I just want to say that the style of humour may need to be considered. If one viewed rape as something trivial, would they use it in shock humour? No, they wouldn't.
In shock humour the more outrageous and vile something is, the greater the humour. If you are disposed towards that kind of comedy that is. Thus, if rape is used in shock humour, it is a testament to our abhorrence of it. Not that it would be much comfort to rape victims.
Of course, not all humour is shock humour but make what you will of my considerations.
Oh yeah. Feel free to google for the voice clip. Apparently when you drug, rape, and sodomize a 13 year old girl its not rape-rape. The whole situation is so far beyond fucked up, especially with Hollywood rallying in support of him, that there is really only one way to end the story of Roman Polanski.
I just want to say that the style of humour may need to be considered. If one viewed rape as something trivial, would they use it in shock humour? No, they wouldn't.
In shock humour the more outrageous and vile something is, the greater the humour. If you are disposed towards that kind of comedy that is. Thus, if rape is used in shock humour, it is a testament to our abhorrence of it. Not that it would be much comfort to rape victims.
Of course, not all humour is shock humour but make what you will of my considerations.
True, but some people will say "this subject matter is too serious / sensitive / tragic to be made into shock humor!"
Teabagging your mother's corpse at the funeral would be "shocking" and it may be an attempt at humor, but I don't think it would be proper.
Regardless, its okay to use rape in a joke but you should be careful about it and its ok to take offense at a joke but you shouldn't freak out about it and its even ok to make a joke that you think will be funny but ends up just being offensive and then apologizing for it.
And if you're ever going to apologize for offending someone, don't say "I'm sorry you chose to get offended" or something similar, because that's not an apology that's just you being a passive-aggressive douche.
What the hell Whoopi? I'm critical of some modern definitions of rape but it's damned clear that fucking an underaged girl who is passed out is rape... Or I could be wrong.
I'm still stuck at the part where he claims that calling an argument stupid is in itself stupid because, I guess, you can't disagree with stupid things without agreeing with them, or something.
Hey, I'll help you with that. (With a pre-emptive "simmer down" gesture to TheCat lest they try to interpret my responding to you as being about them. Well, what follows is sort of "about them" but, let me assure all and sundry, is certainly not an attempt to "bait" them.)
I did indeed imply at one point that chiming in to a thread to declare the thread irrelevant involves a certain performative self-contradiction. Had this been the first time the poster in question had made that declaration, I would probably not have made the associated implication. However, that declaration was coming at the tail end of a series of somewhere around a dozen posts to that same thread, some of them wrapped up in some of the most retarded tangents of the tangentialism in question. This led the continuing attempts to post about the retardedness of the conversation to strike me as amusing.
Meta-explaining one's posts with faux-propriety is pretty fun, by the way. But don't try this at home, kids.
I am certainly not an expert on this subject. I've really only recently become aware of the horribly common occurance of sexual violence, and the rape culture that surrounds us. If you REALLY want to know more about rape culture it is no that hard to google, but I can also provide a few links that were shared with me that I found especially profound when I first started reading about the subject.
I find it highly offensive that the topic of this thread is "Getting Offended: The New National Pastime." Fucker, please. "Choosing to be offended" by homosexuals or gawths or what have you is dumb. "Choosing to be offended" because someone wasn't the epitome of polite to you, or because they don't match some arbitrary standards you have, is dumb. "Choosing to be offended" by the prevalence of rape jokes in our culture, and the offhand dismissals that criticism of them receives? IT'S PRETTY FUCKING LEGIT TO GET OFFENDED. Especially since this happens a lot. Sometimes, women get tired of being told to keep our thoughts to ourselves, or being trolled with rape jokes/jokes about how unhot and unattractive we are and therefore how our opinions don't matter. SOMETIMES we get tired of all the blatant sexist shit that goes on day after day and the fact that no one really gives a shit, because in the end, the straight white dude's opinion is the only one that matters. In other words, sometimes we lose our shit because we are tired of bullshit. So fuck you, OP, for saying victims of rape "CHOOSE TO BE OFFENDED" by rape. Oh and I'm sorry that sometimes people are mean to you and call you out on your privilege whether it be on matters re: sexism or re: racism, and you feel like the big meanie PC police are all up in your shit.
I've never been a letter-writer, and I don't consider myself a fan of censorship. With that in mind, this is the email I was moved to write when I read the response comic that came out today. It is a fairly angry, ranting letter, but I like to think it's worth sharing? And if not...well, it's not like I'm an established poster here, so there's no real fallout for me to face.
