The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The current plan is to attempt to start the Holiday Forums on December 23rd sometime during the day. During this time, the Future State Planning Center will remain open. The Holiday Forum merge will last (if Vanilla cooperates) until January 3rd.
Getting offended: the new national pastime
Posts
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No, it's not hypocritical. This is not how hypocrisy works.
Do you think it's okay to joke about poop, even if some people get offended? I'm guessing so—because who cares about their delicate sensibilities. Do you think it's okay to tell the joke "how long does it take a black woman to take a shit?" I'm guessing no, you probably think it's offensive as all hell, and in fact if a black person got offended at that joke and demanded an apology you would probably be cool with that.
The problem is, in your universe, this apparently makes you a hypocrite, because it's "hypocritical" to believe that certain subjects are less okay to joke about than others. I mean, nevermind that joking about poop, joking about rape, joking about racial relations, joking about whiny rape victims, and joking about "n
s" all have completely different valences, all offend people in different ways, for different reasons, and some of those reasons are way more justified and understandable than others. All humor is exactly the same and any preference for one kind isn't just irrational but hypocrisy.
Oh, and by the way:
Should be easy to find them, then.
If not, I assume you'll post an apology for completely misrepresenting my statements?
Before I respond, this is a useful caveat:
Context is everything. I like stand up comedy. David Cross, Dana Gould, Louis CK, George Carlin, and others mention rape in some bits, and those bits are generally hilarious. I could live without them, but I'd prefer not to. I agree that "f you're making a rape joke just to be offensive/shocking, you're a douche." But mentioning rape does not necessarily mean you are demeaning victims or trivializing rape. I think each case should be weighed on its own merits.
The right to tell a joke that involves rape is just as important as that person's right to be offended. The two flow from the same civil right. If it's offensive, be offended. Hell, I've been offended by some of Sam Kinison's routines. But I never considered that the comedy world (and society in general) would be better off if he didn't say those things.
And then there are the times when a comedian just goes beyond even the wide latitudes afforded by stand up comedy. This is known as the Michael Richards demarcation.
I make sure to only tell unfunny racist jokes.
Can holocaust jokes contribute to anti semitism though? Can race jokes contribute to racism?
If you think rape was wrong before someone cracked a funny, a good joke isn't going to make you go out and rape someone or approve of it. And if you already didn't think rape was a big deal, the joke isn't going to go out and rape someone.
And if we go about saying "topic x is off limits because there is a remote chance some already fucked up person may go out and do something stupid" that's a direction nobody wants to go down.
Since people apparently haven't internalized this, I guess I should make it clear: I don't think rape jokes should be "outlawed." I don't think any jokes should be outlawed.
I don't think it's morally wrong to joke about rape in general. I don't get offended at rape jokes. PA's comic did not offend me. I think Mike and Jerry could have easily argued that the context of the joke was what it was, and that they did not mean to trivialize rape. I also think that rape is an especially sensitive topic, for reasons that I've stated throughout this thread, including but not limited to: (1) it is extremely common and so traumatically affects a lot of potential readers, and (2) it is a controversial subject that is often trivialized and has a lot of baggage that other subjects do not.
So, I think it's probably advisable to avoid making rape jokes. And if people get offended at your rape joke, lashing out and mocking them is a dick thing to do.
It is hypocritical for you to think that rape victims can't get offended but religious people can't. Ignoring the fact that people have gone through worse then rape due to their religious beliefs, including being raped. To answer your question I think its ok to tell any joke including rape, racist, religious, etc. ones because you either allow everything to be free speech or nothing.
No apology is needed as every post represents make views of your statements.
I wouldn't make a comic about a horribly racist joke because, what the fuck.
Not that PA's comic is comparable—the "rape joke" was not, I don't think, making fun of racists or attempting to trivialize them. My point here is that audience is important. Your jokes don't exist in a vacuum. And sometimes when it's not exactly clear where the author of a joke stands on a subject, people can reasonably take offense.
You admit to it right there you silly goose. That entire bolded section is the entire basis for my post. I don't even know why I'm bothering when pages of people laughed at your posts for being foolish and narrow minded.
I was just reading about the daily show on wikipedia because I hate to have free time, and I found some quote or the other
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Please Qingu tell me you're not so blind as to be unable to see the issues with this.
You're talking out of your ass. As you said, it's an issue of context. Words are just words, even 'nig'.
(For example, Jackie Chan in Rush Hour...or is that OK because he's technically a POC?)
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
2. People who have "gone through worse" for their religious belief generally lived hundreds of years ago, or are currently living in other countries and are not talking to people like you, me, Mike, or Jerry. The number of people who have suffered remotely for their religious beliefs in America, in 2010, is vanishingly small, let alone people who have been "raped" for their religious beliefs, or suffered any trauma even approaching that of rape.
This is especially infuriating to hear when so much rhetoric of the religious right involves "war on Christmas" bullshit designed to cultivate offense and outrage at some imaginary secular oppression.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. If you think mocking a religious belief is just as rightfully "offensive" as mocking someone's experience of rape, you are a silly goose.
What a poorly considered conceit you have here. Free speech is important—therefore all speech is actually equal in merit and equally justifiable to take offense at?
Can you please walk me through your logic? Because I sure as hell don't understand it. Maybe because I'm a hypocrite.
Surely you can quote one, then.
And explain how you derived "Qingu wants to outlaw rape jokes" from what I said.
