"Great" Sitcoms we can no longer watch aka political correctness

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am liberal on most political issues at least as far as social goals.. It is frustrating to me that my own side (liberals) is so willing to ignore twist or mistate facts even when I agree with the conclusion. Of course conservatives do the same, but it doesn't bother me as much.

The need to feel vindicated seems to be part of the human condition regardless of whether you are arguing politics or sports.

maxdancona wrote:

Political correctness pushes a narrative whether the facts support it or not. This is not a good thing in my opinion.

I argue the opposite. The majority of the population is against "political correctness". The reason someone trots out an accusation of political correctness is to shame someone else and shut down the argument. It serves no other purpose and doesn't further the debate in any way. The original post that started this thread linked to an article that opened with

Quote:

One of the unfortunate consequences of being a fan of a show that's now almost 30 years old is that it may not feel relevant or relatable when you watch it later. With Seinfeld, that change in enjoyability may be even greater due to the '90s comedy's frequent pushing of boundaries.

Ok, let's debate that. I'd argue like someone else did earlier that many of those jokes served to poke fun at the teller and were actually not offensive in the context of the show, much like the Baby It's Cold Outside debate we had before Christmas, but instead of doing that, we were asked to laugh at the author for being politically correct. Ridicule instead of debate, that is the purpose of the label "politically correct".

1 Reply

I think ‘sitcoms that could no longer be made’ is more accurate than ‘no longer watch’. I was watching a Seinfeld episode about George and Jerry enjoying a lingering look at a teenager’s cleavage, and I sorta grimaced and doubted in the Moonves/Woody Allen / MeToo climate if this could make it to the air.

Was also thinking about Louis CK’s pretty horrible stand up routine. I think it’s important to protect freedom of speech for comedians, but Jesus Christ. I don’t understand making jokes about murdered kids—or laughing at those jokes.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

I argue the opposite. The majority of the population is against "political correctness". The reason someone trots out an accusation of political correctness is to shame someone else and shut down the argument. It serves no other purpose and doesn't further the debate in any way. The original post that started this thread linked to an article that opened with

Here we very much disagree. And I think you are contradicting yourself. You made the point that criticizing speech is itself free speech... and accusing something of being "politically correct" is an example of this, is it not?

Political correctness is a shortcut term, but it is making a valid point. People, particularly on the political left, live in a constant state of outrage. Some outrage is widely agreed (i.e. Weinstein and Cosby) and uncontroversial... But some is patently ridiculous... arguing about who has the right to wear hoop earrings, or calls ban Christmas songs. And that is the frustration.

The outrage is being used, particularly by the left, to push a political narrative that isn't supported by the facts. Outrage stops people from considering the other side or from view things from other perspectives.

People see the constant outrage over things that in any objective sense are silly. But it is not just silly... the attempts to stifle speakers on campus and to penalize free expression (e.g. getting plumbers fired for views unrelated to cleaning pipes) do real damage to our fractured society.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here we very much disagree. And I think you are contradicting yourself. You made the point that criticizing speech is itself free speech... and accusing something of being "politically correct" is an example of this, is it not?

No it is not. It is an ad hominem attack used specifically to avoid addressing the opinion being stated, an attempt to switch the debate from the original topic by forcing the someone to defend themselves instead of their position. No where in this thread have we discussed the original opinion that some of the humor in Seinfeld is actually more offensive than funny and that was the point of tossing in "political correctness". Have you ever seen a debate get better after someone throws the PC card?

2 Replies

@engineer,

Do we have to talk about what the term "ad hominum" means (which is latin for "to the man")? How is accusing something of being politically correct an ad hominum Criticizing someone's argument is not criticizing them as a person.

I don't believe I have ever said that you are politically correct as a person. I do believe that in some cases you have let your ideological views cloud you ability to see the facts clearly... but that is a reasonable criticism relevant to a specific argument.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

No where in this thread have we discussed the original opinion that some of the humor in Seinfeld is actually more offensive than funny and that was the point of tossing in "political correctness".

I would be interested in having this discussion about what you found "more offensive than funny in Seinfeld". I am not sure if it is relevant, they put in a bunch of stuff that they think is funny to themselves, that's art.

My opinion is that you accept the comedian as a human... and that you should give a comedian full latitude to express him or herself freely. I do this with the understanding that the comedian will sometimes express points of view that I disagree with ... or even mock positions that I take.

