Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1

    Political correctness vs the arts

    I consider myself a liberal, but the rules of political correctness have to make it hard for comedians, writers, and free thinkers to speak truth from their hearts anymore...What do you think of all the socail rules vs the individuals true thoughts and feelings?

  2. #2
    Embracing Emptiness The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    On a Nightrain!
    Posts
    251
    It doesn't even need to be their true thoughts. They could be liberal as hell but if they make a joke and say the N word for example they will be buried.

    That's why I like bands like Anal Cunt because they just don't give a shit. Homophobic, misogynistic and rasist lyrics but whether or not they believe in it nobody really knows especially since the vocalist is dead.

    I think art should be free for you to express anything. Literally anything. If you don't agree with it just ignore or don't pay attention. If it's really popular then you're probably wrong, if not then you made the right choice ignoring it. BTW I'm not saying all art that isn't popular is bad at all. I meant in terms of whether it is widely considered "good" art.

    It reminds me of a DVD an ex of mine brought round in high school. All it was, was footage of knife fights and was kinda disturbing, but in a crude and simple way you could call it art.
    Last edited by The Dude; 07-25-2018 at 04:46 AM.

  3. #3
    Yeah...the best thing one can do with bad art is ignore it, since art is an expression and by nature it wants to be noticed.

    I don't see how walking on eggshells can be good for art.

  4. #4
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,747
    I think it's really difficult. I do think it's important than artists/comedians are free to express things in a non-PC way but I think there's a big history of using that as a shield to excuse very shitty behaviors. Personally I try to take it on a case by case basis. I'm definitely uncomfortable with arbitrary rules being set on what people can and can't say but I also think there are some things that society won't and probably shouldn't tolerate, but it's really difficult to say where that line should be, let alone who gets to decide.

  5. #5
    See I think art does little to influence or especially indocternate. Whoever became a serial killer because they read silence of the lambs? Who a racist bc they heard a racist joke.... usually in art you like the way something is told. You buy it out of respect for style and beat not out of belief. Does art ask for your belief system? To regulate it because of ones beliefs feels imposing And God damn how far can the line go?

    I think someone is more likely to become a racist sitting in a certain kinds of churches than they will hearing a racist joke. I'm a white fella myself but love hearing black and Hispanic comedians laugh at white ppl if the jokes are good.
    Last edited by Benjamin Button; 07-26-2018 at 04:31 AM.

  6. #6
    Cero Miedo Mystic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    165
    Personally, I think even blurring these ideas, even making it a conversation, is problematic. I don't view rhetoric as violence. I believe a whole outrage industry has been created in order to silence particular people, in order to manipulate for power, in order to, rather than winning an conversation of ideas, to silence people through fear and mob mentality. I think good people join the mob because 1. they are indoctrinated into it 2. they don't want people to suffer and they're taught this is social justice 3. they like fitting in with a group and getting the support that comes with virtue signaling.

    Honestly, the more people apologize and try, the tighter the lines get. A lot of good liberals have been eaten and destroyed by this bullshit. I hope more people will rise up and tell these people to fuck off.

    Judge folks by their actions, not their words. It's insulting to people who are truly suffering to make "social justice" issues out of jokes, language, etc.

    If you don't like, don't watch. But it's not about that. It's about control. That's why pushback is necessary.

  7. #7
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,747
    I think someone is more likely to become a racist sitting in a certain kinds of churches than they will hearing a racist joke.
    This is a good shout, and one I agree with. On the larger idea that media doesn't influence, or doesn't to a harmful extent? I honestly don't know. I guess that's the basic question at hand. I guess I honestly don't feel I have the perspective to answer it. It's really easy for me as a white guy to say nah, that kind of speech isn't harmful! But, if it was harmful, I feel like I would be in the very last group to actually feel any harm. If someone in a position of power or influence is using racial slurs, for example (just for example, not targeting anyone in particular), I don't feel like I have the right to go to the group that was being slurred and say hey, it's just language, you're not really suffering. Then again, if it's in the context of art or comedy, I'm not the type to try to get offended on behalf of someone else, or at least I try not to be.

    I generally keep my opinions to myself, I guess, because I do think it's a tough issue. Most of all, if it does come up, I do think it's important to engage in real conversation on both sides and try not to make broad generalizations. Not everyone concerned with social justice is a phony virtue signaller, and not everyone who uses non PC language is out to oppress people. I would guess on both sides those types are the minority.

  8. #8
    I agree with you on the dialogue part. Ppl need to listen to each other.