On the other hand though, isn't it the case that men like me, (I'm guessing you), Mike, Jerry, and I, come from a certain level of socieal privelege when we tell the joke as men? I mean, I think there's a certain sense that a man can afford to be more cavalier about the topic because we simply do not have to be worried about rape in the same way as a woman and really cannot be affected in the same way [I realize men get raped, but it is fundamentally a much more omnipresent concern for women in society]. I really don't know too much about this sort of stuff (social theory really isn't my forte), but I feel like there is a sense that we're benefiting from an existing privelege/power differential in modern society even in our ability to laugh at a joke/tell a joke like that as men, even in an ironic non-malicious context.
I feel like I expressed this sentiment poorly, though. I think I need to think about how to clarify it.
So anyway, rape is horrible. So is cancer and a million other things. Unless you reject 90% of modern comedy, a sensitive topic is going to pop up. The only time I get offended is when the creator of the content is maliciously trying to insult the "victims" or what'evs. PA didn't do such a thing, so there's my 2 cents.
No, I don't think you agree with me. You advise people against making "rape jokes*." I would listen to 90 minutes of "rape jokes" if they were funny. Early on in the thread, you advocated self-censorship based on a Statistically Significant Offended Quotient (SSOQ), then started to waffle. I even asked you about the SSOQ in regard to ex-slave readership of PA.
Look, I get that you know that people have a right to joke about anything they want to. But you're following it up with the rhetorical equivalent of "you probably shouldn't do that." You say you don't want restrict their speech, but in effect what you're saying advocates for just that. DeShadowC is more or less correct on that front. Some samplings:
*Using your definition of "a joke that involves any mention of rape."
I never used the term outlaw and specifically pointed out outlaw was never used. Now who's putting words into the other's mouth.
"Maybe you shouldn't do that"
is not the rhetorical equivalent of
"You shouldn't be allowed to do that"
The conflation of the two is a huge pet peeve of mine. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain that, while I don't think you should believe in Christianity, I also don't want to outlaw Christianity.
"You shouldn't do that and I'm going to look down on anyone who does" isn't a far step from "You shouldn't be allowed to do that"
How do you think people decide what should be a law. Also you keep going back to Christians. You should see some of the things Muslims go through in this country daily, because I mean if you believe in Islam you're obviously a terrorist right?
Were you talking about people prejudged and oppressed by religious people?
True, you said "not allowed." I apologize if you meant this in a way other than "outlawed."
You are telling people to shut up. It may not have the force of law, but it's just as annoying as government censorship. See: Parents Television Council.
What things do Muslims in this country go through daily?
I mean, I understand that many Muslims suffer prejudice because they choose to believe in a cult strongly associated with suicide bombers who murdered 3,000 American citizens and many Americans are too ignorant to see the nuances in the sects of this cult, but you seemed to be arguing that religious people like Muslims suffered comparable to rape victims.
I'm guessing you don't live in a country that censors media.
Also not remotely applicable to my posts on here.
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
No I'm talking people every day who are oppressed because of their religion and I'm not talking Christians since that seems to be the only religion you believe exists in this country.
Not allowed can mean just that including due to social stigma which is what you're proposing.
I.E. The Amanda Palmer Stance?
I feel like these sorts of jokes should be used only for that.
Spend 1 minute on Google or even talking to Muslim Americans who post on these boards. You're so narrow minded. You watch Fox News don't you?
"You shouldn't do that" and "You shouldn't be allowed to do that" is not a big step for a lot of people. Maybe not you, but I would guess a large segment of society. Hell, people try to outlaw things that don't affect them or anyone they know in even the slightest way.
PS The Islamic religion is not a cult, at least not anymore than Christianity or Taoism.
I thought he was just using Christianity as a specific example. I mean, if he's even remotely consistent in his worldview, you can insert whatever religion you please and still have a statement reflecting his belief.
And for all we know he could view all religions as cults. [Or he could possibly be an specifically anti-Muslim silly goose. I think the statement needs to be contextualized with the rest of his worldview before singling it out as being specifically anti-Muslim]
Like, I don't give a shit that you think my argument is contradictory in some way; if you didn't, you probably wouldn't be arguing with me in the first place. But calling me a "hypocrite" is, as far as I can tell, uncalled for.
Okay. When have I proposed the institution of a "social stigma"?
I mean, this can quickly devolve into semantics. However, I think it's pretty clear that you've overstated the extent to which I am opposed to rape jokes. Like, you seem to believe that I want to enforce against rape jokes. When all I have said is that, I can understand why people get offended in ways that the authors do not, and maybe people shouldn't joke about rape.
Like I said, this is a huge pet peeve of mine. I make a lot of criticism. Criticizing something should not be conflated with wanting to outlaw, or enforce against, something.
Since the start of this thread when religion without specifics is mentioned he moves into "lol Christmas" mode.
Possibly NSFW
Except as others have stated its not a semantic since if people listen to you it is enforcement of your views.
To be brief: I think this is a simplistic and actually quite dangerous understanding of the legislative process. This is, by the way, exactly what Judge Walker argued in his Proposition 8 smackdown.
You obviously don't know me very well.
It would help if you told me what to Google, to do your work for you in explaining how the suffering of Muslims in America today is remotely comparable to rape trauma.
I didn't mean to imply that Christianity isn't a cult as well (I don't know much about Taoism). I also prefer to use "cult" to include other oft-mocked ideologies like Scientology or Objectivism that don't technically count as religions.
But ... this is off topic. Maybe we can summarize this tangent:
• Criticizing something doesn't mean you want it outlawed, or even socially stigmatized
• "Being a Muslim" in America does not engender a similar level of suffering as "getting raped."