4 ms·

I'm down with Stewart Lee's take on political correctness https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM (warning, contains British Humour) I thin

by geden 7y ago

I'm down with Stewart Lee's take on political correctness https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM (warning, contains British Humour) I think the error in your argument here is to always reduce the application of political correctness down to flawed individuals. If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society, (and there is) then enforcing that makes sense. We've evolved past bear baiting and public flogging (in most parts of the world), we can evolve past racism, sexism and other limiting behaviours.

slowmovintarget 7y ago
There is not a consensus on prevention of speech, hateful or otherwise. There is the attempt to claim a consensus, but only so as to move on to creation of enforcing bodies. I think we should enforce laws against behavior, not speech or thought. Political Correctness attempts to police speech and thought. This is dangerous, especially when armored with the force of government. You get tribunals in Canada charging people with hate crimes for writing books. Government is people with power. It always, always comes down to flawed individuals. It is flawed individuals applying it to flawed individuals. Should there be outcries against racism and sexism? Yes. Should there be laws that say if you act based on bias (denying jobs, housing... etc.) that you face consequences of punishment under the law? Yes. Should there be someone allowed to decide that your facial expression requires that you be subjected to 2 hours (or 2 weeks) of "education"? No. We can come to an agreement on what we as a society consider to be "nice" and "polite". That's part of how societies work. We must never enforce being "nice" (to Stewart Lee's take) because it is an ever-changing, subjective thing. How will we come to value the next societal advancement if we aren't allowed to hold and discuss opinions that differ? This freedom is too important to a civilization dedicated to freedom to allow it to be sacrificed on the altar of propriety, anyone's propriety.
jeegsy 7y ago
> If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society I would be interested to know (1) How you have determined such a consensus exists and (2) How you have determined that preventing hate speech is in fact generally good for society.

by geden 7y ago

slowmovintarget 7y ago

There is not a consensus on prevention of speech, hateful or otherwise. There is the attempt to claim a consensus, but only so as to move on to creation of enforcing bodies. I think we should enforce laws against behavior, not speech or thought. Political Correctness attempts to police speech and thought. This is dangerous, especially when armored with the force of government. You get tribunals in Canada charging people with hate crimes for writing books. Government is people with power. It always, always comes down to flawed individuals. It is flawed individuals applying it to flawed individuals. Should there be outcries against racism and sexism? Yes. Should there be laws that say if you act based on bias (denying jobs, housing... etc.) that you face consequences of punishment under the law? Yes. Should there be someone allowed to decide that your facial expression requires that you be subjected to 2 hours (or 2 weeks) of "education"? No. We can come to an agreement on what we as a society consider to be "nice" and "polite". That's part of how societies work. We must never enforce being "nice" (to Stewart Lee's take) because it is an ever-changing, subjective thing. How will we come to value the next societal advancement if we aren't allowed to hold and discuss opinions that differ? This freedom is too important to a civilization dedicated to freedom to allow it to be sacrificed on the altar of propriety, anyone's propriety.

jeegsy 7y ago

> If there is consensus at a societal level that certain hateful speech should be prevented for the general good of society I would be interested to know (1) How you have determined such a consensus exists and (2) How you have determined that preventing hate speech is in fact generally good for society.