Here's why, I think: because Stephen Fry is, among other things, a comedian. And comedians are highly sensitive to political correctness and its ills. They are the canaries in the coal mine of wokeness.
> they enforce "political correctness" of speech without being told
but then claims that they have learned the difference
> When I was a kid "gay" was one of our go-to pejoratives for almost anything uncool. With my kid's cohort, it's not acceptable because they don't think being gay is insulting.
Obviously they are different kids growing up in different times with different political climates that have learned a different political correctness but both have learned what is considered politically correct from society.
The point "So what are your kids pejoratives?" simply points out that the kids are not born with an inherent knowledge of pejoratives being harmful but have simply learned different pejoratives from their parents and society.
There's a huge distinction you're glossing over. Past generations thought that exclusionary language was just fine and that exclusionary behavior was also just fine. The Gen X and Y kids were raised being "told" that exclusionary behavior and language were not acceptable, but it was not a native part of their culture and had to be learned, accepted, adopted through effort. That's the era that coined the phrase "political correctness" mostly as a pejorative term for the efforts to change people's behavior. Adults who were set in their ways were reluctant, but kids heard it and absorbed it. The current generation are being raised to inherently believe that exclusionary language is unacceptable and are self-policing because it's the predominant ethos. It's no longer a lesson to learn, it's a cornerstone of our society to protect. Obviously this varies a lot region by region and even child by child, but it's seemingly past a tipping point.
None of us are experts in everything and we need to try to make sense of things as we go about life. We all use examples/experiences in our lives to make general conclusions about the efficacy of policies.
Do they? Do they really? How old are these kids? Have they reached the rebellious age where they start to question arbitrary rules their parents put in place?
When I was a teen, it wasn't hard to censor myself when I was around adults who had their own ideas of what was inappropriate. But when we knew we were out of earshot, we said whatever we wanted. We said things specifically because we knew we weren't supposed to. And I know I'm not alone, I know virtually everyone reading this had a similar experience as a teen. And I don't have any reason to believe this has changed. Maybe it's harder to feel safe with cameras and mics hidden everywhere, but human nature is to try to do what you're told you can't. That won't go away.
Ironically, the biggest rebellion language I see is an inordinate number of kids who opt for gender neutral pronouns (they/them). It's not really an expression of being nonbinary as much as it's a statement that they don't want to be told or expected to be a certain way and they'll pick a gender and orientation on their terms when they're good and ready.
You just reinvented a worse religion, all the uptightness and self-righteousness with none of the community or the forgiveness.
That's incredibly immature. You're basically admitting that your position is just spite.
And no one is telling what you can and can't say. Continue speaking however you please. The younger generation are just telling you they won't like it. And no one is obligated to like what you say. It's the same sort of generational divide that's always been around. And history says the new generation almost always wins.
Your delusions of a monolithic 'younger generation' on the 'right side of history' inevitably triumphing are pathetic. Not how history works, not how reality is; Prime counterexample include me for a start.
A free man should resist anything, whether it's a change or the status quo, if it's pushed by self-serving bullies and pathetic status seekers. The dominant religion where I live is 1400+ years old, it's a moral and intellectual disease embraced only by the scum and the naive.
I'm not being extra hard on your religion because it's good to be spiteful, this is just how I treat most religions. It's good to be spiteful to religions and their followers because that's what they deserve most.
Your religion involves far more than "treating people with respect", this is such a pathetically false and cowardly phrase that all religions try to hide behind under various formulations. Your religion involves revering a certain class of people and elevating them above the rest of us and agreeing to every bullshit they make up or risk the consequences for dissent, made abundantly clear by repeated examples. I.e, just a standard old delusion, but with new words.
I don't despise any religion for faith, I despise ideologies for authoritarianism. Your religion, just as the 1400 year old disease I was raised on before I knew any better, is the authoritarian ploy currently in fashion to destroy lives and bend free wills. You support it, you kneel to it, you are happy your kids are absorbing your delusions before they know any better, and that makes you an authoritarian. You and the rest of your religion deserves nothing but contempt and sneering.
Having said that, I have to admit I don't actually know what do you actually hope to accomplish by replying to me? Knowing why I despise your kind of believers? I made that very clear. What else?
I remember it, and it was basically a warning of all the things that have happened in America. Thankfully we're always a little behind America here in Europe.
Or are you suggesting his motivations are something else? More to the point, who cares for the sake of the argument? Are you trolling?
> it's po-faced, sanctimonious, self-righteous occasionally ... it's not effective.
> I've always been on the side of these things and I've been very happy to see the end to the national conversation in saner and saner ways. But I do not believe for a second that political correctness has hastened those advances, at all.
> And my only problem with politically correctness really, apart from the fact that it's po-faced, sanctimonious, self-righteous occasionally, is that it's not effective.
> I want people to be effective.
> I want, yes, gay people and transgender people and people of all kinds of races and, you know, marginal identities as they may see themselves — I want them to feel comfortable in the world and not hated and not afraid. But I don't think political correctness is the way to achieve that.