"I'll give you an example: My daughter's 14. My wife says to her, 'Well, you know, in the next couple years, I think maybe you’re going to want to be hanging around the city more on the weekends, so you can see boys.' You know what my daughter says? She says, ‘That’s sexist.’"
Seinfeld said college students don't understand racism and sexism. "They just want to use these words: 'That’s racist;' 'That’s sexist;' 'That’s prejudice.' They don’t even know what the f—k they’re talking about.”
Monday, June 8, 2015
Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
"I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC,'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Sounds like the comedy thing ends with Jerry.
The country, you know, doesn't seem to be doing any healing. I'm not surprised.
Damned nice of him to tell us.
For 50 years, those of us on the other side have noted how the New Left has no sense of humor. It stands to reason they'll devour anybody who crosses them now that they think they're in control.
It's good to know there are Democrats willing to criticize left-wing bullshit. Pity that there aren't conservatives who are able to criticize right-wing bullshit.
There are lots of dissenters on the right. That's why we have at least 254 Republican candidates running for President who come with differing messages and priorities . On the Democratic side, even the DNC is in the tank supporting just one candidate in direct violation of its own rules designed to assure others a fair chance. Is there anything that Democrats don't cheat at? Is there anyone they don't lie for, about, or to?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/03/dnc-violates-their-own-rules-to-promote-hillary-clinton/
It's possible even you might acknowledge something not "right" about the right, with an attitude like that. But I doubt it. To be fair, there are about exactly TWO Republicans running for president in the last eight years who effectively challenged right-wing orthodoxy in any credible way, shape or form: John Huntsman and Ron Paul. And we know how far they get. FOX practically whitewashed out any substantive coverage of Ron Paul in 2012.
I could quote Republican orthodoxy for you, if you want. But to keep it simple, I'll stick to examples of the ones who even manage to challenge them at all (interestingly, in ways in which you probably, in your opportunistic zeal, disagree with them vehemently). But the rest are as predictable as Apple Pie. Just the way they like it.
Why not just admit that you're an opportunistic fan of Republicans? It's actually easier than you think to discern which positions you give a damn about (and probably, why), and which you just feel duty-bound to support on their behalf. Obviously you're not afraid at all to admit positions of theirs which you more or less oppose entirely.
I just had a conservation with a guy about old Bond films--the Sean Connery ones. I mentioned some of the character names like Pussy Galore. We agreed that that just wouldn't fly these days.
Ritmo, you're clearly up to date on conservative and Republican thought, so can you tell me if support for the Trans Pacific Partnership is conservative or Republican. Once I hear from you I'll know which line to get in.
It's good to know there are Democrats willing to criticize left-wing bullshit. Pity that there aren't conservatives who are able to criticize right-wing bullshit.
This post is about PC and it's origins. It's not about Rand Paul or John Huntsman and the reasons you them unless it's about their opposition to PC culture.
Without knowing much about it other than the Obama-Warren kerfuffle, I'm inclined to support Obama. Why? He's not running for anything any longer and is likely to be compromising with Republicans in places where it makes sense, rather than opposing things ideologically. Plus, I'm down with the whole free trade thing - generally and don't have reason to suspect that the objections were serious. I mean, it sounds like your question's being posed ironically or rhetorically, but if you want a serious answer on that, there it is.
This post is about PC and it's origins. It's not about Rand Paul or John Huntsman and the reasons you them unless it's about their opposition to PC culture.
Are you able to follow a conversation? That bit was simply a response to Bag. If you don't want to read the thread then why comment on it? It's like listening to a kid who hasn't taken physics yet go on about where Stephen Hawking's wrong. I so want to believe you're more intelligent than to do things like that.
Rhythm and Balls said...
It's good to know there are Democrats willing to criticize left-wing bullshit. Pity that there aren't conservatives who are able to criticize right-wing bullshit.
I see the underlying symmetry you're using to try to shift the topic. But switching the narrative is an obvious sabotage of the conversation here.
There's no topic shifting going on. Complain about PC all you want, laud Seinfeld for castigating it all you want. I'm just saying it's refreshing to know that sort of internal challenge exists. Maybe you guys could remember to recognize and support that the next time I hear posts about how supposedly lockstep and doctrinaire any non-Republican is. That's all I'm saying. It's good to have internal challenge, and that's a broader point - for your side as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But maybe I'm just seeing a bigger picture than what you'd prefer I see. It's cool either way.
Thanks for answering, but I'm afraid that I didn't make the question clear. I wasn't asking for your position on the TPP, but rather a clarification as to whether or not, in your opinion, support for the TPP was conservative or Republican in nature.
Granted, any answer will be difficult to reconcile with your earlier statement on the unity in conservative/Republican ranks, but I need your opinion as a starting point if I'm going to break the mold.
Well, I have to apologize for not knowing the ® vote breakdown on TPP. I'm assuming if it's splintered then it's considered an issue that offers more leeway and less manufactured controversy than the ones about which the most noise is made. And the way you posed your question, twice now, leads me to believe that.
Lately my understanding is that increased trade gets more support from Republicans and market defenders and more resistance from the left, but beyond that, I'll let you fill me in on the specifics about the politics of this one. I already stated my own stance.
As far as that unity goes (assuming Chick won't kill me for engaging your digressive but completely fair question), it becomes most problematic around this:
1. The presumption that poverty is a choice and that wealth acquisition and utilization always occurs in just ways.
2. The presumption that tax cuts pay for themselves, and that deregulation is the only answer to any economic problem.
3. The presumption that science should take a backseat to trumped-up fears of its economic implications, let we then accuse it of orchestrating a very strange political conspiracy.
