Live data from Hacker News

Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

cbc.ca

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#71
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing pejoratives involving sexual orientation still leaves quite a few left. Are you asking because you think his kids might not have a sufficiently rich vocabulary with which to insult someone? Is this a version of “think of the kids”?

They claim that being politically correct is not learned by children. > they enforce "political correctness" of speech without being told but then claims that they have learned the difference > When I was a kid "gay" was one of our go-to pejoratives for almost anything uncool. With my kid's cohort, it's not acceptable because they don't think being gay is insulting. Obviously they are different kids growing up in dif…

"Both have learned what is politically correct from society"

There's a huge distinction you're glossing over. Past generations thought that exclusionary language was just fine and that exclusionary behavior was also just fine. The Gen X and Y kids were raised being "told" that exclusionary behavior and language were not acceptable, but it was not a native part of their culture and had to be learned, accepted, adopted through effort. That's the era that coined the phrase "political correctness" mostly as a pejorative term for the efforts to change people's behavior. Adults who were set in their ways were reluctant, but kids heard it and absorbed it. The current generation are being raised to inherently believe that exclusionary language is unacceptable and are self-policing because it's the predominant ethos. It's no longer a lesson to learn, it's a cornerstone of our society to protect. Obviously this varies a lot region by region and even child by child, but it's seemingly past a tipping point.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#72
post #7

Are there any examples of discussions or arguments having to do with political correctness that are actually thought-provoking? Seems like it's always the same ideas that come up whether the people involved are for it or not.

This one has always stuck with me:

https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that there exists a moral obligation to affirm someone's identity?

Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?

I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#74
post #10
post #2

For an article with this headline, it's rather surprising that it never says why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness. Here's why, I think: because Stephen Fry is, among other things, a comedian. And comedians are highly sensitive to political correctness and its ills. They are the canaries in the coal mine of wokeness.

I think he's arguing from the most superficial level. That shaming people for things like use of language is ineffective at actually convincing them to change their minds. FWIW, I think he's actually wrong. Just by observing my kids and their school-aged peers, they are incredibly accepting of different types of people and lifestyles without a second thought. And they enforce "political correctness" of speech without…

Enforcing puritan language just makes you the new butt of jokes. You may think you're changing hearts and minds, but all of them are just humouring you like we humour kids having a temper tantrum. Independent minds, the ones that count, don't humour though, they will always just double down and use the language you hate further just to enrage you, because fuck you - really - who are you to tell me what to say and what to do? Ironically, the words you hate are now even more venomous and powerful in my hand because you fear and censor them so much.

You just reinvented a worse religion, all the uptightness and self-righteousness with none of the community or the forgiveness.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct That's objectively false. I would not be happier if everyone were politically correct, because I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. You can say whatever heinous, horrendous things you want about me and my loved ones as long as I'm able to walk away and disengage (if you pursue and target me, it changes from free speech to harassment/as…

> so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods. But as a believer in free speech, you must support peoples' freedom to engage in lies, no?

As long as they don't impede my own right to free speech? sure, go ahead, delude yourself to your heart's content.

Free speech advocates aren't the ones screaming hysterically about "dead naming" and 3rd person pronouns.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that there exists a moral obligation to affirm someone's identity?

Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?

If your boy Mike, however, had a temper tantrum every time someone called him "Michael", or exerted public pressure on corporate HR and lawmakers to make it illegal to call him "Michael", I would indeed go out of my way to call him Michael, even if I don't actually know or care about him. It gives me pleasure to enrage entitled people demanding things they have no right to expect.

In order to have my respect and niceness, you have to ask for it with respect and niceness. Otherwise you're just begging for abuse, and you have nobody to blame but yourself when it comes. I suspect I'm far from the only one who see it this way.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#77
post #53
post #2

For an article with this headline, it's rather surprising that it never says why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness. Here's why, I think: because Stephen Fry is, among other things, a comedian. And comedians are highly sensitive to political correctness and its ills. They are the canaries in the coal mine of wokeness.

It says why (because he feels it's counter-productive to achieving the goal of a more inclusive society), but I'd highly recommend just going and watching the full debate yourself. I remember it, and it was basically a warning of all the things that have happened in America. Thankfully we're always a little behind America here in Europe.

"It's counter productive" is the argument he's making. It's not why he's making the argument. A lot of people are making this grammar error. The headline isn't saying "What Stephen Fry is arguing"... it's stating "Why Stephen Fry is arguing"...

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?

I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.

Calling someone by their preferred nickname or pronouns does not require you to participate in anything. Nobody's asking you to change your own name or fast during Ramadan if you don't want to.

Using another analogy, I have vegetarian friends and acquaintances, and when they come visit, I serve us all veg-friendly food because... I'm not an asshole! Doing this small act does not require me to adopt their religion or become vegetarian myself.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#79
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's arguing from the most superficial level. That shaming people for things like use of language is ineffective at actually convincing them to change their minds. FWIW, I think he's actually wrong. Just by observing my kids and their school-aged peers, they are incredibly accepting of different types of people and lifestyles without a second thought. And they enforce "political correctness" of speech without…

Enforcing puritan language just makes you the new butt of jokes. You may think you're changing hearts and minds, but all of them are just humouring you like we humour kids having a temper tantrum. Independent minds, the ones that count, don't humour though, they will always just double down and use the language you hate further just to enrage you, because fuck you - really - who are you to tell me what to say and wha…

"Independent minds, the ones that count, don't humour though, they will always just double down and use the language you hate further just to enrage you, because fuck you"

That's incredibly immature. You're basically admitting that your position is just spite.

And no one is telling what you can and can't say. Continue speaking however you please. The younger generation are just telling you they won't like it. And no one is obligated to like what you say. It's the same sort of generational divide that's always been around. And history says the new generation almost always wins.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#80
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing puritan language just makes you the new butt of jokes. You may think you're changing hearts and minds, but all of them are just humouring you like we humour kids having a temper tantrum. Independent minds, the ones that count, don't humour though, they will always just double down and use the language you hate further just to enrage you, because fuck you - really - who are you to tell me what to say and wha…

"Independent minds, the ones that count, don't humour though, they will always just double down and use the language you hate further just to enrage you, because fuck you" That's incredibly immature. You're basically admitting that your position is just spite. And no one is telling what you can and can't say. Continue speaking however you please. The younger generation are just telling you they won't like it. And no…

One man's immaturity is another man's "having a spine to stand up for oneself". Spite is awesome, I wish people had more spite in them, without spite you're just a chicken following whatever the nest is crying about, which is the sorry state of most of humanity most of the time.

Your delusions of a monolithic 'younger generation' on the 'right side of history' inevitably triumphing are pathetic. Not how history works, not how reality is; Prime counterexample include me for a start.

Post reply on HN