    Definitely agree that a person in power should never insult a person for their color, sex, sexual Orientation and whatnot.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    127
    It's gone way too far. Political correctness in the workplace is completely acceptable. Its acceptable and should be the case in a lot of atmospheres, but there is zero room for it in the realm of art. If someone creates art, and it is considered racist, sexist, or mysogynistic, or hateful, you have the power to not listen, watch, or buy whatever products are associated to it. To censor is to prevent artistic expressionism. Even if you dont agree with that expressionism, it is necessary. Everything is everything. All life has a right to create art. And even bad art can create positive change, even unintentionally. If it creates negative change, that's not for us to control. In the future that change could in turn create positive change. We cant blot out the parts of life we dont agree with.

    Art needs to breathe. It needs to bleed and live. It needs to at times reflect the current climate, no matter how ugly. Without art we are lost as a civilization. And in this climate art is dying. Its so depressing to see. Im not encouraging hate, but if hate happens, all you can do is control yourself, and your own environment. Censoring art is never the answer imo.


  10. #10
    That, kleck, was art in itself. Well put.

  11. #11
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,747
    I think part of the problem is that politics and entertainment have started to overlap so much in recent years. I agree we can't simply blot out what we don't like. As far as art causing negative change, that is a real concern but it's hard to anticipate sometimes and harder still to know what to do about it.

    Do you really think art is dying though? I feel like it's thriving, at least in a lot of areas.

  12. #12
    Cero Miedo Mystic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    165
    I've lived long enough to know that the progressive left is the new religious right.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    127
    Comedy is on life support. Music industry is scrutinized like never before. People are even afraid to explore, as the backlash is so severe that it's like undertow pulling you into a lifetime of being perpetually stranded.

    Even if art is finding a way, it is becoming harder for it to. At this rate, it will eventually become impossible.


  14. #14
    Truth is whites and blacks and Hispanics and gays friends....I think politics divide people more than it should
    Last edited by Benjamin Button; 07-30-2018 at 09:55 AM.

  15. #15
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,874
    I think I get a lot less exercised by this than a lot of you, judging by the thread. That's for a couple of reasons, but mainly it's because I don't see it as that new a phenomenon, so much as the tiniest twist on something that's basically been there throughout our history. First, to revisit this quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic View Post
    I've lived long enough to know that the progressive left is the new religious right.
    This is fair enough to a degree, but you've got to add a couple of modifiers to it. The first is to note that at some level there can't be a 'new' religious right because they are still there, and still using much the same tactics, so it's not like they've gone away and the ground is solely occupied by people on the left. And second, you can actually drop the word religious out of there, because it's been a tactic used across the right - religious or otherwise - for a long, long time.

    The truth is that every culture, every society, at some level polices discourse. That's one of the whole reasons that freedom of speech became a thing in the first place, because people in control realised that for the most part, citizens would actually perform the function for the state anyway, and they didn't need to do it in the top-down, heavy-handed way. That hasn't always stopped them, of course, but it's an important part of why the idea was allowed to germinate. Even so, look at the number of ways that people have policed free speech in American history. From the castigation and even lynching of abolitionists through McCarthyism to boycotts of artists seen as 'seditious' or 'disloyal'.... I mean, I could go on, but the long and short of it is that policing the acceptable boundaries of speech and opinion is something that has always happened in America, and in the rest of the world that I know about too for that matter, and the only substantive difference is that tactics that have been used very successfully by one side are being put to use by the other (with much the same success). That's it, as far as I can see.

    In fact, you can go further. The idea of a community in which you have 'total free speech' and in which that doesn't happen is actually a logical impossibility. That's why Free Speech only really applies in certain cases and has very little bearing on the consequences of your speech in the wider world.


    As for the effect on the arts... again, I think we can be in danger of overreacting about it. Yes, every so often I see something that I think isn't ideal, but in 9/10 of the times where I see language that you'd consider non-PC, it doesn't attract negative attention because of the context and the way it's handled. Of the remaining 1/10, the vast majority of the cases that do attract a backlash tend to be trying to court controversy - can they really then complain when they find it? The actual number of instances where someone seems to be acting in good faith and still gets hammered... we're probably taking about a fraction of one percent of all the art out there.

    And I think we're also in danger of forgetting that far more, infinitely more restrictive times than ours gave us Shakespeare, Chaucer, the Golden Age of Hollywood, Jazz, Rock N' Roll, Beethoven, Mozart, Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, the Silver Age of Comic books, Dante Alighieri, the giants of Vaudeville and Music Hall.... and again, I could go on, because pretty much every major artist in history flourished in a time when there was more restriction on what you could say, and the penalties for transgressing those boundaries were greater, than today. Point is, if we're going to be realistic about this you have to acknowledge that artists have always had to walk a series of lines, and one of those is the boundaries of taste and decency as set by the audience and the public at large. I don't really think there's a credible case to be made that expecting the same thing of today's artists really affects their ability to be creative in any way. If you do think there's a real creative gap in today's art, I'd look for other explanations.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •