Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#81

Post by ardy42 »

msla wrote: post #60
scubbo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? What does this mean?

It's a long joke about word etymology relating to how many times the Green and Pleasant Land has been conquered: "Britain" relates to "Briton" which used to mean a Celtic native of the British isles. That is, the people who were there when the Romans showed up. "English" comes from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who colonized Britain when the Romans left. Etymologically, being English and British means you'r…

>>> I'd make mention of the fact they likely think the English can be British, but they also probably imagine that a good Englishman can eat pork and beef!

> "Pork" and "beef" come from Norman French, "Norman" from the fact they were originally Vikings and French from the fact they settled in Normandy before expanding their holdings in 1066. Again, proof that modern Great Britain is a land of immigrants, strivers, and hopefuls from across the water, going back to time immemorial.

That's not how I initially interpreted that at all. I had figured "can eat pork and beef" was most likely referring to Hindu and Jewish/Muslim dietary prohibitions.

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#82

Post by zozbot234 »

the-dude wrote: post #30
gameswithgo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cultural identity is never lost, but cultural identity is always changing.

Sure, I will have a shot at describing some change. I am a blond male who has a bit of a feminine hairstyle, which imho matches my body type. In the last month I have been called cancer whore ( Dutch: kankerhoer ) twice, this is new for me. However, young females have been called cancer whore for years now, and it is the political correctness which supresses discussion about this. Because that would be racist.

The Dutch have a way of using disease names as a source of profanity. Cancer, cholera, TBC, smallpox, all of these can be swear words. Corona will probably make the list soon enough. (Compare the Quebeckers with their chalice and tabarnak.)

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#84

Post by shadowgovt »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #74
jacknews wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little bit QED. If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational, and well on our way back to less open and enlightened culture.

This is totally QED, including the fact that this is the topmost comment now, and the article has been flagged.

Unfortunately, I'm not savvy enough on the lingo to know what "This is totally QED" means beyond Q.E.D. referring to "Quod erat demonstrandum."

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#85

Post by ryathal »

ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #83

Political correctness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For all the right likes to bitch about cancel culture, they are always the ones who go: "you just lost a fan/customer!"

There is a significant difference between a person deciding to not buy a product or listen to a show than an outrage mob trying to get amazon to not sell a product at all or a network to cancel a show.

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#86

Post by rjkennedy98 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #62
blub wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have the big thoughts led him? Maybe you could post that directly instead of some vague innuendo and save us all some wasted time.

It goes to his definition of "political correctness." It seems that what he feels needs to be culturally protected is his right to make unfunny, inaccurate claims about the nature of London without criticism. While (to my knowledge) nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims, the notion that he's heading towards an "Orwellian nightmare" because people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfun…

> inaccurate claims

What is inaccurate about the claims. The English are an ethnic minority in London. That is a fact. You can say oh Englishness isn't the same as the Ethnic English, but to do that you are stripping English people of their ethnic identity and their culture.

> nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims

Yes, please do believe that. Lots of them. It may shock you but in much of the world there isn't free speech. Imagine that. Do you think in China you can go around criticizing the government?

> people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfunny claims and will call him to task for such nonsense is a bit silly

No, they are claiming the speech itself is unsafe and trying to cancel people. There is a huge difference which you don't seem to get. And it's not silly. It's primarily about intimidation and fear that if you say the wrong thing you will lose your job, get cancelled, ect. Tolerance to intolerance is not tolerance.

I sometimes wonder, do people who think like you actually know how many people died in the so called "cultural revolutions" around the world (such as in China and Russia) which happened during just the last century. It's in the tens of millions. Intellectuals and dissidents rounded up to be killed or put in gulags. People forced to pledge loyalty to causes and leaders and to be re-educated.

The cultural revolution leaders in our country have already started to get rid of any kind of meritocracy (racist tests they claim). UC schools functionally banned the tests just recently. My brother was telling me that UCSF med school removed standardized testing from its admissions and in one year the Asian population went from 60% to 20%. Across academia now your ability to get in will be based on your ability to show how you contribute to the goal of diversity (via skin pigmentation of course).

