How is this worth noting at all? Either he's correct or he's not, ad hominem is fallacious.

Please engage with ideas on their merits rather than by reading through the author's tweets until you eventually find something unfashionable and unrelated.

Because the Big Think was recorded in 2016. It's interesting to see where the Big Thoughts have led him in the intervening 3 years.

Engaging ideas on their merits isn't the same as engaging them in a vacuum.

Where have the big thoughts led him? Maybe you could post that directly instead of some vague innuendo and save us all some wasted time.

It goes to his definition of "political correctness." It seems that what he feels needs to be culturally protected is his right to make unfunny, inaccurate claims about the nature of London without criticism. While (to my knowledge) nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims, the notion that he's heading towards an "Orwellian nightmare" because people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfunny claims and will call him to task for such nonsense is a bit silly.

> inaccurate claims

What is inaccurate about the claims. The English are an ethnic minority in London. That is a fact. You can say oh Englishness isn't the same as the Ethnic English, but to do that you are stripping English people of their ethnic identity and their culture.

> nobody says he shouldn't have the right to make such claims

Yes, please do believe that. Lots of them. It may shock you but in much of the world there isn't free speech. Imagine that. Do you think in China you can go around criticizing the government?

> people have less tolerance for such inaccurate and unfunny claims and will call him to task for such nonsense is a bit silly

No, they are claiming the speech itself is unsafe and trying to cancel people. There is a huge difference which you don't seem to get. And it's not silly. It's primarily about intimidation and fear that if you say the wrong thing you will lose your job, get cancelled, ect. Tolerance to intolerance is not tolerance.

I sometimes wonder, do people who think like you actually know how many people died in the so called "cultural revolutions" around the world (such as in China and Russia) which happened during just the last century. It's in the tens of millions. Intellectuals and dissidents rounded up to be killed or put in gulags. People forced to pledge loyalty to causes and leaders and to be re-educated.

The cultural revolution leaders in our country have already started to get rid of any kind of meritocracy (racist tests they claim). UC schools functionally banned the tests just recently. My brother was telling me that UCSF med school removed standardized testing from its admissions and in one year the Asian population went from 60% to 20%. Across academia now your ability to get in will be based on your ability to show how you contribute to the goal of diversity (via skin pigmentation of course).

But I guess to some it's all silly.

> The English are an ethnic minority in London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

63% of London was born in the UK. You mean white English, I presume? Even there, they're a plurality.

Ethnically English. Can you read?

English isn’t an ethnicity.

> English isn’t an ethnicity.

That’s pretty clearly not true, though the boundaries of that ethnicity will be perceived differently by different people.

“The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles').”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

Has John Cleese been canceled? Because, I mean, we're talking about him right now.He doesn't seem any more ignored or paid attention to than any other member of the Python gang.

I love Cleese but my impression is that among the left he's definitely not liked for a number of (sorta legitimate) reasons. just FYI.

It's unfunny and inaccurate for you; other people might have a different opinion.

Not the first time this kind of ad-hominem's happened in relation to PC culture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19750395

Notice the reasoning that person gives for calling Murray a racist. Among other things, because he refuses to call some other bloke called Robinson a racist.

Because decrying the loss of ethnic purity is a negative signal. History and reason should make one weary of such statements.

This is a little bit QED.

If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational, and well on our way back to less open and enlightened culture.

It is a failing of some philosophical debate to try and consider ideas in a vacuum.

When considering something John Cleese said, one can consider where John Cleese has gone in the 3 years since he said it.

In Cleese's case, our understanding of his idea of "political correctness" is informed by his subsequent exiting of the UK because he feels London is "no longer English."

Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said.

I think only in the context of identity politics.

Those subtleties of messaging can certainly indicate affiliation.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. If that's become more important than the actual arguments, were headed down.

> Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said.

Would you mind clarifying the difference between the two for me? It sounds an awful lot like we're talking about thought crimes.

(not the person you were replying to, but)

"What they technically said" are the words that were actually used. "What they actually said" are the likely intended meaning, since (as I'm sure you would agree) any given moderately-complex sentence could have a number of interpretations, especially in different contexts.

"We must protect our people" is a sentence of five simple words, but has a radically different meaning when spoken by: * A warlord invading another country * A fighter resisting an invasion * A doctor speaking about medical treatment

In this case, the OP is probably making the (reasonable) point that a speaker who has previously made overblown claims about the racial composition of a country, and has demonstrated xenophobia, can be reasonably assumed to also be on sketchy evidential grounds in his claims about political correctness

Proposing the idea that people do not always make arguments in good faith or say what they actually mean is "thought crime"?

In logic it is considered a logical fallacy to attack the speaker rather than the message.

It generally indicates that you don't have a rational refute to the argument.

It's not unreasonable to evaluate someone's comments in the context of their past statements on related matters.

Of course, it's called 'context'.

But arguing that previous miss-steps invalidate current arguments is irrational.

