
John Cleese: Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare (2016) - xyzal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U
======
qqj
Assuming 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
> 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?

~~~
qqj
It is an amusing example of cynical exploitation on behalf of advertising
agencies, leveraging the expected controversy on social media fueled by PC
culture.

------
ceejayoz
Most 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.

~~~
trey-jones
Manners 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.

------
carapace
I 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
Maybe 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.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
I 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
Political 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
There 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
Right, 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.

------
pmoriarty
People need to realize that there's as much political correctness on the right
as there is on the left.

~~~
diffrinse
Not only political correctness, but the fascination with erecting cultural
walls.

------
shadowgovt
Perhaps 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-
cancel...](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/john-cleese-is-cancelled-
after-he-claims-london-is-no-longer-english/29/05/)

~~~
jacknews
This is a little bit QED.

If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what
they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational, and well on our way
back to less open and enlightened culture.

~~~
Avshalom
Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between
what they technically said and what they actually said.

~~~
seneca
> Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between
> what they technically said and what they actually said.

Would you mind clarifying the difference between the two for me? It sounds an
awful lot like we're talking about thought crimes.

~~~
scubbo
(not the person you were replying to, but)

"What they technically said" are the words that were actually used. "What they
actually said" are the likely intended meaning, since (as I'm sure you would
agree) any given moderately-complex sentence could have a number of
interpretations, especially in different contexts.

"We must protect our people" is a sentence of five simple words, but has a
radically different meaning when spoken by: * A warlord invading another
country * A fighter resisting an invasion * A doctor speaking about medical
treatment

In this case, the OP is probably making the (reasonable) point that a speaker
who has previously made overblown claims about the racial composition of a
country, and has demonstrated xenophobia, can be reasonably assumed to also be
on sketchy evidential grounds in his claims about political correctness

------
ATsch
This 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"

------
phasnox
"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to
control other people's behavior."

Prophetic

------
ralmidani
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
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.

------
hprotagonist
_From 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
This 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
It 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
He said "can lead to" in 2016.

I think he would say "has landed us in" today.

~~~
shadowgovt
It'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.

------
BitwiseFool
"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to
control other people's behaviour."

------
totally_a_human
"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
(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.

~~~
trey-jones
I think there is probably a balance somewhere in between. Surely you can also
agree that there are people at large currently yelling at people that they
only imagine are standing on their foot. And the tone of response is
important: see my previous comment about tact and manners. If everyone
escalates the issue at the first opportunity, things get scary fast.

