You’d have to define what “PC ideals” are first.
1 Like
Pretty much. It’s people berating others for finding offense in frankly quite offensive statements, and then they massively take offence when others attempt to lambast them for their opinions. What do you want? Freedom from consequences?
“I’m fine with social consequences” they cry “but legal ones are a step too far” blatantly ignoring the relationship between social norms and development of law. If you think the law of a country develops in perfect isolation from the social attitudes of a country then I don’t know what to tell these people. How about checking out the legal systems of certain theocratic countries where they still arrest you if you’re homosexual for example? Clearly had nothing to do with countries said culture at all.
1 Like
Well, this is curious. You didn’t require anyone to define ‘PC’ ideals when you liked posts speaking of the politically correct and then spoke in their defense, because the argument you’re having started from there.
Frankly, I dont want to nitpick on the definition. I can speak of the politically correct as it is usually adressed as: that it is any form of language, measure or movement that has the intent to avoid offenses and/or disadvantages to members of particular groups in society (usually minorities).
1 Like
As a general rule I’ll go ahead and like a post I agree with. Nothing curious about that.
But if someone wants me to ascribe adherence to something I think it’s reasonable I know what they’re asking me about first.
I don’t have any issue with people being scrutinised for use of slurs, if that’s what you want me to say.
5 Likes
My point is that the ruling against him was correct, and that “PC” is not a bad thing. When is it bad to have some respect and desency towards other people?
I find the whole hatred towards “pc” to be quite dumb, as it is people jsut unhappy that they get called out for making “edgy” jokes.
4 Likes
Unpopular opinion: diving into politics never ends well, that goes to both debates and overall any form of political activity.
Politics have no relation to morals. © Niccolo Machiavelli
If the ruling against him is correct, why have comedians whom have done similar or in the case of the video I posted, worse, not also been given fines and threat of jail time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jmkv8capVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX1jMmfG2Xk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUy5aAG3Oc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wE6CFDIGCE
Pretty clear he needs locking up for his hate speech.
this goes both ways bee tee dubs
1 Like
If you want them to be locked up, then by all means, report them to the proper channels/authorities, and see what the courts say.
Just going to chime in that in legal terms, a public figure and a private person are subjected to different standards of liability in law by virtue of the notoriety/status they hold and the influence that comes with voicing their opinions to an audience.
A public figure isn’t limited to just public officials, but is also defined as people who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety as fitting this description, or someone who voluntarily enters the public eye because of a particular public issue or controversy.
Defamation cases for example are handled wildly differently if it’s against a public figure or a private citizen with different criteria of requirement. To make it topical in cases of public figures vs private citizens, negligence is proof enough if harm ends up happening to a private party due to reaction from the audience in response to the hateful message provided by the public figure, even if it’s “just a joke”.
In other words - he should have known better.
3 Likes
Jeez, are you still insisting on this comparison?
I dunno what it says about how highly you seem to regard Count Dankula as a comedian, or how lowly you regard Frankie Boyle as one.
I agree. You’re right, public figures are subject to different rules- Only that in this case, again, the actual supposed damage, harm, whatever you want to call it, wasn’t quantified, and the context was drawn based on perception rather than context- Which, again, I disagree with.
I’ll agree to disagree respectfully.
The law should be the law, no amount of fame should make you above it.
If it’s racism when person A does it, it should be the same for person B and C.
I disagree with this part, you see.
The politically correct movement falls into the ‘paradox of tolerance’, that in the name of a group of marginalized individuals PC supporters want to create an atmosphere of oppression against any form of speech that is seen as incorrect. This type of view serves well any movement of social justice.
In the end, PC is a danger to free speech, self-determination and ultimately tolerance itself, for it isn’t an attempt to cooperate and discuss is a costructive way, but rather force the other party into submission (I will speak about this right now).
Take as an example the academies. Academies have a bias towards minorities and women - and not on the base of merit, but on the base of either their race or gender. The very language is being scrutinized (to the point that using ‘he’ as a generic person pronoun, rather than ‘she’ or ‘he/she’, equals to your scientific paper being refused).
