VotreAltesse
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...kes-go-too-far

Has PC gone too far, or has alternative comedy crossed a line?



What do you guys think?
1
reply
Ed's Balls
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Oh yes, it's a crime to have a different opinion or use certain words now.
2
reply
Marco1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
If you don't like it, don't clap. Simple as that.

Comedy is provocative by nature! Attending a comedy show requires a level of discernment. Comedy is a sophisticated business and comics use different ploys to make the audience laugh. Audience members usually expect to be ridiculed or mocked. It's often part of the risk you take if you want the laughs. That said comedians belittle themselves too. They push the boundaries of political correctness because it needs pushing and comedians are artists who, not unlike philosophers, take a step back to reflect on human behaviour and society and voice what we are thinking but afraid to say.

Comedy goers are usually fairly educated and discerning. If they don't like the joke then they won't laugh! That is the way to express disapproval, not filing a cowardly silencing complaint. Comedy is about saying the unsayable and pricking the tender parts, to make us aware of our own contradictions, to prevent us from becoming deluded narcissists, to help us laugh at ourselves. I think it goes back as far as Greek Drama and later with Jesters and Fools in Royal Courts.
2
reply
BaconandSauce
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
everyone has an opinion

sadly the internet give people the idea that their opinions matter and even worse like minded delusional idiots can group together like never before
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Yes. It's almost as if people like to be offended so that they have something to complain about. The outrage with David Cameron referring to the Calais immigrants as a swarm is proof enough of this. People also take the comedy of those like Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr and Dapper Laughs too literally. Laughing about something is not inciting it, so why make such a fuss. Something shouldn't be deemed offensive just because you don't like it.
0
reply
Moonstruck16
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Yes. Everyone is too soft these days and are too easily offended.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
sdotd
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
yes and it's getting worse
0
reply
russellsteapot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
I think we've offered the 'victim' status such a high position in society (in many cases, people who claim to be victims are accorded an almost deity-like status, and everything they say has to be true because they've been disadvantaged/victimised/hurt) that it's become an attractive one to take for some people. Those who previously avoided being perceived as a victim of something are now actively ensuring that they can claim such a position, and they like everyone else to know how outraged/offended/affected/upset they are.

Social media then helps people amplify their outrage, and they can compete against others who had a similar idea to be the most 'outraged', which makes each one look for new ways to be upset.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
World class scientist is torn to shreds and forced into a grovelling, tearful apology live on air for wearing the wrong type of garment.

Nobel Prize winner is forced into a resignation by a baying mob for making an entirely innocuous comment about women.

NoMorePage3 declares women deciding to show their boobs of their own volition to be 'degrading and humiliating.'

Leading journalist is banned from discussing the topic of abortion at a world-leading University because he lacks a uterus and may 'upset' students.

The University of Dundee bans the society for the protection of unborn children because some students found it offensive.

St Andrews golf club is chastised for weeks on end about being male-only, until it capitulates and admits women.

Has political correctness gone too far? Nah, not at all.

Multimillionaire with a huge media profile goes on the Talk and laughs hysterically for 10 minutes, with hundreds of women, at a woman who chopped her husbands penis off with a kitchen knife. No-one blinked an eyelid.

Foremost journalist for the Telegraph declares Jeremy Clarkson's wife is his 'dog handler.' Nobody cares.

3 million women have downloaded an online application called LuLu to rate men 1-10 based on their sexual performance in bed. The BBC covers it - they get a man to walk down the street asking women to rate him 1-10.

The Independent writes a post entitled 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again.' Nobody cares.

Harriet Harman declares it would be 'rude' to interfere with a Labour Party event segergated along gender lines to appeal to Muslim voters. Harriet Harman, a feminist.

Women launch thousands of women-only groups including networking groups, gyms, taxi firms, political party conferences, business conferences and the NUS conference, which is infamous for its 'policy': 'white homosexual men must stop co-opting black female culture.'

Being politically incorrect is alive and well, providing you are of the correct identity (it's called moral relativism, the morality applied in one context is never extend to another; in fact, in the other context, it's often deemed a 'prejudice'. As far as modern society is concerned, there is no absolute morality, there is no absolute right or wrong.)

Well, providing you are capable of compartmentalising morality and applying one standard to one segment of the population, and the complete opposite standard to the other segment.

Let me show you how it works (people who subscribe to the religion of feelings - progressivism - better look away now):

I'm a proud black man, said the black man.
I'm a proud Asian man, said the Asian man.
I'm a proud woman, said the woman.
I'm a proud homosexual, said the homosexual.
I'm a proud white man, said the racist, misogynistic homophobe.

Maleness = misogyny, whiteness = racism, heterosexuality = homophobia, and never shall anyone challenge the progressive narrative! As far as the religion of feelings is concerned, there's plenty of self-loathing to go round! Where there's self-loathing, there's infinite opportunity to deconstruct society.

