Big Think: John Cleese on Being Offended

Youtube: The essence of comedy is being critical, says Cleese, and that means causing offense sometimes. But we shouldn't protect everyone from experiencing negative emotions by enforcing political correctness, he says.
siftbotsays...

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 1st, 2016 7:11am PST - promote requested by enoch.

Imagoaminsays...

Comedians who thrive on being edgy and pushing those boundaries, yet get upset that sometimes people get offended by that pushing are way more annoying IMO.

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke. But your jokes would no longer be edgy if everyone stopped giving a fuck or occasionally pushing back. You'd just be another Jeff Dunham, even if you see yourself as Bill Hicks.

Tell your edgy jokes, realize people will push back, and say "Oh, good. I'm not some boring nobody." rather than get way more offended at their "offense".

vilsays...

Is it not?

Edgy comedians reacting to people reacting to edgy comedians are more annoying than people reacting to edgy comedians? Possibly.

Push back? Do you mean intentionally suppress laughter for fear of being un-PC? Heckle (thats fine BTW)? Defame? Ban? Throw stones? Chase out of town? Burn books? Worse?

My guess would be comedians just seek laughter, because that confirms understanding and sells tickets.

Imagoaminsaid:

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke.

My_designsays...

What you're missing is that people are pushing back to the point of destroying other peoples livelyhood.
It's not worth telling an edgy joke at a university if a group of individuals, who cannot control their own emotions, go ballistic and start telling everyone that will listen about what a terrible person you are. Before you know it people are protesting your next gig and you are being featured all over TV for being horrible.
It's not the fact that people get offended that is the problem, it's the fact that they get so offended at any perceived slight could have you wind up in a lawsuit.
A certain story about feminists in Canada comes to mind.

Imagoaminsaid:

Comedians who thrive on being edgy and pushing those boundaries, yet get upset that sometimes people get offended by that pushing are way more annoying IMO.

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke. But your jokes would no longer be edgy if everyone stopped giving a fuck or occasionally pushing back. You'd just be another Jeff Dunham, even if you see yourself as Bill Hicks.

Tell your edgy jokes, realize people will push back, and say "Oh, good. I'm not some boring nobody." rather than get way more offended at their "offense".

enochsays...

i have been watching interviews where prominent comics are refusing to do gigs at universities due to the fact that the PC culture has become so saturated that they can't even do their bits,and it becomes a horror show.

young,educated people who mistake their own little bubble-world and attempt to project their sense of morality onto others by demanding changes in language and attitude by way of shrill harpy speak,is totally missing the point of humor.

comedy is the examination and critique of certain truths we may hold sacred,and expose the absurdity.a good comedian can do this fairly well,a great comedian does so with a finesse that is epic.

see:george carlin.lenny bruce,bill hicks,patrice o'neal,bill burr,louis ck.doug stanhope

so i have to disagree with you @Imagoamin.
comedians who thrive on being edgy are not thriving just for the simple fact of being edgy or controversial.they thrive because they are adept at exposing the absurdity of life in such a way that makes us all laugh.....at ourselves.

they experience pushback constantly in the form of heckling and jeering,and do so on a nightly basis and do not get upset that people get offended by their material.that is the very boundary they are pushing!

self examination,criticism and the ability to accept that maybe those things we held so dear are,in fact,absurd and in need of ridicule.the great comedians all give us a great,totally effective self-cleansing pill.they call it "the get the fuck over yourself" pill.

but the overly sensitive PC culture that is festering in our current higher education institutions is creating a new breed of human that lacks basic self-awareness and,on the whole,a gaggle of humorless cunts.

humor is a concept beyond their ken.they dont get it and instead of relaxing a bit,they prefer to get their panties in a knot over.....words.so they all get together and tweet and facebook,in order to share their outrage and make their little signs and march in front of a chris rock show with absolutely zero sense of irony.

to them they are striking a blow for justice!

which is just absurd,and in desperate need of ridicule.

Imagoaminsays...

"Push back? Do you mean intentionally suppress laughter for fear of being un-PC? Heckle (thats fine BTW)? Defame? Ban? Throw stones? Chase out of town? Burn books? Worse?"

Awfully hyperbolic. You seem to think someone saying "I don't like this" is brushing up with burning books?

Because I see that as an act of free speech. Protest, boycotts, etc aren't suddenly forcing anyone to do something or preventing anyone from saying anything. It's meeting speech with more speech. The pinion of free speech principles.

But free speech has never been freedom from consequences. You can say whatever edgu thing you like but you can't expect everyone to just shut up and be fine with it.

Either you accept being edgy is going to rile people up and get you reactions or you go back to doing boring ass material. Imagining that someone not enjoying your joke is akin to a mob trying to murder you only really shows how thin skinned comedians are to any criticism. Ignore it.