Other than that, it translates into an extremely oppressive and selective attitude, aswell as atmosphere, where many individuals are enforced into outlandish standards to prevent discrimination and/or assaults. The tip of the iceberg of these oppressive attitudes has exploded into scandals, such as:
- Bret Weinstein at the Evergreen (2017): harassed, threatened of violence and ultimately fired for sending a letter which involved questioning ‘the day of absence’ at Evergreen university.
- L. Shepherd at Wilfred Laurier University(2017), accused of hatespeech for playing out a video of Jordan Peterson about gender pronouns
- A. Strumia at the CERN(2018?), suspended and fired because he argued that women weren’t biologically inclined to do scientific work. He offered valid insight, however ironically he was fired while loads of women were praised for showing how the “white male” were oppressing women and how they have to be fought back with all means possible.
You have also other cases, always in 2017-2018, of people being fired for language, notably James Damore (2017) from Google, for writing a paper of why women don’t perform as good as men when it comes to technology and math-based systems.
In all these cases, the slight form of offense is sufficient to fire the person. Their opinion is deemed hatespeech (such was the case of Shepherd), racism (Weinstein) or sexism (Strumia, Damore) and any burden of proof, or argument, is irrelevant. The truth doesn’t matter, not even in universities! The truth sucks - what matters is that people’s feelings don’t get hurt.
I advise you watch the video below:
2 Likes
Okay, is it so critical to be able to say derogatory stuff about minorities consequence-free? Why?
Since every time I hear that “free speech is under attack!” or “PC culture ruins everything” roll-call, it’s always about that.
There’s a lot of places in the world where certain groups genuinely can’t enjoy free speech, yet I don’t see anyone lifting pitchforks for that.
Hmm.
3 Likes
Instead Reddit sells itself to them…
I’ll admit that the above instance of inciting harm through a third party by your own negligence before making the content public is based on US law and not UK, though that’s because I was unable to find a UK definition on quick search. Who would have thought that Google is very US based?
Depending on how much it varies in UK law, disagreeing on the matter isn’t really much of an opinion. As you say, law should be objective.
That would depend on the content of the threatening messages posted on the Jewish community’s website in reaction to the video in question, wouldn’t it? I hate to cite US law again, but implied threat is imminent danger enough to consider it genuine hate speech.
And if a correlation between the video and the messages posted can be made, Dankula (what a dumb name to be quite honest here) is considered responsible for his negligence in inciting that particular incident.
Looking at the court case transcript as Elenthas posted, it does state that they have reviewed all necessary evidence to rule the verdict, so one might be excused for making the assumption that the messages and their content in particular was examined.
“The social work report on you is important. It is very favourable to you and, leaving aside the circumstances of this offence, shows you to have led a generally pro-social life thus far. It also shows that you have learned a certain amount from your experiences and that you are of low risk of reoffending. Importantly, you have no other criminal convictions and that report shows that you have no prosecutions pending for this sort of offence or for any other."
I think the judge ended it in a reasonable fashion instead of shouting about how he’s an absolute cabbage, opting for a minimal sentencing by virtue of his character.
What he chose to do after is on him.
1 Like
Litterally all of this is over-exagerated or outright lies honestly. That’s as much I am going to respond to it.
Excuse me? I gave you three scandals in less than one year, cases of individuals in academies that were discriminated, hated and systematically attacked/forced to resign or outright fired for voicing out a non-PC opinion…
Where are the lies exactly? What I have posted are well-known facts. Journals spoke about these things.
That’s very convenient.
4 Likes
Characterising the whole thrift of the PC movement according to a few isolated incidents like this is about as helpful as characterising those here defending Dankula as Alt Right goose steppers given both groups insist strongly on libertarian arguments.
The problem is this realm of politics requires nuance and it seems neither side employs it because the opposing side is always seen as the extreme edge of their position. Most of us closer to the middle think everyone on the fringes are idiots, whether they claim to share our political position or not.
Suffice to say that using the fact a small selection of high profile employers or universities have implemented PC policies in a particularly extreme as a means to argue against the vein of thought in general enormously ignores the context wherein the most benefit has been drawn from it. That is everyday interactions and employment, not palaces of silicon valley and lofty institutions of education with a research reputation to nurture for economic reasons that arguably motivates their approach more than a fundamental belief in any form of politics (unis bend to where the money is, this has been such for quite some time now. If they don’t they can’t afford to run)
6 Likes