But I guess to some it's all silly.

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#87

Post by mistermann »

ralmidani wrote: post #75
mistermann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have correctly pointed out a few scenarios where Cleese's "control their own emotions" argument would not be valid. Are you also able to think of any scenarios where his point would be valid, or do you believe that in all instances of human behavior on the planet across time, emotional reactions are accurate, and the subsequent actions taken justified? "I do not" implies you do not, but I feel I may be misinterpr…

[flagged]

> My understanding is Cleese was making a blanket argument against what he perceives as "Political Correctness". I reject that blanket argument.

Is it possible that he wasn't making a blanket argument?

Did you make a blanket argument?

> I also think it's not ad hominem to point out that Cleese is a borderline, if not outright, racist.

Is that so?

a) What definition are you using for the words "is" and "racist"?

b) How do you know your understanding is accurate (consistent with his actual beliefs)?

> but understanding Cleese's intent is part of the process of evaluating his argument

Agreed. How is it that you (seem to) know Cleese's intent? By what mechanism?

> in the last paragraph, I said "especially when those emotions are justified"; perhaps just "when those emotions are justified"

> However, as long as the speaker makes it clear they are not condemning Chinese people but rather Communism as practiced in China (or, tangentially, Communism as practiced/preached anywhere), I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate.

That's the thing though, isn't it? Whether or not behavior of both parties is "justified".

In the 2nd statement ("as long as the speaker makes it clear...I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate.")

So, if the person doesn't make it clear, for whatever reason, is it therefore accurate/rational/justified to assume the worst interpretation? If so, is the right to assume the worst extended only to certain individuals, while others must keep opinions to themselves, otherwise they will be branded a racist (the accuracy of that charge being irrelevant, if I'm not misunderstanding)? And what specific attribute(s) of a person might we examine in order to determine who has this right and who does not?

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#88

Post by scubbo »

msla wrote: post #60
scubbo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? What does this mean?

It's a long joke about word etymology relating to how many times the Green and Pleasant Land has been conquered: "Britain" relates to "Briton" which used to mean a Celtic native of the British isles. That is, the people who were there when the Romans showed up. "English" comes from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who colonized Britain when the Romans left. Etymologically, being English and British means you'r…

Wow - an in-depth and interesting joke. I'm glad that I asked - I, like your other replier, thought that "Pork and beef" were a reference to religious dietary restrictions, and had assumed that you were making some obliquely-racist claim that England was now controlled by "those people". I apologise for having misjudged you - thank you for the explanation!

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#89

Post by ceejayoz »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #86
shadowgovt wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes to his definition of "political correctness." It seems that what he feels needs to be culturally protected is his right to make unfunny, inaccurate claims about the nature of London without criticism. While (to my knowledge) nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims, the notion that he's heading towards an "Orwellian nightmare" because people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfun…

> inaccurate claims What is inaccurate about the claims. The English are an ethnic minority in London. That is a fact. You can say oh Englishness isn't the same as the Ethnic English, but to do that you are stripping English people of their ethnic identity and their culture. > nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims Yes, please do believe that. Lots of them. It may shock you but in much of the wor…

> The English are an ethnic minority in London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

63% of London was born in the UK. You mean white English, I presume? Even there, they're a plurality.

Re: John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)

#90

Post by rjkennedy98 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #89
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inaccurate claims What is inaccurate about the claims. The English are an ethnic minority in London. That is a fact. You can say oh Englishness isn't the same as the Ethnic English, but to do that you are stripping English people of their ethnic identity and their culture. > nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims Yes, please do believe that. Lots of them. It may shock you but in much of the wor…

> The English are an ethnic minority in London. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London 63% of London was born in the UK. You mean white English, I presume? Even there, they're a plurality.

Ethnically English. Can you read?
Post reply on HN