Political Correctness next victim: Comedy. Towards a Orwellian nightmare?

[removeduser_487563287433]

And demanding is the same thing as, and I am quoting you here, "enforcing"?

[Basil II the B.S]

Did I say it anywhere?

[removeduser_487563287433]

No as far as I can see you haven't been able to provide any example for where censorship has been enforced by SJWs. You've mentioned this vagina monologue thing but not shared a source.

[Basil II the B.S]

It is sourced in the OP.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So examining that we don't have student sjws involved but the college itself deciding it wants to produce something different, something in line with the college's decision to enrole those who identify as female.

In contrast to your claim, the college has not banned any production of the vagina monologues, it's just changed what play it is performing during an annual production.

That's not censorship that's artistic direction. Again you're not angry about any actual censorship, you're angry about somebody expressing themselves in a way you don't agree with.

[Twido]

Not meaning to be rude to anyone, but I'm seeing more threads descend into something that resembles school children squabbling in in a playground than having reasoned debate.

While the OP seems to me to be somewhat exaggerated, and if you go through some of the references with a fine tooth comb then you may be able to find flaws, the jist of the argument still remains however. If I had to phrase that argument then I would come up with something like: Due to racist / sexist or otherwise biased social elements in our past, a certain degree of political correctness was required to promote a fair and equal society. The question is, has that political correctness gone too far favouring certain groups over others, does it now inhibit our culture and can it now be described as a form of censorship? Going forwards is this likely to change and will it become more or less of a problem?

You could answer that question by simply saying "no its fine as it is and I don't think it will be a problem" but you can't just say that the whole argument is "horse shite".

For my own part, I'm simply not sure of the answer. Some of the things I read about seem unsettling to me and a fear in time there could be repercussions. For example, in political debate (in the UK) many groups seem to want to paint themselves as victims in one way or another. I suspect that excess political correctness feeds into that in some ways. However, in my day to day life none of these things are really affecting me so I can only go by what is in the media.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No. The jist of the argument translates to let us not point out the rhetorical flaws in what is supposedly supporting that argument. That is not debate. I recommend you check the stickied debating rules for a great breakdown of debating flaws, which this thread is guilty of many.

[Twido]

No. The jist of the argument translates to let us not point out the rhetorical flaws in what is supposedly supporting that argument. That is not debate. I recommend you check the stickied debating rules for a great breakdown of debating flaws, which this thread is guilty of many.

That might be what you perceive this thread has come down to, but it is obviously not what the OP intended.

Actually, now I am genuinely interested in what you think about the wider debate and not just about the citations in the OP. Do you think there is a problem with excessive political correctness? Does it constitute censorship in any way? What do you think the direction of travel is on this and do you think it could possibly be a problem going forwards?

I tend to worry more about where it will lead rather than where we are right now.

[removeduser_487563287433]

nah. OP just understand that freedom of speech extends to criticism of his views. So far we've seen no example of censorship from OP, we've only seen him condemning views he doesn't like.

I don't think there's a problem with excessive political correctness, no. I'm not even sure political correctness exists. It just seems to be the bogeyman of people who can't behave professionally.

[Fanest]

Lets see what we have here

So far we've seen no example of censorship from OP, we've only seen him condemning views he doesn't like.

Hassle

I don't think there's a problem with excessive political correctness, no. I'm not even sure political correctness exists.

Denial

It just seems to be the bogeyman of people who can't behave professionally.

Ridicule

[Basil II the B.S]

nah. OP just understand that freedom of speech extends to criticism of his views. So far we've seen no example of censorship from OP, we've only seen him condemning views he doesn't like.

So let's see your contribution to the thread so far.
-Claim I do not even watch South Park. -Gets proven wrong. I actually prove an extensive knowledge.
-Claim I do not understand South Park's point -That was actually you missing the whole point of their satyre over PC principal and social justice warriors. Wrong again.
-Claim my claims are unsourced - they were in the first place, you didn't even read it. Wrong a third time.

I don't think there's a problem with excessive political correctness, no. I'm not even sure political correctness exists. It just seems to be the bogeyman of people who can't behave professionally.

So, once you've been repeatedly proven wrong, you all of a sudden decide that political correctness doesn't exist. Because if it exists you are wrong in this debate. Full on intellectual dishonesty.

What an absolute childish way of debating. Absolutely pointless. Feel free to childishly get the last word so that you can ''claim victory''.