And the issue of disinvitations to colleges is, again, more free speech acts. Yet somehow, unless the speech is toothless and ineffective, its a melt down by thin skinned comedians.

Look, you need to know your audience when you do a gig. You don't walk into a bar mitzvah gig and tell all your edgy antisemetic jokes then get wounded at the "PC outrage" when people get mad. Yet somehow going to a college during a rise in college activism against racism/sexism and telling your "women are shit, right?" jokes is supposed to be no issue?

And the other issue in this: colleges are viewed more and more as a services paid transaction: I'm paying thousands to this place to provide me a product. So its no wonder students feel more empowered to complain, especially when their money from activity fees is being spent on something they don't like.

Saying "you owe us $500 and we're going to use it to pay the 'Muslims are all rapists' guy to come here and talk" isn't the best way to make people feel like their money is being used with their best interests in mind.

Honestly, if you feel like protests or any act of free speech you disagree with is akin to burning books or destroying lives... Maybe you should grow a thicker skin. Everyone doesn't have to like what you say and its not some afront to your rights when they don't.

enochsays...

@Imagoamin

i can agree with your basic premise:free speech can have consequences in the form of MORE speech.

you are totally free to espouse the most ridiculous,self-centered narcissistic cry-baby drivel you like,and i am totally free to ridicule you as the cry-baby bed-wetter you are behaving like.

the problems arise when that interaction is then seen as "harassment" and a defamation of the constantly oppressed group of bed-wetters.how dare i slander such a tender group! havent they suffered enough?

nobody is saying that one group is excused from free speech or from criticism,and most people would agree that if you yell FIRE in a room and cause a panic when there was no fire,there should be consequences for your actions.

what people ARE saying is that making certain words unacceptable,therefore changing the very language we use to express,convey and deliver complex thoughts,feelings and imaginings is counter-productive.made further so when an abstract art form such as comedy is so easily taken out of context to further an agenda.

remember #cancelcolbert?

the comedy and satire was totally lost on that over-privileged nitwit suey park.she instead focused on a single element of his monologue and chose to be offended,without even considering the larger implications of the humor in colberts bit.

does she have a right to be offended?of course.
does she have a right to be outraged and start a twitter campaign to shut down colberts show?yep..she sure does.

and we have the right to absolutely take her inane,and un-self-aware false campaign for justice to task,and ridicule her relentlessly.

because bad ideas,poor understandings and judgements dressed up as social justice SHOULD be ridiculed for the stupidity they represent.

as for your assertion that comedians are thin skinned,or need to grow a thicker skin,i think you have no idea what you are fucking talking about.you ever spoke in public? in front of crowd?

believe me...you grow thick skin,and fast,until it becomes titanium.

i see no further reason to beat that particular horse but just look up chris rock,seinfeld,louis ck ,bill burr,joe rogan.they all lay out quite clearly why universities are a dead zone for comedy.

because the extreme end of social justice warriors are humorless cunts.

Imagoaminsays...

Are you used to people taking your argument seriously when you refer to them as "bed wetting cry babies"?

And when you bring up Suey Park as a " harassment vs ridicule " argument, you conveniently leave out the death and rape threats.

If you think someone saying "that word bothers me" is making it "unacceptable to say words", by all means: die on the hill that words have no power and any word is fine, language and sensibility doesn't change with time.

I look forward to you adding: faggot, nigger, kyke, whatever other bit of nasty language you can imagine to your daily vocab and get incredibly bent out of shape about your free speech and ability to use what words you want without offense when someone says they're offended by that.

And I think I do understand about comedians being thin skinned. Because someone saying "that's offensive to me" sends them (and you, apparently) into a death spiral of hyperbole, calling people cunts and babies, and likening them to the gestapo.

Me thinks you've been "triggered".

But hey, since you seem less interested in rationale and more about getting red, nude, and mad online, I'll let you have whatever last word you're going to scream at me after this.

enochsaid:

@Imagoamin

i can agree with your basic premise:free speech can have consequences in the form of MORE speech.

you are totally free to espouse the most ridiculous,self-centered narcissistic cry-baby drivel you like,and i am totally free to ridicule you as the cry-baby bed-wetter you are behaving like.

the problems arise when that interaction is then seen as "harassment" and a defamation of the constantly oppressed group of bed-wetters.how dare i slander such a tender group! havent they suffered enough?

nobody is saying that one group is excused from free speech or from criticism,and most people would agree that if you yell FIRE in a room and cause a panic when there was no fire,there should be consequences for your actions.

what people ARE saying is that making certain words unacceptable,therefore changing the very language we use to express,convey and deliver complex thoughts,feelings and imaginings is counter-productive.made further so when an abstract art form such as comedy is so easily taken out of context to further an agenda.

remember #cancelcolbert?

