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

Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

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

#81

Post by deltasevennine »

ryandrake wrote: post #78
ohCh6zos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure I agree with all of that. However the culture war you see nowadays is the result of etiquette becoming part of compelled behavior enforced by rules and law. Not just that it is redefining our interpretation of reality and science.

It's not just about respect anymore; it's about truth.

https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swim...

Because we didn't want to her feelings Mia, a biological male with a female gender was allowed to compete in women sports. She's dominating that sport now; and it's starting to display a comical mismatch between the old reality and a new reality.

The argument is more complex then simply truth and etiquette. Because proponents of etiquette are literally redefining objective truth. So when you talk to both sides, they literally think they're side is the objective truth. Truth is as fluid as gender and it's literally hard to know which one is real.

There is as much validity to say most humans are male or female as there is to say that gender is a gradient, a small minority of people are neither male or female. These are just arbitrary categorizations that are being redefined.

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

#82

Post by forgotmypw17 »

michaelwww wrote: post #19
SeanLuke wrote: 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.

Fry is also bipolar like me. When I get manic I say provocative things that I regret later on. The cultural climate is much less forgiving of that sort of thing. I think Fry would agree with me, if you think you might be bipolar seek help. Modern meds are really good and don't make you stupid like the old days.

I agree with most of your comment, but don't understand the conclusion. Doesn't medicating entail adjusting one's most natural way of being to fit society's expectations?

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

#83

Post by ghusto »

SeanLuke wrote: post #77
ghusto wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"...

The phrase "because he feels it's counter-productive to achieving the goal of a more inclusive society", holds "and he wants a more inclusive society" implicitly. He even says that _explicitly_.

Or are you suggesting his motivations are something else? More to the point, who cares for the sake of the argument? Are you trolling?

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

#84

Post by deltasevennine »

carapace wrote: post #52
CrazedGeek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of race.

To me it seems clear that GP wrote without hate. A charitable reading is that they just don't have the experience to understand transgender experience. In the context of a discussion about the motivations for and arguments against political correctness it seems to me that we should try to create a safe space for folks (like deltasevennine) to express their perspectives evidently offered in good faith. (Even, and espe…

>Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.)

Have you heard of BIID?

The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) describes the extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis. Some of these persons mutilate themselves; others ask surgeons for an amputation or for the transection of their spinal cord. Psychologists and physicians explain this phenomenon in quite different ways; but a successful psychotherapeutic or pharmaceutical therapy is not known. Lobbies of persons suffering from BIID explain the desire for amputation in analogy to the desire of transsexuals for surgical sex reassignment. Medical ethicists discuss the controversy about elective amputations of healthy limbs: on the one hand the principle of autonomy is used to deduce the right for body modifications; on the other hand the autonomy of BIID patients is doubted. Neurological results suggest that BIID is a brain disorder producing a disruption of the body image, for which parallels for stroke patients are known. If BIID were a neuropsychological disturbance, which includes missing insight into the illness and a specific lack of autonomy, then amputations would be contraindicated and must be evaluated as bodily injuries of mentally disordered patients. Instead of only curing the symptom, a causal therapy should be developed to integrate the alien limb into the body image.

Transexual sex reassignment involves the usage of chemicals and surgery that twists the flesh of their genitals to look like the opposite sex. The parallel with BIID is uncanny. Yet one is considered truth and normal, while the other is considered to be a disease.

How do I know? I don't. But I get your point. Things that seem like a Bedrock truth can change. But did it change for the better? Is the new truth... the actual truth... or not? The existence of BIID and it's almost identical parallel to transexualism confuses me.

BIID feels wrong. That's about as far as I can get. But if someone truly desires to amputate a limb... who are we to stop him? What right do we have to call what they feel a disease?

I bring up BIID because I have a strong feeling that it's wrong... That what they feel is universally agreed to NOT be the objective truth. But I cannot grasp the logic behind it. If I examine BIID long enough I feel eventually the logic behind this controversy can be crystallized.

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

#86

Post by tootie »

Banana699 wrote: post #80
tootie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I started this thread with an honest personal observation. Your responses are really inappropriate and based on flawed reasoning. You say I'm generalizing because I only observed a small cohort of kids and yet your counterexample is just yourself? And that we should resist change because it's good to be spiteful? You've basically set the goal posts as being "whatever feels right to me" which makes for a pretty pointless debate.

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

#87

Post by liketochill »

melvyn2 wrote: post #38
liketochill wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was overturned on appeal: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-appeal-c... I don’t think anyone should be allowed to undergo medical procedures or treatments to change genders until they are an adult, and I don’t think our school system should recommend kids change genders either. The advice should be wait until you are older and have had more time to think about it and life experience.

I don’t see what that has to do with what I said; your views on trans procedures don’t mean anything about op’s malformed argument.

I was curious as to how that situation was resolved and found a more credible source for you. Did you see the link to cbc website?

I suppose you didn’t ask for my opinion on trans procedures but this is a discussion forum and a topic of political correctness and sub thread on trans procedures so I didn’t think offering my thoughts on the content of the link I provided in response to your request would generate such ire!

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

#88

Post by silicon2401 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #31
silicon2401 wrote: post #23

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?

You can lie all you want as long as it doesn't impact others; that's why we have things like slander and libel. If you want to say your favorite color is blue when in fact it's red, I'd support you every day of the week. If you want to force me to say you're blond when in fact you're a redhead, then I would expect a civilized society to protect my freedom to not repeat your lie. Similarly I would expect a civilized society to protect you from me if I start saying something negative about you that actually impacts you negatively.

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

#89

Post by silicon2401 »

deltasevennine wrote: post #48
silicon2401 wrote: post #23

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…

>That's objectively false. No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here. >I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it'…

> If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument.

"If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right". Well I don't, hence you're wrong, as I said

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

#90

Post by deltasevennine »

silicon2401 wrote: post #89
deltasevennine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's objectively false. No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here. >I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it'…

> If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. "If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right". Well I don't, hence you're wrong, as I said

I said this: We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct.

Which is saying if you "met the conditions" of being politically correct.

I did not say if you were forced to act politically correct. Two different things.

So literally I did say: "If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right" and you responded by completely ignoring that and introducing your own conditions.

You misunderstood. We're on the same page here.

Post reply on HN