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

41–50 of 101 posts

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

#41

Post by CrazedGeek »

hansvm wrote: post #36
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.

> wildly hateful To be clear, the bit where they mention biology exists, or the bit where they say they won't conform to other people's preferred language?

Both and neither? The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. The biology bit is just an excuse, made worse by it being wrong: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...

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

#42

Post by incomingpain »

jollybean wrote: post #26
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…

For whatever reason, most of those who challenge the orthodoxy on this go downhill, I mean Jordan Peterson used to be a 'quixotic person with an opinion', but this popularity made him a hero to 'one side' and so he's gone down a really odd path. There is no meaningful debate on the issue because nobody (or rather very few) is willing to dump their career to challenge the orthodoxy. Therefore only voices challenging t…

>For whatever reason, most of those who challenge the orthodoxy on this go downhill, I mean Jordan Peterson used to be a 'quixotic person with an opinion', but this popularity made him a hero to 'one side' and so he's gone down a really odd path.

Ya I guess his wife was dying and he had mental breakdown because that plus all the fame etc.

I think there's an interesting breakdown though. There will never be a homogeneous politeness in a society. There will always be the Goody Two-Shoes who will never ever do anything bad. Those people actively work toward being superior. I would say they are superior.

However, it means anyone in the way of their virtuousness is an enemy. It's about taking them down, look how much better I am than thee.

>There is no meaningful debate on the issue because nobody (or rather very few) is willing to dump their career to challenge the orthodoxy. Therefore only voices challenging the system are far-right wingnuts like Matt Gaetz, the Trump sons etc.

What is there to be as a POLITician. It's about being polite. Impolite people will always exist, and I am sure you consider those names as impolite people.

>I order for the issue to be taken serious, people need to be a few notches above 'Joe Rogan' and there just not that many.

It's all a consequence. If the 'polite' go too far, like they have in Canada. Then the suppressed impolite grow in power.

>Also, if they are reasonable, neither Fox nor CNN/MSNBC want to carry them.

I think what you're touching on is another cycle. We kind of saw it happen during financial crisis and now again. Something we suspected but didnt measure during various other events especially the great depression. In your real life, is everyone as jolly as you? Or does everyone you know seem to be anxious, depressed, numb, unhappy, suicidal?

It also seems like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_American_Civil_War

Might be something there.

Imagine you are FOX/CNN/MSNBC. You see all this happening. Years of racial unrest, violence, destruction. Pulitizer the guy learnt the hard way and these news agencies haven't learnt yet.

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by teawrecks »

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…

> because they understand the principles of why it's wrong.

Do they? Do they really? How old are these kids? Have they reached the rebellious age where they start to question arbitrary rules their parents put in place?

When I was a teen, it wasn't hard to censor myself when I was around adults who had their own ideas of what was inappropriate. But when we knew we were out of earshot, we said whatever we wanted. We said things specifically because we knew we weren't supposed to. And I know I'm not alone, I know virtually everyone reading this had a similar experience as a teen. And I don't have any reason to believe this has changed. Maybe it's harder to feel safe with cameras and mics hidden everywhere, but human nature is to try to do what you're told you can't. That won't go away.

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

#45

Post by teawrecks »

syzar wrote: post #22
Grimburger wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what are your kids pejoratives?

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”?

Pejoratives inherently marginalize someone, and kids will always find pejoratives to use.

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

#46

Post by incomingpain »

zimpenfish wrote: post #35
incomingpain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When you have to cite trash like this, it weakens your argument considerably. Maybe cite a better source? https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/20/00/2020BCCA0011.htm You never attempted to rebut the actual content because it is legitimate. I suspect you even followed the sourcing and read for yourself. Instead you're here just to attack the source? I'm not invested in post millennial, why are you actively going after…

> You never even attempted to rebut the actual content because it is legitimate. I don't think anyone is disputing that this happened; it's more the egregious right-wing spin that you get from - what seem to be - the only sites to carry the story. The framing of "Canada are jailing impolite people" is kinda disingenuous - Canada are actually jailing people who repeatedly disobey court orders and that is perfectly val…

>I don't think anyone is disputing that this happened; it's more the egregious right-wing spin that you get from - what seem to be - the only sites to carry the story.

If something has happened and hasn't fabricated anything. Then you get to analyze the situation aka the spin. You report on it. There are spins for exactly the same story. Some far left news might right on the justice being served for this impolite guy going to prison. Whatever, doesn't matter.

>The framing of "Canada are jailing impolite people" is kinda disingenuous

I don't think so. I'm not saying 50% of society has been identified as below average politeness and is now in prison.

>Canada are actually jailing people who repeatedly disobey court orders and that is perfectly valid and sane, no?

The ruling was appealed and overturned. He has(d) a charter right to express his opinions in private. You absolutely can ignore unlawful rights violating court orders.

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

#47

Post by incomingpain »

aquaduck wrote: post #40
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…

I don't think politeness is quite the right concept here. Nobody's getting jailed for saying "fuck you", for example.

>I don't think politeness is quite the right concept here. Nobody's getting jailed for saying "fuck you", for example.

I consider it impolite to misgender. Do you not?

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

#48

Post by deltasevennine »

silicon2401 wrote: post #23
deltasevennine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inc…

> 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's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to something much deeper then that. Proponents of political correctness are attempting to redefine reality. They want to change the concept of gender as "fluid" and non-binary and they are trying to change this from a scientific aka "objective" standpoint. Compelled speech is just a tool to push this agenda, and while I don't support it, the arguments behind free speech aren't interesting to me.

It's this entire idea of attempting to categorize this new interpretation of gender as the objective truth that interests me.

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

#49

Post by _fat_santa »

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.

I've read a ton about it over the years and my conclusion is that it's just not that deep of a concept.

One side says: "We need more inclusive language" where the other side says "we need free speech". Pretty much any and every conversation or article I read has boiled down to these two points.

The reason it gets discussed so much is that it's easy for both sides to point to "violations" on the other side. One side keeps ranting and raving that that the other side is being homophobic/transphobic/racist/classist/etc, the other side looks at that outrage, and responds in kind with it's own outrage going "look how wild this is". But every conversation just ends up with each side presenting examples of what they consider to be strange behavior by the other side.

The real interesting part is not what the talking points are, but who is pushing then and the distribution of those talking points. My theory is the number of people that actually care about political correctness is vanishingly small. But because their ideas are so over the top to the other side, their opponents amplify their talking point. This amplification on social media results in the issue being perceived as a much bigger issue than what it actually is.

And as a result of that amplification, people outside of that "culture war" start looking at the signals and assume the issue is much bigger than it really is and respond accordingly. Your HR manager might browse twitter every morning and gets the impression that racism in the workplace is a massive problem because "everyone on twitter is talking about it". So they institute a new diversity training policy to respond to that.

TL;DR: The political correctness crowd is very small, but through amplification on social media, their ideas are being falsely perceived as being a much bigger issue than they really are.

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

#50

Post by syzar »

teawrecks wrote: post #45
syzar wrote: 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”?

Pejoratives inherently marginalize someone, and kids will always find pejoratives to use.

But what does this have to do with the point made in OP’s comment? They gave an instance of changed attitudes based off of language usage. They weren’t saying their kids don’t marginalize anyone.
Post reply on HN