I have a lot of respect for PA, but I gotta say the response comic to the fallout over Wednesday's comic caused it to drop a few levels. Personally, I found Wednesday's comic funny. I generally always find PA funny. I also have to agree that out of all the comics to be offended over, Wednesday's really shouldn't have been that high on the list. But making a strip where you talk down to people offended by rape references, and actually making light of rape, etc? Bad form. You're (and every other straight white male guy out there) coming from a place of privilege. YOU don't have to be worried about being raped by some psycho who breaks into your house. YOU don't have to worry about being raped at a party just because you set your drink down for a second and got drugged, or because you had too much to drink and didn't have anyone to watch your back. YOU don't have to worry about your husband or boyfriend not taking no for an answer, and raping you because, hey, you're married/dating right, so it's all good, right? YOU don't have to worry about being shamed for something happening to you beyond your control (she was asking for it, she shouldn't have worn X then, if she would have done X this wouldn't have happened, etc). Never mind that if it were not for the MOTHERFUCKING RAPIST women would not have to worry about being raped. It should NEVER be on the victim to prevent themselves from being assaulted--sexually or physically or whatever.
1 in every 6 women is raped. Think about that, and think about how many women you know. Moms. Sisters. Daughters. Friends. Every 2 minutes in the US someone is sexually assaulted.I could go on and on with statistics, but I won't. Google exists for a reason. I have friends who were raped. My older sister was almost the victim of a rape. My mother was raped by her fucking boss back in the AWESOME days when women were only allowed to be secretaries, mommies, nurses, or flight attendants. While I will usually give rape jokes a pass because they are pretty fucking prevalent EVERYWHERE--even my lovable boyfriend makes them, hell, even I slip up and make some sometimes--I feel I cannot let my reaction to your comic go unsaid.
It's shit like this, and the internet fuckwad theory, that make women and other marginalized groups feel unwelcome in all walks of fandom--comics, video games, etc. When we're not being told that the only females in the media should be fuckdolls by both fellow fans and the people who create the things we love, we're being condescended to for actually giving a shit about problematic things like this. I'm sorry, but Penny Arcade does not exist in a vacuum. The things that you write about, and the actual content of your strip? They represent a slice of culture. The fact that it is acceptable to the vast majority of people to make rape jokes, and then blame rape victims for "being offended" does not prove that it is OK to make rape jokes and blame rape victims for their reactions. It means we live in a fucked up society that still treats women like fucking objects, which is why we get comments like "LOL NO 1 WULD RAPE U U FAT UGLY WHORE!!1" on forums, or people using the prospect of rape as a goddamned compliment, trolling or not.
And you know, even if people DIDN'T give you shit over self-described more offensive, older strips--the fact that they are now? Maybe you should, I don't know, LISTEN to their criticism. Take it with a grain of salt (is this general I CAN'T BE PLEASED BY ANYTHING YOU DO!! criticism, or actual legit concrit?) I'm not saying PA has to become some completely sanitized strip that avoids offensive topics. Fuck, I wouldn't want to read that either. But you know what? It would be really, REALLY cool if society stopped making LOL rape jokes ALL. THE. GODDAMNED. TIME. Or at least had the fucking balls to say, "Hey, I'm sorry if I offended you by doing this." and leaving it at that, without the dose of "lol why did you ~*choose*~ to be offended? Silly pc-police!" And if PA started that trend? Well, that would definitely skyrocket my respect for PA as a whole again.
But who am I fucking kidding, what do you care about one angry fan? And at the end of the day, no one pays attention to women anyway, unless they're staring at our tits.
in summation: FEMINIST THEORY 101, my learnings let me show you them.
If you tell the world you are offended by something then you should be willing to except that the world may tell you your an idiot and need to grow a thicker skin, wussbag.
I was unaware of my legal right to have an opinion and assumed that being offended provided me legal protection against people calling me an idiot. Thank you for posting this, now I am more aware and if you had not done so I would have continued to operate under a false pretense, no doubt causing me much confusion.
You are welcome. I feared that most people lived under this false belief. See most people tend to react by stating that you can't call someone an idiot for being "offended" you have to respect their feelings. I am glad that you know see the light and realize that if someone is offended by something that most find inoffensive then they are idoits or giant babies.
What the hell Whoopi? I'm critical of some modern definitions of rape but it's damned clear that fucking an underaged girl who is passed out is rape. I could be wrong though.
Its not rape-rape, apparently. There's rape and then there's rape.
To quote Whoopi Goldberg "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape."
She said that? For real?
There is a distinction between violent rape and other forms, just as coercion is seen as worse than other cons like bringing a contract to a saloon or trying to enforce the signature of a minor.
If you tell the world you are offended by something then you should be willing to except that the world may tell you your an idiot and need to grow a thicker skin, wussbag.
I was unaware of my legal right to have an opinion and assumed that being offended provided me legal protection against people calling me an idiot. Thank you for posting this, now I am more aware and if you had not done so I would have continued to operate under a false pretense, no doubt causing me much confusion.
You are welcome. I feared that most people lived under this false belief. See most people tend to react by stating that you can't call someone an idiot for being "offended" you have to respect their feelings. I am glad that you know see the light and realize that if someone is offended by something that most find inoffensive then they are idoits or giant babies.
Dude its cool, I'm living in a whole new world now that I don't have to respect someone else's feelings and now that you've shown me the light that my opinions are valid and anyone who disagrees is a gigantic crybaby.