No disagreement there. I shared the link to give context.

It does give a little context if their support for free speech ends when your skin isn't white; only white British should be able to shape London.

Of course he has a point. We should absolutely resist creating thought crimes and police states, but we should also prohibit hateful action.

We can do both, sensibly. Shouting about every slippery slope on the way doesn't help anyone.

This is totally QED, including the fact that this is the topmost comment now, and the article has been flagged.

Unfortunately, I'm not savvy enough on the lingo to know what "This is totally QED" means beyond Q.E.D. referring to "Quod erat demonstrandum."

> This is the same John Cleese that has decried London becoming a multicultural city that is "no longer English."

That's a weird, centuries-late complaint about the natural consequence of world-spanning empire.

You can't just colonize half the world without getting anyone else’s culture in your capital.

He's rather right about London and many parts of the EU, Europe has been losing its cultural identity for years.

Cultural identity? Sounds pretty Orwellian to me, rather like group think.

Cultural identity is never lost, but cultural identity is always changing.

Street abuse is never OK regardless of who it's from, you don't have to pretend there's a racial conspiracy to stop you discussing it.

Thanks for the kind words.

I am not pretending there is a conspiracy at all. The PC is out in the open.

Can you give some concrete examples of someone being censured for criticizing people being called cancer-whore? It's not out of the realm of possibility, but that seems an extraordinary claim.

Do you actually have an opinion about people being called cancer whore out of the blue or are you just here trying to supress discussion about it?

Being called "cancer whore" is bad.

Claiming there's a big conspiracy of "political correctness which supresses discussion about this" is entirely unsupported thus far.

The Dutch have a way of using disease names as a source of profanity. Cancer, cholera, TBC, smallpox, all of these can be swear words. Corona will probably make the list soon enough. (Compare the Quebeckers with their chalice and tabarnak.)

How is "I got mistaken for a woman because of my hairstyle" a racist thing?

It is about cancer whore, not the mistaken identity.

This term is only used by immigrants towards native women.

Well, and Dutch-born white musicians, it'd seem.

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2019/11/talentloze-tuigra...

I don't think immigration/multiculturalism is the cause of that (though maybe it’s an accelerator). The world is homogenizing. Travel to any city in the developed world and all coffee shops, fashion, etc look the same.

Looks like he is consistent

Why do you feel this is relevant in the context of PC?

I believe it sheds light on Cleese's definition of both political correctness and intolerance of un-PC attitudes.

Well, it's true. So how is that related to the topic we're discussing?

The English complaining about natives losing power would be a bit rich, wouldn't it?

I'd make mention of the fact they likely think the English can be British, but they also probably imagine that a good Englishman can eat pork and beef!

Can you elaborate? What does this mean?

It's a long joke about word etymology relating to how many times the Green and Pleasant Land has been conquered:

"Britain" relates to "Briton" which used to mean a Celtic native of the British isles. That is, the people who were there when the Romans showed up.

"English" comes from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who colonized Britain when the Romans left. Etymologically, being English and British means you're of a mixed parentage indeed, and rather proves the case that immigrants integrate quite well.

"Pork" and "beef" come from Norman French, "Norman" from the fact they were originally Vikings and French from the fact they settled in Normandy before expanding their holdings in 1066. Again, proof that modern Great Britain is a land of immigrants, strivers, and hopefuls from across the water, going back to time immemorial.

Wow - an in-depth and interesting joke. I'm glad that I asked - I, like your other replier, thought that "Pork and beef" were a reference to religious dietary restrictions, and had assumed that you were making some obliquely-racist claim that England was now controlled by "those people". I apologise for having misjudged you - thank you for the explanation!

>>> I'd make mention of the fact they likely think the English can be British, but they also probably imagine that a good Englishman can eat pork and beef!

> "Pork" and "beef" come from Norman French, "Norman" from the fact they were originally Vikings and French from the fact they settled in Normandy before expanding their holdings in 1066. Again, proof that modern Great Britain is a land of immigrants, strivers, and hopefuls from across the water, going back to time immemorial.

That's not how I initially interpreted that at all. I had figured "can eat pork and beef" was most likely referring to Hindu and Jewish/Muslim dietary prohibitions.

Apart from the gross sentiment that could easily be read from this comment, "natives" do not in fact make up less than 50% of London's population.

This whole story is a terrible fit for HN.

I dunno, what are the recent stats? The 2011 census apparently had 37% [0] of London being born outside the UK. It isn't unreasonable statement, particularly on a trend basis natives might be <50% by now.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Ethnic...

What's your definition of "native"?

Obviously, born in the UK. What other definition could there be?

Obviously?

When you talk about "native Americans" you would assume it's more than just being "born there", there would be the assumption of ethnicity and culture included. Likewise with other "natives". Even legally speaking being born in the UK doesn't necessarily make you a British citizen. I am curious why a different definition from what seems to be the norm becomes "obvious" to you.