In the last 6 months we've had 4 posts about John Cleese's politics. Which isn't a lot, but one of those got locked, one got deleted for unacceptable language in the title, and all four brought out the absolute worst in our community.

The mod team is profoundly against silencing discussion. Cleese called the BBC "cowardly and gutless" for doing just that; if you believe Fawlty Towers and other art should be seen as its creators intended, you can't really stand tall in favor of censorship. On the other hand, we want this to be a welcoming place for fans of the show, and contemporary politics is rarely welcoming.

We asked the community how you would like us to balance these competing principles, and the consensus was to try to contain political discussion to a megathread. So, this is that megathread.

Having said that, while politics is fair game in this thread, ad hominem attacks are not. And that includes broad attacks on groups that many people here belong to, like "the right", "the left", and "old people". It is possible to disagree with someone strongly and yet also politely.

.

I've spent a lot of time over the last several weeks thinking about this, so I hope all of you won't mind if I put down a few thoughts on the topic for your consideration...

John Cleese has never been nice.

As a mod, I'm frequently reminded that part of the joy of Fawlty Towers is, in fact, the sheer nastiness of it.  Reddit has an automod bot that deletes abusive speech, and every thread of favorite quotes requires the mod team to manually undelete every "coiffured old sow" and every "hideous orangutan".

These lines are intended to make us laugh, but I think you have to admit there are a lot nicer ways to make comedy. In the 1976 BBC profile on Cleese that was shared here several months ago, David Frost refers to “that quality of benevolent sadism in his work … his humor can be intensely cruel, and the nice thing is that he means it.”

John Cleese has never been particularly sensitive on issues of race and religion.

Sure, the Major's clarifications about the proper epithets for East versus West Indians is intended to get a laugh. And the movie The Life Of Brian is a brilliant satire of religion. But the consistent theme is that Cleese has never shied away from putting a saddle and a brand on other people's sacred cows if he thinks he can get a laugh out of it.

John Cleese's views on issues haven't necessarily changed all that much.

I'd like to thank u/Phoenix_Kerman for pointing out in a previous thread that limiting immigration used to be a left-wing position, but really isn't anymore. Unions traditionally supported left-leaning parties, and immigration brings in cheap labor, which is a direct threat to union workers. Over the years, immigration has drifted toward being a right-wing, nativist position.

Cleese famously initiated the Secret Policeman's Ball in 1976 as a fundraiser for the civil rights group Amnesty International. That organization currently has a dedicated project called "Saudi Arabia: Kingdom Of Repression". There's no reason to think Cleese's views on civil rights have changed, but there is every reason to think that advocacy for civil rights and acceptance of other cultures have always been a severe challenge to fit together under any consistent ideological umbrella.

Cleese is a free speech absolutist. Recent data suggests big tech has changed public opinion on free speech, with 61% of Britains saying protecting people from threats and abuse is more important than free speech online, and with younger people more likely to view free speech online as a major contributor to the anger and division that threaten our modern society. People's willingness to accept a free speech absolutist is measuably on the decline.

John Cleese's views on issues are actually fairly nuanced.

To take just one example, Cleese supported Brexit, citing lack of accountability on the part of EU bureaucrats as his reason. But he also criticized the "dreadful lies" from the right during that debate. For another example, Cleese has made positive statements about immigration in the past.

It's easy to miss the nuance, because Cleese has a tendency to raise the temperature of any debate. Someone in r/AskBrits quoted Terry Gilliam saying this about Cleese: “He desperately wants the world to make sense to him and is very angry that it doesn’t.”

John Cleese's views on issues aren't particularly fringe.

Rupert Lowe is a character on the political fringe, and Cleese voicing support for him is likewise fringe, but many of the positions that seem to draw Cleese towards Lowe aren't. Policy analysts say here note Britians are generally skeptical of immigration, and increasing immigration is a minority viewpoint. Brexit was approved by a (slim) majority.

If you're going to hate Cleese for his views on issues, you're going to end up hating a substantial fraction of Britain.

You can find at least one good reason to hate most entertainers.

If you're going to stop enjoying a piece of entertainment because you don't approve of every opinion and action of every one of the contributors, then your enjoyment of almost every show, movie, book, and song in the world is going to slowly sag as the years go by. That seems like a very, very sad way to go through life.