I'm also learning to strawman from you, but I'm still practicing so feel free to give me some pointers. Regardless, thanks bro!
But if we censor what we talk about to exclude things that are controversial or horrible then we limit our ability to talk about things that are actually important.
Satiric comedy is a valid medium of communication and isn't excluded in the above. I'm not about to make a value judgment about whether or not specific topics should be discussed. All topics should be discussed. If the audience doesn't want to participate, they have the freedom to decide not to.
I hate to tell you Ilinana, but the good and valid points of your angry rant letter were very much covered up by the angry rant section. I mean, the way it was written was... yeah. Not condusive to measured reading.
Also, I am reading through the entire thread now, and I am pleasantly surprised that not everyone here is just agreeing with the OP or PA.
Also also would like to add that the whole Roman Polanski thing is fucked up. I work at a movie theater, and every time I sold tickets to Ghost Writer I just wanted to say, "So you enjoy supporting child rapists?" or something similar because, really? It's so fucked up that most of Hollywood supports him, and even at least one of my bosses believes "there's more to the story" than Roman Polanski being a rich, famous white dude who was able to (surprise) avoid consequences for his crime. Like THAT'S never happened before.
I just want to say that the style of humour may need to be considered. If one viewed rape as something trivial, would they use it in shock humour? No, they wouldn't.
In shock humour the more outrageous and vile something is, the greater the humour. If you are disposed towards that kind of comedy that is. Thus, if rape is used in shock humour, it is a testament to our abhorrence of it. Not that it would be much comfort to rape victims.
Of course, not all humour is shock humour but make what you will of my considerations.
True, but some people will say "this subject matter is too serious / sensitive / tragic to be made into shock humor!"
Teabagging your mother's corpse at the funeral would be "shocking" and it may be an attempt at humor, but I don't think it would be proper.
"Too serious" makes it even more audacious and thus more funny. Not "being proper" is the essense of the humour. Of course it's not funny when it reminds you of something that you were the victim of.
I hate to tell you Ilinana, but the good and valid points of your angry rant letter were very much covered up by the angry rant section. I mean, the way it was written was... yeah. Not condusive to measured reading.
Its a difficult matter to breach successfully. When your central point of contention is "You need to reconsider the way you view reality because this rape thing is a fucking problem that you do not even barely understand" its kind of hard to be polite. Sort of like trying to find a polite way of accusing someone of racism: It probably exists, but it isn't easy.
I do want to reiterate that the concern police are obnoxious bullshit. "Man, how DARE you CHOOSE to be offended?" What the fuck. Who the fuck says that? Do I get to punch you if you say it? Should I then apologize for your head CHOOSING to be in the location my fist happened to enter?
I hate to tell you Ilinana, but the good and valid points of your angry rant letter were very much covered up by the angry rant section. I mean, the way it was written was... yeah. Not condusive to measured reading.
Its a difficult matter to breach successfully. When your central point of contention is "You need to reconsider the way you view reality because this rape thing is a fucking problem that you do not even barely understand" its kind of hard to be polite. Sort of like trying to find a polite way of accusing someone of racism: It probably exists, but it isn't easy.
I do want to reiterate that the concern police are obnoxious bullshit. "Man, how DARE you CHOOSE to be offended?" What the fuck. Who the fuck says that? Do I get to punch you if you say it? Should I then apologize for your head CHOOSING to be in the location my fist happened to enter?
You do it by pointing out the problem and rationally discussing how it should be handled. Its how debates work.
I just want to say that the style of humour may need to be considered. If one viewed rape as something trivial, would they use it in shock humour? No, they wouldn't.
In shock humour the more outrageous and vile something is, the greater the humour. If you are disposed towards that kind of comedy that is. Thus, if rape is used in shock humour, it is a testament to our abhorrence of it. Not that it would be much comfort to rape victims.
Of course, not all humour is shock humour but make what you will of my considerations.
True, but some people will say "this subject matter is too serious / sensitive / tragic to be made into shock humor!"
Teabagging your mother's corpse at the funeral would be "shocking" and it may be an attempt at humor, but I don't think it would be proper.
"Too serious" makes it even more audacious and thus more funny. Not "being proper" is the essense of the humour. Of course it's not funny when it reminds you of something that you were the victim of.
There's also a difference between stuff that is horrible but in the past and stuff that is horrible but currently ongoing.
Holocaust jokes can potentially be funny now because it's over, and those jokes help to solidify how we never want to have it happen again. Rape is an ongoing problem, it still happens. That makes it different in some fundamental ways.
If you tell the world you are offended by something then you should be willing to except that the world may tell you your an idiot and need to grow a thicker skin, wussbag.
I was unaware of my legal right to have an opinion and assumed that being offended provided me legal protection against people calling me an idiot. Thank you for posting this, now I am more aware and if you had not done so I would have continued to operate under a false pretense, no doubt causing me much confusion.
You are welcome. I feared that most people lived under this false belief. See most people tend to react by stating that you can't call someone an idiot for being "offended" you have to respect their feelings. I am glad that you know see the light and realize that if someone is offended by something that most find inoffensive then they are idoits or giant babies.
