's really such a fecking awful name) it's normally them just having a good old moan because one of their jokes bombed.
Actually, Frankie Boyle. Didn't he get blocked from all those Tv panel shows for making a joke about the queen's vagina?
I don't think so. I remember the joke being read out on Newsnight which has to be one of the oddest moments ever on telly.
But after the joke Boyle's still does work with the BBC and has hosted panel shows as well(I think it was 2/3 episodes of Never mind the Buzzcocks)
And that wasn't political correctness. It was good old fashioned Whitehouse prudism.
His jokes about Harvey Price were unPC
His jokes about Harvey Price were unPC
Yep the Queen stuff seemed more about in house worrying from the BBC than anything to do with political correctness.
Boyle like Jeremy Clarkson is someone who benefited from the whole PC gone mad thing. I think most of the time Boyle and Clarkson uses it as a excuse just to say the most horrible thing they can think of. Kind of a shame really as I think Boyle and Clarkson actually have some talent.
Part of the thing that annoyed me about the Clarkson furore was how many people were bending over backwards to claim people like him were being forced out of TV by the PC brigade...despite him being the highest paid star on the channel, who'd gotten away with countless unPC shit for years & was only fired cos he punched his boss! Absolutely all evidence pointed the contrary. He was actively living off that rep. If anything TV producers are desperate to find another one!
Last edited:
Has continuous and lingering reference of 'Dapper laughs' gone mad??!?
Yes. Yes it has.
Yes. Yes it has.
Thanks for the contribution. Insightful stuff.
Agree with the comments about Boyle and Clarkson. There's money to be made by being deliberately politically incorrect.
I also agree that it's hard to work out if there's much real difference between the twitter shit-storms of the last few years and Mary Whitehouse blowing off steam or "Indignant from Turnbridge Wells" writing in to Points of View twenty years ago. I just can't let go of the possibility that the self-righteous online mobs can feck over comics as well as the girl/boy next door just because they've said something a bit crass/silly.
Although that's further confused by the fact that so much more stuff goes on public record these days, which might be the real issue rather than people being forced to be more politically correct than they were in the past. It's so much easier for everyone to be offended now because they can seek out and watch the incident in question, which was rarely an option when Mary Whitehouse was the self-appointed arbiter of public morality.
Agree with the comments about Boyle and Clarkson. There's money to be made by being deliberately politically incorrect.
I also agree that it's hard to work out if there's much real difference between the twitter shit-storms of the last few years and Mary Whitehouse blowing off steam or "Indignant from Turnbridge Wells" writing in to Points of View twenty years ago. I just can't let go of the possibility that the self-righteous online mobs can feck over comics as well as the girl/boy next door just because they've said something a bit crass/silly.
Although that's further confused by the fact that so much more stuff goes on public record these days, which might be the real issue rather than people being forced to be more politically correct than they were in the past. It's so much easier for everyone to be offended now because they can seek out and watch the incident in question, which was rarely an option when Mary Whitehouse was the self-appointed arbiter of public morality.
Yeah, Boyle’s still done a fair few things with the BBC. Had a comedy/analysis show about the election which took place a short while after it.
While we're on the subject, can anyone tell me why Boyle got so much flak for saying Rebecca Adlington looks like someone reflection on the back of a spoon () yet comparing Rooney to shrek is absolutely fine?
) yet comparing Rooney to shrek is absolutely fine?Societal double standards.While we're on the subject, can anyone tell me why Boyle got so much flak for saying Rebecca Adlington looks like someone reflection on the back of a spoon (
http://www.dailyedge.ie/three-irela...logy-2217968-Jul2015/?utm_source=twitter_self
I know we shouldn't feel sorry for a mobile phone provider but... really?
I know we shouldn't feel sorry for a mobile phone provider but... really?
Wow. The first thing I thought of was The Crying Game.
I think that's what they meant you to think.
The guy in the Crying Game had no right to be appalled or even surprised. He should have just dropped to his knees and blown her, it was the only politically correct course of action.
I don't get it. Why is that transphobic? Clearly these people haven't seen The Crying Game.