9 ms·
John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016)
- ceejayoz 6y agoMost folks are in favor of some form of "political correctness", in the form of polite manners. The threshold should be different in comedy versus, say, the boardroom. It's not surprising Cleese, as a comedian, is focused on that aspect of things, but you can get equally Orwellian with fervent opposition to vaguely defined "PC" stuff too. People who lose their shit over "Happy Holidays", as an example.
- youeseh 6y agoUnfortunately, many people are so easily offended that they're willing to vote in favor of laws that ban impolite expression across the board.
- trey-jones 6y agoManners and tolerance are key. There are very few issues that cause me to "lose my shit", but as an observer, it seems to me that "Happy Holidays" is a response to people losing their shit over being wished Happiness in regards to a Holiday that they choose not to participate in. I mostly try to stay out of the discussion because I think it's pretty much all ridiculous and a giant waste of time. Don't we he have more important things to be getting on with? If somebody wished me Happy Hannukah, I would say "Thank You", even though I'm not Jewish. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over something like that. Since I mostly fall into the WASP category (non-practicing I guess), perhaps I'm not qualified to talk about it since I've never actually been in the shoes of the minority, but I do have what I believe is evidence that I can bear careless words without "losing my shit": My oldest daughter was born with Spina Bifida. Her legs are different, and not very strong. She can walk, but normally she uses crutches or a wheelchair. She is prone to falling without the crutches, and also with them. She's a great kid. It might happen sometimes that a person who has never been in our particular situation will compare her to "normal" kids. While I notice these things, I generally just let it slide. I know the intent is not malicious. Even if someone says something like "Has she always been crippled?" (Yes it happens), I might politely mention that we don't really think of it that way, but I will certainly maintain composure, and I don't think I would lose a friend over it. Again, the person who says this most likely doesn't hate me, or despise her - they just don't relate to the particular issues that we are dealing with, and I can recognize this and accept it. As you say, politeness and manners seem like a reasonable solution to most social problems from my perspective, but I guess a lot of folks disagree.
- shadowgovt 6y agoPerhaps worth noting: This is the same John Cleese that has decried London becoming a multicultural city that is "no longer English." https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/john-cleese-is-cancelled-after-he-claims-london-is-no-longer-english/29/05/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/john-cleese-is-cancel...
- the-dude 6y agoWhy do you feel this is relevant in the context of PC?
- shadowgovt 6y agoI believe it sheds light on Cleese's definition of both political correctness and intolerance of un-PC attitudes.
- collyw 6y agoWhen the natives make up less than 50% of the population, he might have a point. What does it mean to be English? Nothing more than holding a passport?
- ceejayoz 6y agoThe English complaining about natives losing power would be a bit rich, wouldn't it?
- BitwiseFool 6y ago"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour."
- totally_a_human 6y ago"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour." Watching the current state of the western world, apparently only very few people have the ability to reflect on themself enough to realize this. Hopefully this is only a loud minorty. I maybe the wrong person to judge, but imho, we need to resolutely oppose the PC- and cancel culture.
- scubbo 6y ago(disclaimer - I haven't watched the video, because a. it's a video, come on, and b. John Cleese's attitudes are already well-known to me from many other sources, interviews, etc.) > If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour. Yes, this statement is exactly true - but not in the way that John, and you, seem to think. One interpretation - yours, if I may be forgiven for assuming - is "PC-culture only exists because people do not have a thick-enough skin to simply regulate their own emotional well-being. If they would only toughen up, then there would be no need for all this nonsense - we could finally express ourselves freely once again". The alternative interpretation - and one that I really hope you can find your way to understanding - is "some people are subjected to so much pain, aggression, discrimination, and hatred - or, some other people witness so much of that pain in others - that, no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot suppress their responses to it - nor should they. Rather, they speak up about the injustices they see, and try to change them." The classic anti-PC attitude of "toughen up and stop complaining" is so monumentally selfish and short-sighted that it feels like parody. If someone is stepping on your foot, the appropriate response is not to "control your response" - it's to ask them to stop stepping on your foot. If their response is "I'm not" - then you either need to educate them that they are, in fact, doing so (and you would know better than them), or take the initiative to physically prevent them from continuing to do so.
- shadowgovt 6y agoPrecsisely. What has changed about the Internet in the past several decades is a huge chunk of humanity is on it, and what has changed about humanity in the past several decades is the Internet exposes them---bidirectionally and with fewer authority-figures as filters---to portions of the world they could not previously easily see. The pressures to living in that new ecosystem are enormous.
- hprotagonist 6y agoFrom one perspective, the rise of Politically Correct English evinces a kind of Lenin-to-Stalinesque irony. That is, the same ideological principles that informed the original Descriptivist revolution---namely, the rejections of traditional authority (born of Vietnam) and of traditional inequality (born of the civil rights movement)---have now actually produced a far more inflexible Prescriptivism, one largely unencumbered by tradition or complexity and backed by the threat of real-world sanctions (termination, litigation) for those who fail to conform. This is funny in a dark way, maybe, and it's true that most criticisms of PCE seem to consist in making fun of its trendiness or vapidity. This reviewer's own opinion is that prescriptive PCE is not just silly but ideologically confused and harmful to its own cause. ... Forget Stalinization or Logic 101-level equivocations, though. There's a grosser irony about Politically Correct English. This is that PCE purports to be the dialect of progressive reform but is in fact---in its Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself---of vastly more help to conservatives and the US status quo than traditional SNOOT prescriptions ever were. Were I, for instance,a political conservative who opposed using taxation as a means of redistributing national wealth, I would be delighted to watch PC progressives spend their time and energy arguing over whether a poor person should be described as "low-income" or "economically disadvantaged" or "pre-prosperous" rather than constructing effective public arguments for redistributive legislation or higher marginal tax rates. (Not to mention that strict codes of egalitarian euphemism serve to burke the sorts of painful,unpretty, and sometimes offensive discourse that in a pluralistic democracy lead to actual political change rather than symbolic political change. In other words, PCE acts as a form of censorship, and censorship always serves the status quo.) "Authority and American Usage", 1999
- satokema_work 6y agoThis is an amazing DFW essay and probably one of the only places that notes American Black English as an actual entity and a tricky issue to deal with, especially as an educator.
- hprotagonist 6y agoIt is exceptionally well written. Cultivating a Democratic Spirit is very hard to do, and harder still 20 years on since he wrote it.
- ur-whale 6y agoHe said "can lead to" in 2016. I think he would say "has landed us in" today.
- shadowgovt 6y agoIt's hard for me to take seriously claims that we're in an Orwellian world when there is so much open controversy on so many topics. If anything, I think we're in a Huxleyan dystopia, not an Orwellian one; so much distraction, there's no way for an average person to gain enough footing to expend energy with practical utility.
- phasnox 6y ago"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior." Prophetic
- pmoriarty 6y agoPeople need to realize that there's as much political correctness on the right as there is on the left.
- seneca 6y agoVery true, and it has been around significantly longer as well. It's rooting in puritanism, and is pretty strict about moral decency. I suppose you could say the Left version is as well, but with a different idea of what moral means. The difference, and the reason I think people are in a panic about the more recent left version, is the difference in enforcement. It feels like we're starting watching the Left take their turn at McCarthyism, but largely using technology instead of government.
- diffrinse 6y agoNot only political correctness, but the fascination with erecting cultural walls.
- lmayliffe 6y agoMoney gives you brain worms.
- qqj 6y agoAssuming the majority of hn is US-based, you folks have to understand that PC culture is often seen as a joke at best and an extension of typical American hypocrisy at worst (i.e. the usual double-speak and fake politeness that covers actual opinions and motivations). Sure, the PC/SJW wave is gaining momentum outside of the US as well, as the cultural influence is significant but it still remains an odd thing for most. Having to work with Americans used to be a chore because of how indirect they can be (not to mention the widespread tendency for workaholism) but now it’s becoming insufferable. Taking this “philosophy” to its logical conclusion, I cannot see how anyone can rationally deny we’re destined to a nightmare where you need to learn how to speak and act “the right way”, just like what happens in China. At least over there they have no pretenses about what they’re doing, and are not hiding behind supposedly noble ideas of equality and tolerance. Make no mistake, American society is to a large extent Machiavellian in nature, especially the urbanite population and even more so the technocratic elite. Political Correctness is merely a tool of oppression and cynical exploitation at this point (just look at the Gillette ads if you still are unconvinced).
- ceejayoz 6y ago> just look at the Gillette ads Decrying political correctness and then complaining Gilette ran an ad with a message you didn't like, to the point of calling it oppression, is just... amazing. Is this satire?
- pjc50 6y agoThis is just how the dishonesty of discourse works at this point. People aren't really prepared to defend to the death the right of Gillette to run adverts they don't like. When I say I don't like something, it's free speech; when you say you don't like something it's cancel culture.
- qqj 6y agoIt is an amusing example of cynical exploitation on behalf of advertising agencies, leveraging the expected controversy on social media fueled by PC culture.
- 6y ago
- carapace 6y agoI love John Cleese but he's gotten a bit "Old man yells at cloud" in his dotage IMO. (Odd trivia: John Cleese is into Gurdjieff, or was.) Look, I'm a left-leaning SJW type, but I'll stand by the idea that when "PC" goes beyond common courtesy and starts becoming an OOC mob-power thing, that's bad. There's a point to be made about historical context: women weren't allowed to wear pants until about twenty minutes ago; Black folks in America have had a bit of a rough time, and many still do; everybody everywhere reverts to savage form when pushed outside their comfort zone. Things are a bit rough here. Let's all keep calm and be nice to each other, we're all in this together. In re: PC in comedy, specifically, I have what I call the "Lenny Bruce test". When you feel the urge to tell an off-color joke to a mixed audience stop and ask yourself first, "Am I Lenny Bruce?" Check carefully and be sure. If you're Lenny Bruce, go ahead with the joke, it will probably land, and if it doesn't, who cares? You're Lenny Bruce. However, if you check and find that you're not Lenny Bruce, carefully put the joke down and back away. It's probably not worth it. (In case it's not clear, that was [an attempt at] a joke. Comedians should say wtf they want. Only the worst sort of person kicks a Fool.)
- seiferteric 6y agoMaybe I am wrong but since he is a comedian I get the impression that his issue is with the taboo nature of criticizing other cultures when criticizing western cultures has been allowed and applauded for his whole career. Think about all the self criticism of western culture that has happened in the past century from colonialism, religion, Woman's rights etc. and for the most part we are better for it. If you are to look at other cultures with the same lens, there is a lot to criticize, but if you do so you are accused of racism and xenophobia. Of course good comedy should be critical and should not be bound by taboos and must be more than "isn't it funny/weird how these people are different". Nevertheless I do feel it is very difficult to criticize outside ones own culture these days without unfair accusations even though these other cultures are now a part of your own country.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ralmidani 6y agoI can understand how some people see complete validity in Cleese's argument that those hurt by someone's words/behavior should "control their own emotions" rather than demand that the offending party be more considerate of their emotions, but I do not. Black people should not have to "control their own emotions" when a non-Black person uses the N-word to get a cheap laugh, like, etc. at their expense. Muslims should not have to "control their own emotions" when bullies taunt someone with the name Osama. Women should not have to "control their own emotions" when they see evenly qualified, hard-working, and valuable (and often less qualified, hard-working, and valuable) male colleagues getting most of the kudos, visibility, raises, and promotions within their organizations and industries. (Disclosure: I am a non-Black Muslim male who does not have the name Osama) Emotions are things you feel deep down, and when those emotions are justified, they matter more to me than an inconsiderate asshole's ability to open their trap with no filter, or behave badly with no fear of consequences. I'm not saying offensive words/behavior should land people in jail, but I have no problem with corporations, journalists, social media, and private individuals imposing their own consequences.
- mistermann 6y agoYou have correctly pointed out a few scenarios where Cleese's "control their own emotions" argument would not be valid. Are you also able to think of any scenarios where his point would be valid, or do you believe that in all instances of human behavior on the planet across time, emotional reactions are accurate, and the subsequent actions taken justified? "I do not" implies you do not, but I feel I may be misinterpreting that phrase.
- ralmidani 6y agoMy understanding is Cleese was making a blanket argument against what he perceives as "Political Correctness". I reject that blanket argument. I also think it's not ad hominem to point out that Cleese is a borderline, if not outright, racist; I would give someone like Trevor Noah the benefit of the doubt if he made a sweeping argument against political correctness, but understanding Cleese's intent is part of the process of evaluating his argument. Had Cleese made a purely scientific, factual statement, telling people to reject it because he's a racist would be ad hominem. To get back to addressing your question: in the last paragraph, I said "especially when those emotions are justified"; perhaps just "when those emotions are justified" would have been more precise and more appropriate (edit: fixed my original post). For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with someone saying e.g. that the Chinese Communist Party is evil. Some Chinese people will be offended. However, as long as the speaker makes it clear they are not condemning Chinese people but rather Communism as practiced in China (or, tangentially, Communism as practiced/preached anywhere), I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate. "Kung Flu", on the other hand, elicits justified negative emotions, and the POTUS should not get a pass when he makes that kind of joke.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoI just clicked to make sure someone flagged it already. We regresssed and are no longer able to have a civilized discussion even about trifles such as the usage of words like "dummy" in IT, so how on Earth could we be ready to discuss more fundamental isses John is talking about?
- ulisesrmzroche 6y agoPolitical correctness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For all the right likes to bitch about cancel culture, they are always the ones who go: "you just lost a fan/customer!"
- ryathal 6y agoThere is a significant difference between a person deciding to not buy a product or listen to a show than an outrage mob trying to get amazon to not sell a product at all or a network to cancel a show.
- aklemm 6y agoRight, one is ineffectual and the other is a successful boycott. I’m surprised to learn in this thread and a previous one on cancel culture that the anti-pc crowd really doesn’t have a leg to stand on. These complaints are meaningless.
- htk 6y ago“Vote with your wallet” is very different than actively making sure everyone else’s wallet is shut for that business. Cancel culture is not about your right to not do business with X, is about trying to destroy X just because you don’t agree with it.
- schwartzworld 6y agojust to clarify: you're saying it's ok to vote with your wallet, but not good to try and get other people to do the same?
- ATsch 6y agoThis is like a bingo chart of right-wing fearmongering rhetoric. Because it's hard to sympathize with a rich comedian who can't make some jokes without criticism anymore, you have to spin it up into this grand narrative of how this is actually the end of civilized society itself. Unless, of course, we[1] start "fighting back". Whatever horrible thing "fighting back" actually entails in the current context is completely obscured by that point. [1] meaning "rich white male people like me"