Dude its cool, I'm living in a whole new world now that I don't have to respect someone else's feelings and now that you've shown me the light that my opinions are valid and anyone who disagrees is a gigantic crybaby.
I'm also learning to strawman from you, but I'm still practicing so feel free to give me some pointers. Regardless, thanks bro!
"Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one and everyone thinks the other persons stinks."
I hate to tell you Ilinana, but the good and valid points of your angry rant letter were very much covered up by the angry rant section. I mean, the way it was written was... yeah. Not condusive to measured reading.
Its a difficult matter to breach successfully. When your central point of contention is "You need to reconsider the way you view reality because this rape thing is a fucking problem that you do not even barely understand" its kind of hard to be polite. Sort of like trying to find a polite way of accusing someone of racism: It probably exists, but it isn't easy.
I do want to reiterate that the concern police are obnoxious bullshit. "Man, how DARE you CHOOSE to be offended?" What the fuck. Who the fuck says that? Do I get to punch you if you say it? Should I then apologize for your head CHOOSING to be in the location my fist happened to enter?
You do it by pointing out the problem and rationally discussing how it should be handled. Its how debates work.
Yeah, more or less, but its a difficult matter to breach without making someone's defensive mechanisms kick in. When you're talking about issues of race or gender, you're often getting into subject matter that is pretty sensitive for anyone discussing the topic. Like I said, its hard to basically assert "rape is a huge problem and you need to forget everything you know about it because seriously what the fuck look at this." You're basically trying to very politely break down an entire socially constructed belief system in regards to sex, gender, or race, and all the baggage that goes along with it.
Still probably best to speak carefully instead of carelessly, although sometimes I think a harsher tone is necessitated when you need to counter arguments offered in bad faith.
Ilinana I know its easy to come onto a forum, create an account, and start berating and stereotyping them, but a lot of us have been posting on here for years, aren't straight white males, and aren't anonymous since are pictures and names have been posted here plus having met in real life.
Holocaust jokes can potentially be funny now because it's over, and those jokes help to solidify how we never want to have it happen again. Rape is an ongoing problem, it still happens. That makes it different in some fundamental ways.
I'm skeptical of the time-based theory of offensiveness. Is 9/11 okay to joke about yet?
The measure should always be context. Don't make a word radioactive, just be aware of its use in each particular instance and go from there. Nuance.
I hate to tell you Ilinana, but the good and valid points of your angry rant letter were very much covered up by the angry rant section. I mean, the way it was written was... yeah. Not condusive to measured reading.
Its a difficult matter to breach successfully. When your central point of contention is "You need to reconsider the way you view reality because this rape thing is a fucking problem that you do not even barely understand" its kind of hard to be polite. Sort of like trying to find a polite way of accusing someone of racism: It probably exists, but it isn't easy.
I do want to reiterate that the concern police are obnoxious bullshit. "Man, how DARE you CHOOSE to be offended?" What the fuck. Who the fuck says that? Do I get to punch you if you say it? Should I then apologize for your head CHOOSING to be in the location my fist happened to enter?
You do it by pointing out the problem and rationally discussing how it should be handled. Its how debates work.
Yeah, more or less, but its a difficult matter to breach without making someone's defensive mechanisms kick in. When you're talking about issues of race or gender, you're often getting into subject matter that is pretty sensitive for anyone discussing the topic. Like I said, its hard to basically assert "rape is a huge problem and you need to forget everything you know about it because seriously what the fuck look at this." You're basically trying to very politely break down an entire socially constructed belief system in regards to sex, gender, or race, and all the baggage that goes along with it.
Still probably best to speak carefully instead of carelessly, although sometimes I think a harsher tone is necessitated when you need to counter arguments offered in bad faith.
Yes but considering the subject has already been breached in this thread, had the poster actually read the thread, he/she could have built upon the subject and even brought in his/her own view points without "blowing up".
Holocaust jokes can potentially be funny now because it's over, and those jokes help to solidify how we never want to have it happen again. Rape is an ongoing problem, it still happens. That makes it different in some fundamental ways.
I'm skeptical of the time-based theory of offensiveness. Is 9/11 okay to joke about yet?
The measure should always be context. Don't make a word radioactive, just be aware of its use in each particular instance and go from there. Nuance.
I'm skeptical of it too, although there's a logical connection between time and threat posed. If another Holocaust appeared to be a serious concern, jokes about it might be taken in a very different light. Its harder to currently be accused of not taking the Holocaust seriously, although maybe jokes from Holocaust-deniers about "lol Jews!" are a different matter.
I also suspect that PA's tolerance for Holocaust humor and the general public's tolerance for Holocaust humor will not match up neatly at all.
Barely related story: A (presumably) badass old Holocaust survivor on Capitol Hill went fucking apeshit on some David LaRouche supporters, who are crazy assholes who wander around Seattle with "OBAMA = HITLER!!!" posters. I wish I would've been there with a video camera, at least until the police showed up.
I just want to say that the style of humour may need to be considered. If one viewed rape as something trivial, would they use it in shock humour? No, they wouldn't.
In shock humour the more outrageous and vile something is, the greater the humour. If you are disposed towards that kind of comedy that is. Thus, if rape is used in shock humour, it is a testament to our abhorrence of it. Not that it would be much comfort to rape victims.
Of course, not all humour is shock humour but make what you will of my considerations.
True, but some people will say "this subject matter is too serious / sensitive / tragic to be made into shock humor!"
Teabagging your mother's corpse at the funeral would be "shocking" and it may be an attempt at humor, but I don't think it would be proper.
"Too serious" makes it even more audacious and thus more funny. Not "being proper" is the essense of the humour. Of course it's not funny when it reminds you of something that you were the victim of.
There's also a difference between stuff that is horrible but in the past and stuff that is horrible but currently ongoing.
Holocaust jokes can potentially be funny now because it's over, and those jokes help to solidify how we never want to have it happen again. Rape is an ongoing problem, it still happens. That makes it different in some fundamental ways.
But, if you are so disposed, what happened last week is much funnier than 60 years ago because it is is more outrageous, audacious and offensive. That is the essence of shock humour. I'm not saying what is ok or right but that the essence of shock humour lies in what is not right. What is not ok. Most people have a line where it stops being funny but where that lies varies greatly. It's personal taste as to where that line is.
My point was merely that rape jokes don't necessarily indicate a casual attitude to the crime. I'll leave it at that.
Holocaust jokes can potentially be funny now because it's over, and those jokes help to solidify how we never want to have it happen again. Rape is an ongoing problem, it still happens. That makes it different in some fundamental ways.
I'm skeptical of the time-based theory of offensiveness. Is 9/11 okay to joke about yet?
The measure should always be context. Don't make a word radioactive, just be aware of its use in each particular instance and go from there. Nuance.
I don't really believe in the "distance makes it more ok" thing either, except when it comes to things that are currently happening or might be happening in the direct future.
Looking back at that fender bender you got in yesterday can be humorous and cathartic. The car accident you're currently in or may soon be in isn't nearly as funny.
Humor is how our brains reconcile strong emotions and rational thought. That's why it can be a catharsis. But you can't have catharsis for something that is an ongoing problem because it hasn't been solved yet. That comes after.
Is anyone seriously arguing that Rape is not evil?....Anyone....didn't think so.
Roman Polansky: Was actually convicted of sexual assult of a child and fled to a non-extradition country, thus avoiding justice, but he was convicted.
The American Criminal Justice system is flawed but it is what we have.
It is hard to convict on circumstantial evidence, believe me, rape is very hard to convict, if its some random stranger on the street, severe physical trauma and there is DNA then it probably won't go to trial the guy will plead out.
If it is a situation where they were on a date, boyfriend/girlfriend, spouses, etc it becomes very very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because it all comes down to whose story you believe.
Its fucking life, C'est la Vie, we do want we can with what we have.
The way i look at it, I have vial rapist in one hand and capital punishment in the other hmmm maybe I should put them together?
DeShadowC: Sorry for the stereotyping. The whole giant quotebox that I used was originally an email to Tycho/Gabe that I sent, it wasn't directed at the forum. And yikes that was difficult to read, again I apologize for barging into the thread that has been going for a while without reading the whole thing and catching up.
I admit I got pissed off (I didn't see the new comic until maybe twenty minutes ago, since I just got off work) and reacted without really taking the time to think about what I was doing. I made assumptions about what I would find in this thread, and for that I'm sorry. The only excuse I can give is that all too often on the internet, you run into anonymous assholes who generally spout hateful shit, which is bad enough--but even worse is when you run into someone who is not trolling and who genuinely, actually believes some fucked-up shit, whether it's racist or sexist or ableist or whatever, and sometimes...yeah. Emotions override common sense.
Anyway. I'm glad that at least this once I was surprised at the kind of discussions going on on a forum.
DeShadowC: Sorry for the stereotyping. The whole giant quotebox that I used was originally an email to Tycho/Gabe that I sent, it wasn't directed at the forum. And yikes that was difficult to read, again I apologize for barging into the thread that has been going for a while without reading the whole thing and catching up.
I admit I got pissed off (I didn't see the new comic until maybe twenty minutes ago, since I just got off work) and reacted without really taking the time to think about what I was doing. I made assumptions about what I would find in this thread, and for that I'm sorry. The only excuse I can give is that all too often on the internet, you run into anonymous assholes who generally spout hateful shit, which is bad enough--but even worse is when you run into someone who is not trolling and who genuinely, actually believes some fucked-up shit, whether it's racist or sexist or ableist or whatever, and sometimes...yeah. Emotions override common sense.
Anyway. I'm glad that at least this once I was surprised at the kind of discussions going on on a forum.
Sorry for the redundancy of my OP.
You're doing this wrong, you're supposed to be sorry that we chose to be offended.
DeShadowC: Sorry for the stereotyping. The whole giant quotebox that I used was originally an email to Tycho/Gabe that I sent, it wasn't directed at the forum. And yikes that was difficult to read, again I apologize for barging into the thread that has been going for a while without reading the whole thing and catching up.
I admit I got pissed off (I didn't see the new comic until maybe twenty minutes ago, since I just got off work) and reacted without really taking the time to think about what I was doing. I made assumptions about what I would find in this thread, and for that I'm sorry. The only excuse I can give is that all too often on the internet, you run into anonymous assholes who generally spout hateful shit, which is bad enough--but even worse is when you run into someone who is not trolling and who genuinely, actually believes some fucked-up shit, whether it's racist or sexist or ableist or whatever, and sometimes...yeah. Emotions override common sense.
Anyway. I'm glad that at least this once I was surprised at the kind of discussions going on on a forum.
Sorry for the redundancy of my OP.
We aren't completely anonymous on this forum, some are some aren't. I'm actually glad people are able to believe in and talk about racist and sexist things though, its the only way I know people can believe and talk about things like a woman's right to choose.
I'm still stuck at the part where he claims that calling an argument stupid is in itself stupid because, I guess, you can't disagree with stupid things without agreeing with them, or something.
Hey, I'll help you with that. (With a pre-emptive "simmer down" gesture to TheCat lest they try to interpret my responding to you as being about them. Well, what follows is sort of "about them" but, let me assure all and sundry, is certainly not an attempt to "bait" them.)
I did indeed imply at one point that chiming in to a thread to declare the thread irrelevant involves a certain performative self-contradiction. Had this been the first time the poster in question had made that declaration, I would probably not have made the associated implication. However, that declaration was coming at the tail end of a series of somewhere around a dozen posts to that same thread, some of them wrapped up in some of the most retarded tangents of the tangentialism in question. This led the continuing attempts to post about the retardedness of the conversation to strike me as amusing.
Meta-explaining one's posts with faux-propriety is pretty fun, by the way. But don't try this at home, kids.
Firstly, of the many posters in this thread, The Cat is not one of the posters who went off on a tangent, as all her posts were on the theory of offense, which is the point of the thread given in the OP.
Secondly, she didn't say the discussion is irrelevant, she said it was stupid and shouldn't have been started. For the former, there would only be a contradiction if posting in the discussion went against the reason given for why people shouldn't be having the discussion, such as saying that the discussion wasn't worth the time or effort. Fortunately, she said we shouldn't be having this discussion because the answer is obvious, which has no contradictions, being a variant on "I shouldn't have to tell you this."
Looking back at that fender bender you got in yesterday can be humorous and cathartic. The car accident you're currently in or may soon be in isn't nearly as funny.
Humor is how our brains reconcile strong emotions and rational thought. That's why it can be a catharsis. But you can't have catharsis for something that is an ongoing problem because it hasn't been solved yet. That comes after.
Okay, this has me confused. If someone is a rape victim, then the event is technically over (the 'car accident'). At that point, they are in the same realm as the holocaust survivor--someone with immense trauma in their past. Yet you make a distinction between the two victims. Are you talking about minding the sensibilities of only future rape victims and those currently being raped?
Spaten Optimator on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
I find the way this thread is going interesting.
No wait, I mean that other one. Tedious
Dammit you guys, please stop making this thread dumb.
being hard to convict and making rape a recidivist statue that allows capital punishment for repeat offenders are not mutally exclusive concepts.
I dunno Blind, do you want to make an argument that a crime you admit is difficult to prove in the affirmative or the negative is a good candidate for capital punishment?
Posts
In shock humour the more outrageous and vile something is, the greater the humour. If you are disposed towards that kind of comedy that is. Thus, if rape is used in shock humour, it is a testament to our abhorrence of it. Not that it would be much comfort to rape victims.
Of course, not all humour is shock humour but make what you will of my considerations.
clap.gif
True, but some people will say "this subject matter is too serious / sensitive / tragic to be made into shock humor!"
Teabagging your mother's corpse at the funeral would be "shocking" and it may be an attempt at humor, but I don't think it would be proper.
Regardless, its okay to use rape in a joke but you should be careful about it and its ok to take offense at a joke but you shouldn't freak out about it and its even ok to make a joke that you think will be funny but ends up just being offensive and then apologizing for it.
And if you're ever going to apologize for offending someone, don't say "I'm sorry you chose to get offended" or something similar, because that's not an apology that's just you being a passive-aggressive douche.
Hey, I'll help you with that. (With a pre-emptive "simmer down" gesture to TheCat lest they try to interpret my responding to you as being about them. Well, what follows is sort of "about them" but, let me assure all and sundry, is certainly not an attempt to "bait" them.)
I did indeed imply at one point that chiming in to a thread to declare the thread irrelevant involves a certain performative self-contradiction. Had this been the first time the poster in question had made that declaration, I would probably not have made the associated implication. However, that declaration was coming at the tail end of a series of somewhere around a dozen posts to that same thread, some of them wrapped up in some of the most retarded tangents of the tangentialism in question. This led the continuing attempts to post about the retardedness of the conversation to strike me as amusing.
