I'm sure this has been posted before, but it can't do any harm to repost it. To all those who live with a "with us or against us certainty", please find 6 minutes to listen to this.
[Politics] Stephen Fry on political correctness (he's not in favour)
- Thread starter Couldn't Be Hyypia
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Even though I find him a rather bloated, pompous, self satisfied character, he is usually correct about things.
In their own vision of themselves, people like "hermits, madmen and rebels". When facing them, however, they are often very quick to run back to their craddles of truths.
I agree with Stephen Fry but how do you remove cognitive dissonance from the human brain?
I agree with Stephen Fry but how do you remove cognitive dissonance from the human brain?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,573
I don’t know, but why have you started posting again in non-football threads when you stated outright that you wouldn’t?
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
More importantly, what the Dickens is 'craddles'?
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2003
- 23,884
I appreciate Fry's passion for snooker, cricket and both domestic and international football, plus possibly other sports...darts?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,573
I still remember when he won the greatest victory since the Winchester flower arranging team beat Harrow by 12 sore bottoms to 1
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2003
- 23,884
Is it that big a deal?
Fair. Good reminder. That was over the line. Thank you Karen. No need to talk with the manager.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,573
Given that he was banned for making dozens of vile antisemitic posts before being banned, yes, given he has been allowed to rejoin on the basis that he sticks to football.Is it that big a deal?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,573
I’m saving you from yourself, you have no impulse control and I want to keep you around for your football insight. It just takes a few too many whiskeys and joints and we’ll have a repeat of the nastiness which got you banned before. I actually have always said your football posts are generally very good, especially about European football. Stick to that like you promised.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,222
I totally agree with him about the culture wars nonsense.
I would have loved to have seen him walk off stage after his pronouncements on such.
To see him 'nail his flag to the mast' and engage on a chosen side around political correctness was disappointing.
I would have loved to have seen him walk off stage after his pronouncements on such.
To see him 'nail his flag to the mast' and engage on a chosen side around political correctness was disappointing.
6 minutes you say TL;DW
SkirlieWirlie
Well-known member
- Jan 6, 2024
- 140
I can see why he could be viewed that way, but from the discussions I've listened to involving him and others, often with diametrically opposed views, he's always come across as extremely intelligent, articulate, hugely knowledgeable and yes perhaps a little full of himself, but open to hearing other opinions and willing to engage in respectful debate, often seeing where others are coming from, which for me is the opposite of pompous or arrogant.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,361
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,533
Is it called Woke now? I did wonder yesterday how GBeebies viewers find out what is happening in the cricket. Surely they have banned it as it is too Woakes for them.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,374
Stephen Fry always speaks well, but like many on this subject, he falls at the first hurdle by failing to define or misdefining political correctness. That's not surprising as it's a slippery fish that's defined or left undefined in a myriad of ways often depending upon the usefulness of the definition (or lack there-of) to the views of the speaker. He's right on the unhelpfulness of social media line drawing. He's right on the culture war nonsense. However, he's also standing next to somebody who's entire public career has been based on manipulating the fear and discomfort we all have in response to a rapidly changing world that we can't keep under control.
Political correctness is in a way, just an attempt at agreement on terms of reference for communication. As the term seems to come from the Maoist imperatitve to define truth according to ideology, it is easily criticised as part of the left wing's often parodied obsession with redefining the past to suit the ideologies of the present. However, that imperative is more recently obvious amongst the 'alternative truths' of the right wing, what with the likes of De Santis making decisions as to what elements of the past can and can't be discussed in history classes without upsetting his worldview.
In practice, in the eighties and nineties, the concept was just a form of regulated politeness; a suggestion to communicate avoiding language that some may have issues with. This immediately set it up for ridicule as it always sounded clunky and artificial in contrast to the way that language had naturally developed, but it's intent was inclusive. However, like the terms 'woke' and 'social justice warrior' It got redefined by those who opposed change to roughly mean 'anything I don't like' and Fry falls into the trap of discussing things that we all don't like under the heading of 'political correctness'. Yes there were some silly extremes, but nothing should have it's value measured by it's extremes alone, especially when there is evidence that many of the 'baa baa green sheep' type stories were the deliberate inventions of Fleet Street journalists hoping for a good 'Looney Left Council' story.
Edward Stourton's 2008 book 'It's A PC World' is a good place to start for a more historical and in depth analysis of the aims and pitfalls of the concept. He still doesn't completely pin down a very quick moving target, but his attempt is more reasoned and impartial than Fry's, admittedly partly due to the nature of the different formats. In this debate, whilst agreeing with some of his points, I see Fry as a useful idiot, well meaning and honest about his opinions, but naive to the intentions of those who seek to amplify this debate entirely because of it's tendency to create and highlight divisions. It's nearly always a smoke screen thrown up by those who oppose practical steps towards more equality because they may involve them relinquishing some of their own power and resources.
Sorry, you may have noticed that I had nothing to contribute to the 'post length' thread.... For those who would prefer the condensed version:
Stephen, don't be tricked into arguing about whether there should be different versions of 'Fairytale of New York'. The shysters who want you to be angry about that couldn't name a single other Pogues song anyway.
Political correctness is in a way, just an attempt at agreement on terms of reference for communication. As the term seems to come from the Maoist imperatitve to define truth according to ideology, it is easily criticised as part of the left wing's often parodied obsession with redefining the past to suit the ideologies of the present. However, that imperative is more recently obvious amongst the 'alternative truths' of the right wing, what with the likes of De Santis making decisions as to what elements of the past can and can't be discussed in history classes without upsetting his worldview.
In practice, in the eighties and nineties, the concept was just a form of regulated politeness; a suggestion to communicate avoiding language that some may have issues with. This immediately set it up for ridicule as it always sounded clunky and artificial in contrast to the way that language had naturally developed, but it's intent was inclusive. However, like the terms 'woke' and 'social justice warrior' It got redefined by those who opposed change to roughly mean 'anything I don't like' and Fry falls into the trap of discussing things that we all don't like under the heading of 'political correctness'. Yes there were some silly extremes, but nothing should have it's value measured by it's extremes alone, especially when there is evidence that many of the 'baa baa green sheep' type stories were the deliberate inventions of Fleet Street journalists hoping for a good 'Looney Left Council' story.
Edward Stourton's 2008 book 'It's A PC World' is a good place to start for a more historical and in depth analysis of the aims and pitfalls of the concept. He still doesn't completely pin down a very quick moving target, but his attempt is more reasoned and impartial than Fry's, admittedly partly due to the nature of the different formats. In this debate, whilst agreeing with some of his points, I see Fry as a useful idiot, well meaning and honest about his opinions, but naive to the intentions of those who seek to amplify this debate entirely because of it's tendency to create and highlight divisions. It's nearly always a smoke screen thrown up by those who oppose practical steps towards more equality because they may involve them relinquishing some of their own power and resources.
Sorry, you may have noticed that I had nothing to contribute to the 'post length' thread.... For those who would prefer the condensed version:
Stephen, don't be tricked into arguing about whether there should be different versions of 'Fairytale of New York'. The shysters who want you to be angry about that couldn't name a single other Pogues song anyway.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,374
Surely they don't care who wins test matches as they see all the countries as part of the British Empire anyway.
Weststander
Well-known member
.
Very nicely elaborated.