4 ms·

I 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" rath

I 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 ago
You 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 ago
  My 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.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > My understanding is Cleese was making a blanket argument against what he perceives as "Political Correctness". I reject that blanket argument. Is it possible that he wasn't making a blanket argument? Did you make a blanket argument? > I also think it's not ad hominem to point out that Cleese is a borderline, if not outright, racist. Is that so? a) What definition are you using for the words "is" and "racist"? b) How do you know your understanding is accurate (consistent with his actual beliefs)? > but understanding Cleese's intent is part of the process of evaluating his argument Agreed. How is it that you (seem to) know Cleese's intent? By what mechanism? > in the last paragraph, I said "especially when those emotions are justified"; perhaps just "when those emotions are justified" > 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. That's the thing though, isn't it? Whether or not behavior of both parties is "justified". In the 2nd statement ("as long as the speaker makes it clear...I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate.") So, if the person doesn't make it clear, for whatever reason, is it therefore accurate/rational/justified to assume the worst interpretation? If so, is the right to assume the worst extended only to certain individuals, while others must keep opinions to themselves, otherwise they will be branded a racist (the accuracy of that charge being irrelevant, if I'm not misunderstanding)? And what specific attribute(s) of a person might we examine in order to determine who has this right and who does not?

mistermann 6y ago

You 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 ago
My 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.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > My understanding is Cleese was making a blanket argument against what he perceives as "Political Correctness". I reject that blanket argument. Is it possible that he wasn't making a blanket argument? Did you make a blanket argument? > I also think it's not ad hominem to point out that Cleese is a borderline, if not outright, racist. Is that so? a) What definition are you using for the words "is" and "racist"? b) How do you know your understanding is accurate (consistent with his actual beliefs)? > but understanding Cleese's intent is part of the process of evaluating his argument Agreed. How is it that you (seem to) know Cleese's intent? By what mechanism? > in the last paragraph, I said "especially when those emotions are justified"; perhaps just "when those emotions are justified" > 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. That's the thing though, isn't it? Whether or not behavior of both parties is "justified". In the 2nd statement ("as long as the speaker makes it clear...I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate.") So, if the person doesn't make it clear, for whatever reason, is it therefore accurate/rational/justified to assume the worst interpretation? If so, is the right to assume the worst extended only to certain individuals, while others must keep opinions to themselves, otherwise they will be branded a racist (the accuracy of that charge being irrelevant, if I'm not misunderstanding)? And what specific attribute(s) of a person might we examine in order to determine who has this right and who does not?