Meta-explaining one's posts with faux-propriety is pretty fun, by the way. But don't try this at home, kids.
I find it highly offensive that the topic of this thread is "Getting Offended: The New National Pastime." Fucker, please. "Choosing to be offended" by homosexuals or gawths or what have you is dumb. "Choosing to be offended" because someone wasn't the epitome of polite to you, or because they don't match some arbitrary standards you have, is dumb. "Choosing to be offended" by the prevalence of rape jokes in our culture, and the offhand dismissals that criticism of them receives? IT'S PRETTY FUCKING LEGIT TO GET OFFENDED. Especially since this happens a lot. Sometimes, women get tired of being told to keep our thoughts to ourselves, or being trolled with rape jokes/jokes about how unhot and unattractive we are and therefore how our opinions don't matter. SOMETIMES we get tired of all the blatant sexist shit that goes on day after day and the fact that no one really gives a shit, because in the end, the straight white dude's opinion is the only one that matters. In other words, sometimes we lose our shit because we are tired of bullshit. So fuck you, OP, for saying victims of rape "CHOOSE TO BE OFFENDED" by rape. Oh and I'm sorry that sometimes people are mean to you and call you out on your privilege whether it be on matters re: sexism or re: racism, and you feel like the big meanie PC police are all up in your shit.
I've never been a letter-writer, and I don't consider myself a fan of censorship. With that in mind, this is the email I was moved to write when I read the response comic that came out today. It is a fairly angry, ranting letter, but I like to think it's worth sharing? And if not...well, it's not like I'm an established poster here, so there's no real fallout for me to face.
in summation: FEMINIST THEORY 101, my learnings let me show you them.
You are welcome. I feared that most people lived under this false belief. See most people tend to react by stating that you can't call someone an idiot for being "offended" you have to respect their feelings. I am glad that you know see the light and realize that if someone is offended by something that most find inoffensive then they are idoits or giant babies.
Its not rape-rape, apparently. There's rape and then there's rape.
There is a distinction between violent rape and other forms, just as coercion is seen as worse than other cons like bringing a contract to a saloon or trying to enforce the signature of a minor.
Dude its cool, I'm living in a whole new world now that I don't have to respect someone else's feelings and now that you've shown me the light that my opinions are valid and anyone who disagrees is a gigantic crybaby.
I'm also learning to strawman from you, but I'm still practicing so feel free to give me some pointers. Regardless, thanks bro!
But if we censor what we talk about to exclude things that are controversial or horrible then we limit our ability to talk about things that are actually important.
Satiric comedy is a valid medium of communication and isn't excluded in the above. I'm not about to make a value judgment about whether or not specific topics should be discussed. All topics should be discussed. If the audience doesn't want to participate, they have the freedom to decide not to.
It was sort of the starting point of the whole debate, on a thread prior to this one, and has been chewed over pretty extensively.
I imagine this was written without irony. Please let that be the case. I would sig it if I didn't like my current one so much.
A question, though: do you think rape should ever be included in humor?
Also also would like to add that the whole Roman Polanski thing is fucked up. I work at a movie theater, and every time I sold tickets to Ghost Writer I just wanted to say, "So you enjoy supporting child rapists?" or something similar because, really? It's so fucked up that most of Hollywood supports him, and even at least one of my bosses believes "there's more to the story" than Roman Polanski being a rich, famous white dude who was able to (surprise) avoid consequences for his crime. Like THAT'S never happened before.
"Too serious" makes it even more audacious and thus more funny. Not "being proper" is the essense of the humour. Of course it's not funny when it reminds you of something that you were the victim of.
Its a difficult matter to breach successfully. When your central point of contention is "You need to reconsider the way you view reality because this rape thing is a fucking problem that you do not even barely understand" its kind of hard to be polite. Sort of like trying to find a polite way of accusing someone of racism: It probably exists, but it isn't easy.
I do want to reiterate that the concern police are obnoxious bullshit. "Man, how DARE you CHOOSE to be offended?" What the fuck. Who the fuck says that? Do I get to punch you if you say it? Should I then apologize for your head CHOOSING to be in the location my fist happened to enter?
You do it by pointing out the problem and rationally discussing how it should be handled. Its how debates work.
Holocaust jokes can potentially be funny now because it's over, and those jokes help to solidify how we never want to have it happen again. Rape is an ongoing problem, it still happens. That makes it different in some fundamental ways.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one and everyone thinks the other persons stinks."
Yeah, more or less, but its a difficult matter to breach without making someone's defensive mechanisms kick in. When you're talking about issues of race or gender, you're often getting into subject matter that is pretty sensitive for anyone discussing the topic. Like I said, its hard to basically assert "rape is a huge problem and you need to forget everything you know about it because seriously what the fuck look at this." You're basically trying to very politely break down an entire socially constructed belief system in regards to sex, gender, or race, and all the baggage that goes along with it.