4. The presumption that corporations need to have more power over us than the law and our representatives chosen to decide it.
5. The presumption that we need to pander to theological literalists in order to keep society from becoming too "unruly" for us, whatever that means.
6. The presumption that infrastructure is "bad" if its best use is not in a red state.
Those are the orthodoxies I find the most damaging, and the most hastily if consistently defended. There are others, but that's the basic breakdown.
Since we're getting nowhere on my original question, I'll limit my response to the Six Orthodoxies of Ritmo.
Reading through, as they are all stated as absolutes (as all good orthodoxies should be) I'll have to say that I don't agree with any of them.
Damn! I'm a Liberal. Hell, I may even be a Democrat. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Anytime!
I agree that those six things are an accurate representation of what liberals think conservatives believe, but they are tangential at best, but mostly completely backwards. Ritmo, could it be that you are spending all that effort opposing an imaginary foe?
Go ahead and state what it is that conservatives actually believe (not that you would know anyway, since you're not one). It seems their (and your) whole point nowadays is just not to believe in anything. Total nihilism. As long as constructive work is prevented.
Talking to you about this is like talking to the wind. More slippery than jello.
Jello people opportunists. Changing what they say they believe the moment they realize how unpopular it becomes. With spines like a chocolate eclair.
My reaction to each of those "Orthodoxies" went something like this...
1- no.
2- not hardly.
3- Thbbbbt!
4- WhaDaFu?
5- Whatever that means.
6- Uh huh.
Here's a clue... anytime you state something as an absolute you've delegitimized your characterization of someone else's views. Number 4, is pure hysteria. You might want to get it treated.
I see Ritmo has nothing else to do but come here and babble, so
1. The presumption that poverty is a choice and that wealth acquisition and utilization always occurs in just ways.
A lot of poverty is a choice between immediate gratification and future success (I had a conversation about this just today) and most wealth is mostly hard work and preparation.
If Ritmo wants to bitch about wealth, we can discuss the Kennedys, the Ozark Mafia, Harry Reid, and Moochelle Ozero.
BTW, Social Justice is usually what happens when you screw around and get into trouble when you should be working hard.
2. The presumption that tax cuts pay for themselves, and that deregulation is the only answer to any economic problem.
Tax cuts usually do pay for themselves (check with the IRS on that one), but a few budget cuts don't hurt, either, and deregulation usually results in a more active market (Reagan years).
3. The presumption that science should take a backseat to trumped-up fears of its economic implications, let we then accuse it of orchestrating a very strange political conspiracy.
Not sure what he's babbling about here (of course he isn't, either, probably), but I have the feeling the phrase, "The science is settled", is involved somehow.
If he's talking about fracking, I have to say I'm impressed.
If he's talking about Bruce, Y chromosome.
4. The presumption that corporations need to have more power over us than the law and our representatives chosen to decide it.
Nobody's given Big Biz more power than the last 2 Democrat (National Socialist, really) Administrations.
If we're talking about law, then we're not talking about penumbras pulled out of the Notorious RBG's garter belt which have no Constitutional basis but exist to further the Lefty agenda.
5. The presumption that we need to pander to theological literalists in order to keep society from becoming too "unruly" for us, whatever that means.
I don't doubt Ritmo's gated community is well away from the truly unruly elements of society.
However, society needs some moral and legal order and, when it doesn't have it, things become more than unruly.
He should try living in some place like North Philly, where you can get killed over a gold earring. He'll wish the hoodla listened a bit more carefully to the "theological literalists". Same applies to the black women aborting more babies than they bring into the world, although I don't doubt Ritmo has a real problem with it.
6. The presumption that infrastructure is "bad" if its best use is not in a red state.
He presumes that "infrastructure" actually gets built in blue states. As we saw just a few years ago, a lot of money was spent in the name of infrastructure, but most of it went from the Democrat Congress into the pockets of Democrat officeholders.
I guess he thought His Poutiness joking those projects weren't really shovel-ready, after all, was a real knee-slapper.
1
PS
Rhythm and Balls said...
With spines like a chocolate eclair.
Teddy Roosevelt regarding William McKinley.
Ritmo can't even be funny on his own.
I see ritmo described his unicorns to us. It's a shame a good thread was wasted on reading him ramble on about the unicorns. Not one other person claims to have seen the unicorns he has described, yet he insists all of us are them.
In a way, ritmo validates Seinfeld's point. You can't even have a discussion without some idiot claiming you are greedy corporatist racist. I think Ayn Rand's Fountainhead would be a tough read for ritmo, but it might solve the hysteria that Synova rightly noticed. And this problem of his with reality keeps the rest of us from having a conversation.
4. = Hillary.
Ritmo likes Hillary now. so - wow. Who knew Rotmo was pro-evil corporate political corruption crony quid pro quo greed?
I think Obama wants to keep the Trade Deal secret to hide how much he is selling out to global Corporations. It's why he is trying to get the GOP leadership to go along with him. The rest of the GOP is sensible in demanding it be made public before even considering a vote.
On another note, has anyone figured out how bad infrastructure caused a train to go faster? How much of the faulty railing had to be replaced before trains could safely traverse the corner at the indicated speed? Or is it that all trains try going around that corner at 80+ mph and they are no longer able to do so because of the crumbling infrastructure? Did an unicorn hit the windshield?
Post a Comment