I loved Jon Stewart and John Oliver and even Samantha Bee. At times Samantha Bee (particularly) pushes my buttons as you might imagine. She attacks anti-feminists including mocking some of the positions I take. I think she is wrong, but she is also funny... I accept it even when she is saying something I find disagreeable.

Seinfeld is Seinfeld. The people who made that show put in what they thought was funny. You have to accept it as it is, or reject it... your choice.

I like art to be provocative. I don't want it to conform to my ideas of taste or to merely stroke my views of how things are or should be. Art that pushes my buttons is a good thing. Comedy that parodies current trends in society... including things you feel are important... is essential.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Do we have to talk about what the term "ad hominum" means (which is latin for "to the man")? How is accusing something of being politically correct an ad hominum Criticizing someone's argument is not criticizing them as a person.

Charging political correctness is not criticizing an argument, it is criticizing the motivation of the person putting it forth. If you spout racial slurs and I respond that characterizing an entire group of people is wrong and you then pull the PC card, you aren't debating my argument about characterizing people, you are debating my intent in challenging you. "You don't really feel that way, you are just being politically correct!" Your ideological bubble is similar. "You only think that way because you are indoctrinated, not because you have looked at both sides and made a considered opinion!" It's just a cheap way to smack down someone who has just challenged you.

1 Reply

I'm just loving the discussion. Maybe even learning something.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Nonsense Engineer! Do you consider that saying that an argument is "prejudiced" an ad-hominem argument? Of course it is not.

Criticizing someone's beliefs, or actions, or argument, logic are all part of disagreement and can be civil. I have been accused of "parroting" big pharmaceutical companies, or of failing to think independently in science. I don't feel personally attacked when someone disagrees with, or even attacks, my arguments or positions.

When someone attacks my logic, or my actions or even my motivation in an argument... these aren't personal attacks. Personal attacks; calling someone a "moron" or a "Nazi" are different, they attack someone's character rather than their attack the character of the person or their actions.

If you tell me that as a White man I am failing to acknowledge the experiences of women or minorities... I might disagree with you, but it is not an ad hominem. For one thing, if I decide you are right, I can change this behavior. If I decide you are wrong, I can either debate the issue or let it slide. This is also a criticism on one position I am taking, it says nothing about the other positions I take or on my value as a human being. This is is fundamentally different then if you would ever call me a "moron" (which is an attack on basic character that I presumably couldn't do anything about).

People are now claiming "Baby, it's cold outside" is now offensive and as a result they are being removed from playlists on radio stations. This is something that I personal feel is ridiculous. I am not attacking the people. I am criticizing the idea that this flirty song are is any way offensive an that songs from the 1950s should be judged by 2018 sensitivities. In my opinion this idea is ridiculous.

I am not attacking the people at all. I am attacking their politically correct behavior in this specific instance, and what I see as a trend in society. You can't have this discussion without criticizing politically correct attitudes.

1 Reply

Back to the topic of the thread.

Here is a old television clip of
"The Little Rascals"

0 Replies

Continuing the topic of the thread.

Here is an old television clip of
"All In The Family"

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

I think ‘sitcoms that could no longer be made’ is more accurate than ‘no longer watch’

Agreed.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

That's an interesting thought. I would say that there are more provocative shows coming out today, but not on network TV

Yes. You are absolutely correct.
I was focusing only a network television, because I think that is what the OP was referring to.
It is true that today there are many more platforms to view shows that might not otherwise be permitted on network television.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Nonsense Engineer! Do you consider that saying that an argument is "prejudiced" an ad-hominem argument? Of course it is not.

No, I am saying when you stop attacking the argument and start throwing out labels like politically correct you shift from attacking the argument to attacking the person.

maxdancona wrote:

Personal attacks; calling someone a "moron" or a "Nazi" are different, they attack someone's character rather than their attack the character of the person or their actions.

Calling someone "politically correct" is only different than those in scale. It is a shift from discussing their argument to discussing them personally.

maxdancona wrote:

People are now claiming "Baby, it's cold outside" is now offensive and as a result they are being removed from playlists on radio stations. This is something that I personal feel is ridiculous. I am not attacking the people. I am criticizing the idea that this flirty song are is any way offensive an that songs from the 1950s should be judged by 2018 sensitivities. In my opinion this idea is ridiculous.