Still probably best to speak carefully instead of carelessly, although sometimes I think a harsher tone is necessitated when you need to counter arguments offered in bad faith.
Sorry for the long run on sentence guys.
I'm skeptical of the time-based theory of offensiveness. Is 9/11 okay to joke about yet?
The measure should always be context. Don't make a word radioactive, just be aware of its use in each particular instance and go from there. Nuance.
Yes but considering the subject has already been breached in this thread, had the poster actually read the thread, he/she could have built upon the subject and even brought in his/her own view points without "blowing up".
I'm skeptical of it too, although there's a logical connection between time and threat posed. If another Holocaust appeared to be a serious concern, jokes about it might be taken in a very different light. Its harder to currently be accused of not taking the Holocaust seriously, although maybe jokes from Holocaust-deniers about "lol Jews!" are a different matter.
I also suspect that PA's tolerance for Holocaust humor and the general public's tolerance for Holocaust humor will not match up neatly at all.
Barely related story: A (presumably) badass old Holocaust survivor on Capitol Hill went fucking apeshit on some David LaRouche supporters, who are crazy assholes who wander around Seattle with "OBAMA = HITLER!!!" posters. I wish I would've been there with a video camera, at least until the police showed up.
But, if you are so disposed, what happened last week is much funnier than 60 years ago because it is is more outrageous, audacious and offensive. That is the essence of shock humour. I'm not saying what is ok or right but that the essence of shock humour lies in what is not right. What is not ok. Most people have a line where it stops being funny but where that lies varies greatly. It's personal taste as to where that line is.
My point was merely that rape jokes don't necessarily indicate a casual attitude to the crime. I'll leave it at that.
Looking back at that fender bender you got in yesterday can be humorous and cathartic. The car accident you're currently in or may soon be in isn't nearly as funny.
Humor is how our brains reconcile strong emotions and rational thought. That's why it can be a catharsis. But you can't have catharsis for something that is an ongoing problem because it hasn't been solved yet. That comes after.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Roman Polansky: Was actually convicted of sexual assult of a child and fled to a non-extradition country, thus avoiding justice, but he was convicted.
The American Criminal Justice system is flawed but it is what we have.
It is hard to convict on circumstantial evidence, believe me, rape is very hard to convict, if its some random stranger on the street, severe physical trauma and there is DNA then it probably won't go to trial the guy will plead out.
If it is a situation where they were on a date, boyfriend/girlfriend, spouses, etc it becomes very very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because it all comes down to whose story you believe.
Its fucking life, C'est la Vie, we do want we can with what we have.
The way i look at it, I have vial rapist in one hand and capital punishment in the other hmmm maybe I should put them together?
I admit I got pissed off (I didn't see the new comic until maybe twenty minutes ago, since I just got off work) and reacted without really taking the time to think about what I was doing. I made assumptions about what I would find in this thread, and for that I'm sorry. The only excuse I can give is that all too often on the internet, you run into anonymous assholes who generally spout hateful shit, which is bad enough--but even worse is when you run into someone who is not trolling and who genuinely, actually believes some fucked-up shit, whether it's racist or sexist or ableist or whatever, and sometimes...yeah. Emotions override common sense.
Anyway. I'm glad that at least this once I was surprised at the kind of discussions going on on a forum.
Sorry for the redundancy of my OP.
If you maybe wanted to put yourself into context, I'd say you'd tell yourself no.
You're doing this wrong, you're supposed to be sorry that we chose to be offended.
We aren't completely anonymous on this forum, some are some aren't. I'm actually glad people are able to believe in and talk about racist and sexist things though, its the only way I know people can believe and talk about things like a woman's right to choose.
Firstly, of the many posters in this thread, The Cat is not one of the posters who went off on a tangent, as all her posts were on the theory of offense, which is the point of the thread given in the OP.
Secondly, she didn't say the discussion is irrelevant, she said it was stupid and shouldn't have been started. For the former, there would only be a contradiction if posting in the discussion went against the reason given for why people shouldn't be having the discussion, such as saying that the discussion wasn't worth the time or effort. Fortunately, she said we shouldn't be having this discussion because the answer is obvious, which has no contradictions, being a variant on "I shouldn't have to tell you this."
being hard to convict and making rape a recidivist statue that allows capital punishment for repeat offenders are not mutally exclusive concepts.
Okay, this has me confused. If someone is a rape victim, then the event is technically over (the 'car accident'). At that point, they are in the same realm as the holocaust survivor--someone with immense trauma in their past. Yet you make a distinction between the two victims. Are you talking about minding the sensibilities of only future rape victims and those currently being raped?
No wait, I mean that other one. Tedious
Dammit you guys, please stop making this thread dumb.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I dunno Blind, do you want to make an argument that a crime you admit is difficult to prove in the affirmative or the negative is a good candidate for capital punishment?
If a comic offends you, do not read it.
If a thread bores you, do not __________ it.
This question is worth 5 points.