If you don't fall into line, we'll shame you within an inch of your life, or exploit a narrative to make you conform to our politically correct group think:

1. Racism.
2. Xenophobia.
3. Little England.
4. Bigotry.
5. S**m.
6. 'the bankers.'
7. 'the female vote' and women generally (all women vote alike, apparently).
8. 'the black community.'
9. Diversity.
10. Tolerance.
11. Rape culture (0.02% of people in the UK were raped last year, but whatever).
12. Sexism.
13. Sexual objectification.
14. Misogyny.
15. Old boy's club.
16. The elite.
17. White privilege.
18. Male privilege.
19. Nazism.
20. Fascism.

Oh, and don't forget my favourite of the lot, it won exploitative narrative of the year at 'the shaming people into conformity awards, 2015', it's so potent even Ed Miliband used it to try and curb free speech and it's often referred to as a term 'invented by fascists and used by morons, to manipulate cowards':

*drum roll please*

21. Islamophobia!

When you're capable of shaming enough people, when you can force them into a state of perpetual self-loathing, when you can exploit every negative social narrative under the sun to make people conform to your politically correct group think, then you can deconstruct society from within.

'We're going to bring 4 million new people into the country in the space of 10 years, if you don't like it, you're a racist!'

'Mass immigration was all about rubbing the right's nose in diversity.' Andrew Neather, Senior Policy Advisor to Tony Blair.

It's how you undermine national unity, undermine the family, undermine all predominantly white religions and manufacture your utopian idealism: global open borders and socialism, so all people can live peaceably side-by-side and we can live in a society run by compassion and feelings, rather than logic and objectivity! Of course, it isn't going to work, but to say such a thing 'is racist.'

I'm afraid most people reading this post don't even have the first clue how deep political correctness - identity politics and moral relativism - goes. It's in the education system, it's Westminster, it's in the legal system, it's all over the place.
3
reply
thecatwithnohat
Badges: 20
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
xoxo
1
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by thecatwithnohat)
^^ The quote historians reference and read again and again 100 years from now after western civilisation has collapsed on its ass under the amalgamated pressure of 'the religion of feelings.'
0
reply
thecatwithnohat
Badges: 20
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
^^ The quote historians reference and read again and again 100 years from now after western civilisation has collapsed on its ass under the amalgamated pressure of 'the religion of feelings.'
:shh:

I did like the drum roll though.
0
reply
flamboy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
"we" are, yes - we live in a political correctness culture where many grown adults (mostly women and ethnic/religious groups) are now reduced to possess the emotional integrity of kids
it's kind of kind a suing culture but instead of private law, it's public law
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
I think our boundary to offense is probably the same as it ever was - the difference is the frequency of communication. As starting evidence, my parents would get offended by several things which would not offend my friends. The difference? Not the my parents are more easily offended (and anyway, older people being more easliy offended would be evidence against OP) - but that jokes and potentially offensive comments are highly context dependant.

I suspect that there is a deal more outrage due to comments reaching more people who are not in the intended context for the joke/speech/whatever. Then that outrage spreads faster due to twitter etc.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by lerjj)
I think our boundary to offense is probably the same as it ever was - the difference is the frequency of communication. As starting evidence, my parents would get offended by several things which would not offend my friends. The difference? Not the my parents are more easily offended (and anyway, older people being more easliy offended would be evidence against OP) - but that jokes and potentially offensive comments are highly context dependant.

I suspect that there is a deal more outrage due to comments reaching more people who are not in the intended context for the joke/speech/whatever. Then that outrage spreads faster due to twitter etc.
Which is irrational.

Let me demonstrate.

White man to black man: 'black people should never be allowed to hold elected position in British Universities.' Pretty obvious racism, right?

Yet, The Independent publishes a post 'white people should never hold elected position in British Universities again.'

To many, it's not racism. Feminist: 'Racism is a structural issue and as white people hold all the power it's impossible to be racist towards a white person', apparently.

Now, how does advocating in favour of one form of racism not justify utilisation of another form of racism?

I could cite 1,000 of examples. This is how political correctness fester, these types of attitudes, the inconsistent application of morality. Believe it or not, this is why progressivism is falling to pieces right now.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Which is irrational.

Let me demonstrate.

[proceeds to talk about something unrelated to quote]
I'm not sure you actually read my post... which is sad because it was only like four or five sentences long.

a) Double standards are not necessarily irrational, although they usually are
b) My post was not about double standards
c) Neither is this thread
d) Nevertheless, the groups who you claim to be holding double standards are usually the ones being offended. They are also generally minorities/oppressed. Huh, figure.
0
reply
scorpion95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
I think that people are becoming more 'offended' even though they don't know what it is to be offended and over react to something which is harmless
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (141)
17.89%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
27.03%
Not great so far... (282)
35.79%
I want to drop out! (152)
19.29%

Watched Threads

View All