That is great, you are discussing their opinions and positions and comparing them to yours. I think that is a good debate. The second you stop doing this and start calling people morons or nazis or politically correct, you aren't trying to debate the issue anymore, you are trying to shut down the conversation. How many times have you called someone politically correct and had them say "oh yes, I see your point, let me reconsider"?

maxdancona wrote:

I am not attacking the people at all. I am attacking their politically correct behavior in this specific instance, and what I see as a trend in society. You can't have this discussion without criticizing politically correct attitudes.

Of course you can. You can debate each issue independently without trying to ridicule people by labeling them politically correct. The purpose of this thread seems to be to ridicule a well meaning Seinfeld fan who penned an article talking about how some of the jokes she laughed at years ago seem problematic to her today. By labeling her politically correct, you give yourself permission to completely ignore her argument rather than engaging it. "Ha ha, look at how stupid this person is for criticizing a show I like." Well, were the jokes problematic or not? Does the article have some validity? No one wants to side with someone who is politically correct, so we better just laugh along and ignore it.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Let me get this straight, Engineer. Are you claiming that when someone attacks an argument as "politically correct", that counts as a personal attack? This makes no sense to me.

You seem to have a problem with this one label; "politically incorrect". I don't think you have a point.

Do you have the same reaction to people saying that an argument is "sexist" or "tone deaf" or "prejudiced" or "illogical" or "patriarchal" or "outdated". These, along with "politically incorrect" are simply adjectives that can be appropriately used to describe opinions, attitudes or social trends.

It is simple. Attacking a person is (by definition) a personal attack. Attacking an argument is not a personal attack (since an argument is not a person). Saying that a person is "politically correct" is a personal attack. Saying that an argument is "political correct" is not a personal attack. I do not believe that anyone here has labeled any person as politically correct (please provide any example if I missed something).

I am happy to say that the attitudes banning songs like "Baby, it's cold outside" are politically correct and ridiculous. I am not attacking the people, I am attacking the attitude.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let me get this straight, Engineer. Are you claiming that when someone attacks an argument as "politically correct", that counts as a personal attack? This makes no sense to me.

Yes. Arguments in themselves are not politically correct. You say something, I say that is racist, we can debate why you think it is not and I do. When you label it politically correct, you are attacking my motivations, saying that my opinion is not related to the particular debate we are having but related to a larger philosophy.

maxdancona wrote:

You seem to have a problem with this one label; "politically incorrect".

Yes, I do. I think this term has been weaponized as an attack on free speech in the guise of protecting free speech. "If you don't say Merry Christmas, you are being politically correct!!!" Wait, you are saying I can't say "Happy holidays" or put up a sign that says "Seasons Greetings"? The purpose of throwing out this term is specifically to shame someone for their opinion, to shut down their criticism. "I can speak and you can't say anything about it or you will be PC!"

maxdancona wrote:

It is simple. Attacking a person is (by definition) a personal attack. Attacking an argument is not a personal attack (since an argument is not a person).

The label of politically correct is not focused on the argument. It's actually an attempt to avoid the merits of the argument. I don't have to listen to your argument because it is "politically correct". It's like saying I don't have to listen to your argument because you are a conservative. Are some Seinfeld episodes problematic? OH MY GOD, political correctness means we can no longer watch Seinfeld! This thread is a perfect example of the typical use of the PC attack.

maxdancona wrote:

I am happy to say that the attitudes banning songs like "Baby, it's cold outside" are politically correct and ridiculous. I am not attacking the people, I am attacking the attitude.

What you are not doing it attacking the argument. I suggest you should be perfectly happy to debate why songs like "Baby, it's cold outside" do not promote date rape and how it represents the mating dance in a time when women were not free to just pursue and enjoy sex. Dismissing those who say otherwise out of hand as "politically correct" does a disservice to both your argument and theirs by trying to shift the discussion to their "attitude".

