By the way, if anybody has access to the analysis in this article, mind giving the gist?
I thought it was an analysis of the use of the guidelines but it was more a complaint that they aren’t very clear.
For what it’s worth, the UK apparently has laws against grossly offensive speech. They were amazingly vague laws, so they released a set of guidelines on when to bring prosecution:
First, the comment or conduct in question must fall within one of four categories:
. There is a credible threat of violence, either to the person or someone’s property;
. The actions can be seen to amount to ‘harassment, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, revenge pornography, an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, blackmail or another offence’;27
. There is a breach of a court order;
. The statement in question can be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
If it can be found that the behaviour in question falls within one of these four categories, the second part of the test will be applied: the public interest test. Essentially, public interest falls on a number of considerations:28
. The seriousness of the offence -the more serious the more the likelihood of prosecution;
. The culpability of the defendant – here, among other things, the criminal history of the person committing the acts will be taken into account;
. The circumstances and any harm caused to the victim – the more vulnerable the victim and the greater the harm, the more likely a recommendation for prosecution will occur;
. The age of the defendant – the social media guidelines suggest that it will not normally be in the public interest to prosecute those under 18 years old;
. Community impact – the greater the impact upon the overall community affected by the message, the more likely it is that prosecution will be recommended;
. Proportionality – with reference to the evidence available, is prosecution the appropriate response. Here, consideration must be made to the cost of bringing the action before the court;
. The protection of sensitive information – would it do more harm than good to release information contained in the case into the public domain.
The paper has the following complaints about how the law is used and the guidelines:
The guidelines don’t define what is and is not considered “grossly offensive.” They give several examples of cases that go both ways and simply state that the cases presented could have been used as examples on which to explain how that distinction is made.
While several judges (and perhaps the law itself?) make the point that freedom of speech should be considered when deciding when to persecute, nobody talks about other rights that are being infringed by the hate speech, like the right to privacy.
The setting of such a high bar for when to prosecute has decreased cases by 1/3, even though the number of complaints are way up.
Update guidelines also mentioned this (which the authors did not like):
Indeed, prosecution is ‘unlikely to be necessary and propor- tionate’ where one or more of the following elements are present: genuine remorse being expressed by the defendant for their behaviour; comments being swiftly removed from social media platforms; proof that the conduct in question was never intended for a wide audience; or if the comments can be regarded as simply a person expressing their right to freedom of speech.
Basically more requests for clarity and examples.
To be clear, these are not my opinions. Just summarizing the article.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I will say, removing the grossly offensive section of the guidelines, I think they are actually a fairly good set of rules for expanded harassment/intimidation laws.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The Nazi dog case was ridiculous, Britain should be ashamed to have it on the books. It reaffirms my belief that the law is a cudgel and not suited to the subtleties of humor or satire.
The thread has already gone over why that dude was not being "humorous" nor "satirical."
You mean the thread has gone over why some people hold that opinion.
Edited for clarity and politeness.
Oh yes, it's totally hilarious when a dog raises its paw when you say "gas the Jews." That's totally hilarious and not at all hate speech disguised as "ironic racism."
Whether you personally find a joke humorous is not the determinant of whether it is a joke.
E: Also that isn't even what happens in the video, you goose.
E^2: I find it insulting that you are trying to gainsay me when you literally haven't even viewed the source material.
I didn't need to view the video because I have reputable sources that communicate the content.
“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is,” he said in his Scottish brogue. “And so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi.”
Then Meechan asked the dog the same question, again and again: “Buddha, do you want to gas the Jews?”
For nearly two years, the video, which includes a scene of a pug staring obediently at a speech by Adolf Hitler, has raised questions about the murky line between offensive satire and hate speech that normalizes Nazism.
"Dude you didn't even watch it?" is a poor defense. What context is there within the video that makes it defensible, exactly? That the guy thought it would be funny to make the cute little doggie do anti-Semetic things? It's hilarious because the dog doesn't understand how horrible it all is? That means it can't be offensive?
Yeah, well, relying on "reputable sources" caused you and Angelhedgie to both get the content of the video wrong. So kudos for that.
The idea that reading a text synopsis of a video qualifies a person to pass judgement on what kind of video it is or its quality is, frankly, a failure of intellectual integrity.
Regardless, all of that is beside the point. The video was a joke. The fact that you did not find it funny does not change that. The fact that you found it offensive does not change that. The sole determinant of whether it was a joke is whether Meechan meant it as a joke, and the evidence suggest that he did.
Why are we arguing about why it's offensive? That's like, tertiary or quaternary to the actual reasons why it was made illegal, right?
Actually the video being "grossly offensive" was the meat behind Meechan's conviction and the assertion that it was a joke seems to have been considered irrelevant. It's a bit backwards, if you ask me.
Reading through the judges comments, and I love when they state that their findings have no bearing on other cases and do not set a precedent.
Like what the fuck are they trying to say with that? “I know this ruling is all kinds of fucked up, but I’m going to do it anyway, please don’t copy this ruling for anyone else.”
