4 ms·

Let me preface this by saying that my favorite comedian is Doug Stanhope. So I like very politically incorrect humor. However, it's an issue of boundaries. I

Let me preface this by saying that my favorite comedian is Doug Stanhope. So I like very politically incorrect humor. However, it's an issue of boundaries. I make terribly politically incorrect jokes with my girlfriend, who shares my un-pc sense of humor. But I wouldn't be caught dead saying those things at work or around my friends who would be upset by such joking. I respect their boundaries. Being politically incorrect with people who are going to be upset by it is just a form aggression. It's not funny, it's pathetic and juvenile. For comedians it's a matter of marketing: do they want to appeal to a larger crowd and kowtow to political correctness or do they want to be authentic and cultivate a niche market? My guess is that John Cleese wants it both ways. Sorry pal, not going to happen. If you want to be politically incorrect you're going to have to go the Doug Stanhope route and be authentic and poor instead of politically correct and rich.

norea-armozel 11y ago
I feel that people to use free speech as a shield want to be able to scream at a random stranger whatever is on their mind without that stranger telling them to f* off. Maybe they don't exactly see it that way, but it seems to be the result. It's like forcing everyone to watch Steven Universe (frankly I don't see the point of that show or Adventure Time, go figure). Anyone worth their salt would see this as a violation of their liberties. Yet, when we look at universities or similar institutions like Twitter some people decide that they must be unfettered platforms for all speech even if it's clearly criminal. I don't see how people make a special case in this situation. Maybe I'm dense, but I just see an institution as a person at least in the legal sense and having all the authority to protect their reputation.

norea-armozel 11y ago

I feel that people to use free speech as a shield want to be able to scream at a random stranger whatever is on their mind without that stranger telling them to f* off. Maybe they don't exactly see it that way, but it seems to be the result. It's like forcing everyone to watch Steven Universe (frankly I don't see the point of that show or Adventure Time, go figure). Anyone worth their salt would see this as a violation of their liberties. Yet, when we look at universities or similar institutions like Twitter some people decide that they must be unfettered platforms for all speech even if it's clearly criminal. I don't see how people make a special case in this situation. Maybe I'm dense, but I just see an institution as a person at least in the legal sense and having all the authority to protect their reputation.