In a tangential way, this thread reminds me of the story of Megan Phelps-Roper, the granddaughter of the Westboro Baptist Church founder and social media spokesperson for the church. She would engage on Twitter with people and they would flame her constantly to which she just responded with a smile and more WBC rhetoric. Then she saw an article that said that David Abitbol was the second most influential Jew on Twitter and went after him. He just started debating her. Not flaming her, not telling her she living in an ideological bubble (although she clearly did), he just debated her directly. Two years later, she left the church and credits her decision to her interactions with him. No one will ever give your opinions more consideration because you call them politically correct. When you do that, you say that you are not interested in debating their positions because they come from a place that is inherently wrong. That's my burn with the PC charge and why I think it is a personal attack.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

I'm not sure why you couldn't make All in the Family today. Are you saying that it would take attacks from the right because it makes fun of a white, blue collar everyman? I think the real shows you would have trouble with today would be something like Three's Company or Charlie's Angels. Three's Company would come out like That Girl. Of course Charlie's Angels has been re-imagined in several movies and seems to be pretty similar to the original formula with the exception of more racial diversity.

1 Reply

@engineer,

1. Do you have a similar issue with terms like "patriarchal" or "mansplaining" or "rape culture"? Like "political correctness" these phrases represent cultural critiques (the difference being the PC criticizes the left).

All of these phrases challenge what people believe are societal trends. And all of these are necessarily part of a broader discussion of social progress.

I don't think you can ban the phrase "political correctness" and have any reasonable discourse about where our society is.

I suspect you respond positively when someone uses the phrase "white privilege" to criticize something in society. It's the same type of criticism (just from the other political side).

2. Political correctness describes a part of society that many people feel is important. It seems that many people believe they have the right to not be offended, and. The term expresses my belief that Americans in general need to lighten up.

Accepting that this social criticism is valid some times doesn't mean that I accept every application of the term. It is still an important idea and a useful term. It doesn't mean that I agree with every application (e.g. Merry Christmas).

3. I disagree with your claim that the term "political correctness" limits discussion. Quite the contrary, it is a succinct way for me to express my opinion.

I believe that banning Christmas songs is ridiculous. That is a perfectly legitimate opinion that I am fully able to defend without attacking anyone personally.

Because political correctness in modern American society is ridiculous

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. Do you have a similar issue with terms like "patriarchal" or "mansplaining" or "rape culture"? Like "political correctness" these phrases represent cultural critiques (the difference being the PC criticizes the left).

Yes when they are targeted at people in a discussion. Like PC, they have a standalone definition that might be used but they are often used to hammer someone in an argument.

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think you can ban the phrase "political correctness" and have any reasonable discourse about where our society is.

I'm not calling for a ban on anything, I am addressing free speech with more free speech.

maxdancona wrote:

2. Political correctness describes a part of society that many people feel is important. It seems that many people believe they have the right to not be offended, and. The term expresses my belief that Americans in general need to lighten up.

I disagree. "Political correctness" attempts to bucket many different concerns into an overarching narrative for the purpose of political attack. Take the Merry Christmas argument. Some are offended that stores are "banned" from saying Merry Christmas and say Happy Holidays instead because of political correctness. That's absurd, but if you want to debate it you are just being politically correct. If you find almost nothing offensive, but there is one thing that bothers you and you speak up, here comes the PC flag and you just need to lighten up and get over it. It's an all purpose excuse to ignore someone when they call you out while at the same time imply that someone who offended by one thing is offended by everything.

maxdancona wrote:

3. I disagree with your claim that the term "political correctness" limits discussion. Quite the contrary, it is a succinct way for me to express my opinion.

Succinct in that it eliminates all nuance and adds in tons of baggage. Again, how many times have you accused someone of being PC only to have them say "wow, I should reconsider your opinion"?

maxdancona wrote:

I believe that banning Christmas songs is ridiculous. That is a perfectly legitimate opinion that I am fully able to defend without attacking anyone personally.

Ok, but no one is banning Christmas songs. If a station out there says "I find this problematic and choose to no longer play it" that is their choice much like Disney retiring "Sound of the South". That doesn't mean it is banned or that the police will be pounding on your door to haul you away if you put it on your Spotify list. That raging overreaction to someone expressing an opinion is typical of the problem with labeling something PC. "I don't like your opinion about my statement so I am going to hammer you with ridiculous exaggerations instead of discussing what you find concerning."

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Let me ask you this. Several years ago, people were marking your threads with the label "misogyny". When you flipped out and labeled every open thread with the same label, was that because you considered the term a succinct way for people to express their opinion or because you considered it a personal attack geared at shutting down your opinions? Did you see it as commentary on the argument or commentary on you?

1 Reply

"Great" Sitcoms we can no longer watch aka political correctness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know