the comedy and satire was totally lost on that over-privileged nitwit suey park.she instead focused on a single element of his monologue and chose to be offended,without even considering the larger implications of the humor in colberts bit.

does she have a right to be offended?of course.
does she have a right to be outraged and start a twitter campaign to shut down colberts show?yep..she sure does.

and we have the right to absolutely take her inane,and un-self-aware false campaign for justice to task,and ridicule her relentlessly.

because bad ideas,poor understandings and judgements dressed up as social justice SHOULD be ridiculed for the stupidity they represent.

as for your assertion that comedians are thin skinned,or need to grow a thicker skin,i think you have no idea what you are fucking talking about.you ever spoke in public? in front of crowd?

believe me...you grow thick skin,and fast,until it becomes titanium.

i see no further reason to beat that particular horse but just look up chris rock,seinfeld,louis ck ,bill burr,joe rogan.they all lay out quite clearly why universities are a dead zone for comedy.

because the extreme end of social justice warriors are humorless cunts.

enochsays...

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

vilsays...

Yep, hyperbole.

Basically if you get offended by a word, everyone else has to be nice to you and stop using it, but sooner or later someone will say something that will offend you again, another word gone, until only one word is left and no one is going to talk to you if you ban that last word as well.

Hyperbole kicks ass. Ban hyperbole?

Its the switch from printed newspapers and gossip to the internet and facebook I think. Young people can now pick their own news and no longer recognise sarcasm. Everything is taken equally seriously, comedy shows supply news on TV, everything is perceived literally, hyperbole becomes hard to decipher, every small social mistake kids make remains visibly displayed online forever, no wonder they want to be careful with words. Hence sarcasm tickbox.

Imagoamin: I wasnt trying to accuse you of anything, I was trying to explain what I think political correctness leads to - shutting up legitimate voices. It may not be you, but someone out there doesnt like Nigger Jim for example. Now that leads directly to nineteenth century organized moral turpitude - if we pretend the problem doesnt exist it may go away, just dont say the word.

bcglorfsays...

John Cleese is hardly new to this. When he and the python troop made Life of Brian, more than 35 years ago, church leaders tried hard , and in many locations succeeded in getting it banned.

Back then he did the circuits talking with religious leaders defending that he had the right to still say something even if they disagreed with it. It's worth noting, much of his support came from within Academia were young students were eager to push back against the religious leaders controlling what people should and shouldn't say in a film.

Fast forward 35 years to today, and now a new batch of young students from Academia are making the exact same fight against what should and should not be said. Professors and administrators who don't get on board are getting fired. Students who don't get on board are being expelled.

Where the religious leaders used to try and shut down criticism of their views on religion, abortion, sexual identity and other subjects, today it is SJWs trying to shut down criticism of their views on religion, abortion, sexual identity and other subjects.

Cleese is at least being even handed with calling actions out on both ends of spectrum regardless were he sits on it. It's tragic that the notion of critical thought and argument is done better by comedians than supposed leaders of thought both 35 years ago and still today.

Imagoaminsaid:

Comedians who thrive on being edgy and pushing those boundaries, yet get upset that sometimes people get offended by that pushing are way more annoying IMO.

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke. But your jokes would no longer be edgy if everyone stopped giving a fuck or occasionally pushing back. You'd just be another Jeff Dunham, even if you see yourself as Bill Hicks.

Tell your edgy jokes, realize people will push back, and say "Oh, good. I'm not some boring nobody." rather than get way more offended at their "offense".

poolcleanersays...

I think the problem is more a general attitude of PC nonsense like making a crusade out of people dressing up like people of other races for halloween. Well, I guess that means only people from fuckin Transylvania can dress up like Dracula and tell the black girl she can't be Cinderella -- that's fucked up. And that's what's generally fucking wrong with PC: it's just one sided shit. I come from a family with a long line of racist beliefs so I can tell you there is a HUGE difference between edgy behavior and actual racism. And people should know the difference.

I can just tell when a conversation is going to be a quick hello and goodbye when it's impossible to speak my mind. I can just walk away without offending someone, a comedian cannot. Praise Elune I only spend time with pot smoking trannies, angry gamers and booze guzzling musicians. I would probably murder myself before it ever got close to 1984. You can take my life but I'm taking my good genes with me and the Chosen One will never be born.

Imagoaminsaid:

Comedians who thrive on being edgy and pushing those boundaries, yet get upset that sometimes people get offended by that pushing are way more annoying IMO.

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke. But your jokes would no longer be edgy if everyone stopped giving a fuck or occasionally pushing back. You'd just be another Jeff Dunham, even if you see yourself as Bill Hicks.

Tell your edgy jokes, realize people will push back, and say "Oh, good. I'm not some boring nobody." rather than get way more offended at their "offense".

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More