Then stop spamming my thread with this kind of crap.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Lets see what we have here


Hassle


Denial



Ridicule

Haha so you'd like to shut me up too? I'm asking his ing idiotic questions, it's more than they deserve. Basil has utterly no point in this thread, he's lying about a few key claims, and he's seeing censorship where none has occurred. Honestly, where is anything worthy of any respect?

[Basil II the B.S]

The thing is, you aren't discussing. Other guys came to the thread, said they disagreed with me, brought their points. You don't do that. Ever.
Your way of ''debating'' in this thread just like in many others is the way a pidgeon plays chess: it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board and struts around like it has won.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I refuse to debate lies and assumptions. I asked for your points, your evidence, and time after time they were so flawed it couldn't be discussed. You have made a thread about censorship, sort of, yet haven't been able to produce a single example except the South Park Muhammed controversy which happened almost ten years ago.

[alhoon]

For very different reasons to what Basil is trying to discuss with Cleese's mention of campus safe spaces.

Lol no. South Park was censored because some Muslims got so upset that they sent bomb threats to Comedy Central.
Censorship won.

That.
In Southpark's site, the ONLY episodes you can't watch are the ones that offend Muslims. To rip on that, they made several episodes blaspheming Jesus.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That.
In Southpark's site, the ONLY episodes you can't watch are the ones that offend Muslims. To rip on that, they made several episodes blaspheming Jesus.

You're not following my point - Basil's trying to say "political correctness", which is already a hopelessly vague umbrella term, is driving censorship so extreme we're entering an Orwellian nightmare. However, he can't actually produce any examples of censorship except that South Park controversy, which is a decade old event driven by forces other than the campus "SJWs" he is attacking in this thread. To put it in context he is complaining about campus "censorship" being driven by "SJWs" and using as his only standing example a TV episode aired when these SJWs would have been eight or nine years old.

This is a hopelessly flawed thread, and it doesn't deserve any pity.

[alhoon]

You're not following my point - Basil's trying to say "political correctness", which is already a hopelessly vague umbrella term, is driving censorship so extreme we're entering an Orwellian nightmare. However, he can't actually produce any examples of censorship except that South Park controversy, which is a decade old event driven by forces other than the campus "SJWs" he is attacking in this thread. To put it in context he is complaining about campus "censorship" being driven by "SJWs" and using as his only standing example a TV episode aired when these SJWs would have been eight or nine years old.

This is a hopelessly flawed thread, and it doesn't deserve any pity.

Well, I'm pretty sure he exaggerates cause in an Orwellian nightmare we wouldn't be discussing this. The point is (I hope) that Political correctness while doing good is in some cases taken too far by certain groups.
All in all, I believe those self-back-patting, bored leftwing morons should find something more useful to direct their energy at or to fish for girlfriends. Like, you know, actually doing something against racism instead of making fools of themselves.
They could wave their signs and flags in their houses and allow me to watch some of my favorite South Park Episodes if I choose to be an intolerant, backwards, hateful, inconsiderate person that wants to watch them whether about 2000 Muslims and 10000 leftwings are angry about it or not.

Freedom of speech stands though. The government won't arrest you if you say "I believe political correctness is a bunch of crap and we should all call Martians as greenmen whether that offends Martians or leftwings defending a largely uncaring Martian population.
However, freedom of speech is for everyone, including those leftwing groups that would demonize you as a planetist and call you names. Also freedom of speech is to protect you from the government only, not your boss that may have a Martian aunt and fire you over the comments.
(I obviously use Martian here as a placeholder. Change it to any kind of minority you like).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, I'm pretty sure he exaggerates cause in an Orwellian nightmare we wouldn't be discussing this.

No he's serious. It's like this day after day.

[The spartan]

So examining that we don't have student sjws involved but the college itself deciding it wants to produce something different, something in line with the college's decision to enrole those who identify as female.

In contrast to your claim, the college has not banned any production of the vagina monologues, it's just changed what play it is performing during an annual production.

That's not censorship that's artistic direction. Again you're not angry about any actual censorship, you're angry about somebody expressing themselves in a way you don't agree with.

Oh my gosh yes, I got sooo tired of people complaining about the vagina monologues "banning" story. I get people were upset with the reasoning behind the university's change in production, but everybody started screaming "censorship!" without understanding the meaning of the word. If the university had actually banned the the vagina monologues, any student trying to perform the show themselves on campus would have been under threat of discipline. To my knowledge, they just changed which show they were performing, and any student wishing to perform the vagina monologues on their own time in their own setting was still free to do. It always reminds of people who complain that "prayer is banned in public schools". Spoiler: it isn't.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Exactly - and that's the paradox of threads like this. Basil doesn't hate censorship, he just perceives views he wants to censor.