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

11–20 of 101 posts

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

#11

Post by slingnow »

SeanLuke wrote: post #6
nailer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not effective: from the article: > it's po-faced, sanctimonious, self-righteous occasionally ... it's not effective.

That's the argument he's making. It's not why he's making the argument.

He's making the argument against it because it's not effective in achieving the causes he cares about, and he wants people to be effective. It's all at the bottom of the article:

> I've always been on the side of these things and I've been very happy to see the end to the national conversation in saner and saner ways. But I do not believe for a second that political correctness has hastened those advances, at all.

> And my only problem with politically correctness really, apart from the fact that it's po-faced, sanctimonious, self-righteous occasionally, is that it's not effective.

> I want people to be effective.

> I want, yes, gay people and transgender people and people of all kinds of races and, you know, marginal identities as they may see themselves — I want them to feel comfortable in the world and not hated and not afraid. But I don't think political correctness is the way to achieve that.

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

#12

Post by nailer »

SeanLuke wrote: post #6
nailer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not effective: from the article: > it's po-faced, sanctimonious, self-righteous occasionally ... it's not effective.

That's the argument he's making. It's not why he's making the argument.

It answers the question of why he is arguing against political correctness, which was the question being asked here.

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

#13

Post by boxmonster »

nailer wrote: post #5
boxmonster wrote: post #3

> "I'm very, very... I won't say dreading, but I'm, hmm, somewhat tentative about this whole thing That's the problem. Shaming and shunning is an ancient technique for punishing transgressors, but social media enables it to be applied too broadly. All transgressions are put on full blast. If I were a full on Nazi I would get the same treatment as I would if expressed that I'm glad my son doesn't want to be a girl. It…

> "I'm very, very... I won't say dreading, but I'm, hmm, somewhat tentative about this whole thing. I don't think Jordan Peterson is a man with whom I necessarily share an enormous amount of, you know… I don't know, an I'm an enormous fan of both men. Both are academic types, Peterson has a love for the natural world, Fry for history. They both believe in values - Peterson focusing on self-discipline, Fry on kindness…

Early Jordan Peterson was great. My first intro to him was in 2015 or so and it was a talk he gave on depression that helped me. Recent Jordan Peterson has gone off the rails and seems more interested in attention. He's become kind of a troll like Ben Shapiro. I guess it's a way to make a living and get your jollies.

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

#14

Post by incomingpain »

This PC cycle is interesting. Bill Maher and "politically incorrect" ended 20 years ago. Paving way for real time, but omg I'm feeling old. The PC cycle must exist, it will come and go in strength. Here's what happens when the cycle breaks.

Tautological by definition, for 'politeness' to exist, you must have impoliteness. If you have a culture whose population has shifted more polite, like Canada, then democratically you end up going down this road of lawfully mandated politeness. Canada is jailing impolite people: https://thepostmillennial.com/rob-hoogland-canada-prisoner-o...

This is in essence what Jordan Peterson warned about and why he came to fame.

This wasn't the first law to jail/punish impolite people in Canada; but also why Canada has a reputation of politeness. You in return get an intentional shift in the zeitgeist of Canada. If you were given the option in front of you to actively boost the politeness of your fellow countrypeople, you probably would do it.

However, the consequence was political prisoners and the abolishment of free speech.

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

#15

Post by Grimburger »

tootie wrote: post #10
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.

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…

So what are your kids pejoratives?

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

#16

Post by netsharc »

boxmonster wrote: post #13
nailer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'm very, very... I won't say dreading, but I'm, hmm, somewhat tentative about this whole thing. I don't think Jordan Peterson is a man with whom I necessarily share an enormous amount of, you know… I don't know, an I'm an enormous fan of both men. Both are academic types, Peterson has a love for the natural world, Fry for history. They both believe in values - Peterson focusing on self-discipline, Fry on kindness…

Early Jordan Peterson was great. My first intro to him was in 2015 or so and it was a talk he gave on depression that helped me. Recent Jordan Peterson has gone off the rails and seems more interested in attention. He's become kind of a troll like Ben Shapiro. I guess it's a way to make a living and get your jollies.

I wasn't sure about him (I didn't care enough to research him) until he started spouting stuff about an area he's not an expert of: climate change. At that point I concluded he is, as you said, an attention seeking troll.

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

#17

Post by melvyn2 »

incomingpain wrote: post #14

This PC cycle is interesting. Bill Maher and "politically incorrect" ended 20 years ago. Paving way for real time, but omg I'm feeling old. The PC cycle must exist, it will come and go in strength. Here's what happens when the cycle breaks. Tautological by definition, for 'politeness' to exist, you must have impoliteness. If you have a culture whose population has shifted more polite, like Canada, then democratically…

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

When you have to cite trash like this, it weakens your argument considerably. Maybe cite a better source?

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

#18

Post by pandemicsoul »

boxmonster wrote: post #3

> "I'm very, very... I won't say dreading, but I'm, hmm, somewhat tentative about this whole thing That's the problem. Shaming and shunning is an ancient technique for punishing transgressors, but social media enables it to be applied too broadly. All transgressions are put on full blast. If I were a full on Nazi I would get the same treatment as I would if expressed that I'm glad my son doesn't want to be a girl. It…

> If I were a full on Nazi I would get the same treatment as I would if expressed that I'm glad my son doesn't want to be a girl.

If that were true, either no one would be on social media except perfectly politically correct people, or everyone would be desperately trying to be perfectly politically correct. But instead, social media is filled with racist, homophobic, sexist jerks who constantly say things that hurt other people and reinforce stereotypes. So...

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

#19

Post by michaelwww »

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.

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

#20

Post by deltasevennine »

Bakary wrote: 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.

Yes. It's rather interesting from my perspective.

There are actually three sides. Not two. Three.

The first side is those who support political correctness. This side is singular. Simple.

The other two sides are those who don't. This is where it gets interesting. One side that doesn't support it actually has hatred for marginalized groups. They aren't politically correct because of actual raw hatred. These people include racists, nazis, the KKK, etc. This group is a huge minority of the population.

The third group are those that are not racist. They are normal people who respect other races, genders, sexual orientations but do not support political correctness. The argument here is more interesting.

Why should I have to refer to a male with a penis as a "she" when objective reality and scientific truth defines this person as a biological "he"? Why do I have to redefine and complexify well established and obvious vocabulary, to make it fit someone else's perception or reality as we know it? That is the core of the argument. Which is more important? Emotional well being and social harmony Or Objective Reality/Truth?

The answer is not clear. Scientific studies show that well-being is associated with lying to oneself. People who are happier are less aware of the objective truth and people who are brutally honest with themselves tend to meet the clinical definitions of depression. The majority of people you meet lie to themselves.

Do we construct a reality that allows us to be happy or do we face the horror of objective reality? It's too late for me already. I've chosen the later and I can't go back. But the question is still interesting to me; given some aspect of the knowledge I have now and the ability to go back to the cross roads before I made that choice.... Would I be better off going down the other path? What is more important? Happiness? Or Truth?

That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves.

Post reply on HN