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The Nazi dog case was ridiculous, Britain should be ashamed to have it on the books. It reaffirms my belief that the law is a cudgel and not suited to the subtleties of humor or satire.
The thread has already gone over why that dude was not being "humorous" nor "satirical."
You mean the thread has gone over why some people hold that opinion.
Edited for clarity and politeness.
Oh yes, it's totally hilarious when a dog raises its paw when you say "gas the Jews." That's totally hilarious and not at all hate speech disguised as "ironic racism."
As a Jew I find it hilarious but what do i know. I secretly want to Gas myself or my people, right?
Humour is about the unexpected. Damn straight a dog throwing the Heil is funny. I’m not saying you have to laugh, but you don’t get to define it for everyone.
A tactic you can set your watch to with conservative pundits when an offensive comment about a minority is made is to trot out a member of that minority community who says "I wasn't offended by that" and then they act like that means that no one is allowed to find it offensive. That anyone who says they are offended by it must be posturing, putting on a show to score victim points.
This is a hilarious stance; given you were just yesterday arguing that Blood Libel wasn't anti-Semitic and that Jim Crow can be used in a non-racist context.
Thank you Jebus314 for summarizing the article, it was a big help
And I don't want to go down that road about the Blood Libel, my intent was not to pass judgment but to provide a service to prevent something bad from happening to Jephery later. Eroding confidence is the last thing I want to do.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
The Nazi dog case was ridiculous, Britain should be ashamed to have it on the books. It reaffirms my belief that the law is a cudgel and not suited to the subtleties of humor or satire.
The thread has already gone over why that dude was not being "humorous" nor "satirical."
You mean the thread has gone over why some people hold that opinion.
Edited for clarity and politeness.
Oh yes, it's totally hilarious when a dog raises its paw when you say "gas the Jews." That's totally hilarious and not at all hate speech disguised as "ironic racism."
Whether you personally find a joke humorous is not the determinant of whether it is a joke.
E: Also that isn't even what happens in the video, you goose.
E^2: I find it insulting that you are trying to gainsay me when you literally haven't even viewed the source material.
I didn't need to view the video because I have reputable sources that communicate the content.
“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is,” he said in his Scottish brogue. “And so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi.”
Then Meechan asked the dog the same question, again and again: “Buddha, do you want to gas the Jews?”
For nearly two years, the video, which includes a scene of a pug staring obediently at a speech by Adolf Hitler, has raised questions about the murky line between offensive satire and hate speech that normalizes Nazism.
"Dude you didn't even watch it?" is a poor defense. What context is there within the video that makes it defensible, exactly? That the guy thought it would be funny to make the cute little doggie do anti-Semetic things? It's hilarious because the dog doesn't understand how horrible it all is? That means it can't be offensive?
Yeah, well, relying on "reputable sources" caused you and Angelhedgie to both get the content of the video wrong. So kudos for that.
The idea that reading a text synopsis of a video qualifies a person to pass judgement on what kind of video it is or its quality is, frankly, a failure of intellectual integrity.
Regardless, all of that is beside the point. The video was a joke. The fact that you did not find it funny does not change that. The fact that you found it offensive does not change that. The sole determinant of whether it was a joke is whether Meechan meant it as a joke, and the evidence suggest that he did.
Why are we arguing about why it's offensive? That's like, tertiary or quaternary to the actual reasons why it was made illegal, right?
Actually the video being "grossly offensive" was the meat behind Meechan's conviction and the assertion that it was a joke seems to have been considered irrelevant. It's a bit backwards, if you ask me.
Reading through the judges comments, and I love when they state that their findings have no bearing on other cases and do not set a precedent.
Like what the fuck are they trying to say with that? “I know this ruling is all kinds of fucked up, but I’m going to do it anyway, please don’t copy this ruling for anyone else.”
It's not uncommon in Common Law practices for a judge to state that their ruling should be considered non-precedental. Usually because they think the facts of the case are too murky or specific to be applicable elsewhere.
So it's less "I think this ruling is all fucked up" and more "I would've probably made a different ruling if pretty much any fact in the case was different, so unless you get the exact same case don't look to this for guidance."
The Nazi dog case was ridiculous, Britain should be ashamed to have it on the books. It reaffirms my belief that the law is a cudgel and not suited to the subtleties of humor or satire.
The thread has already gone over why that dude was not being "humorous" nor "satirical."
You mean the thread has gone over why some people hold that opinion.
Edited for clarity and politeness.
Oh yes, it's totally hilarious when a dog raises its paw when you say "gas the Jews." That's totally hilarious and not at all hate speech disguised as "ironic racism."
As a Jew I find it hilarious but what do i know. I secretly want to Gas myself or my people, right?
Humour is about the unexpected. Damn straight a dog throwing the Heil is funny. I’m not saying you have to laugh, but you don’t get to define it for everyone.
A tactic you can set your watch to with conservative pundits when an offensive comment about a minority is made is to trot out a member of that minority community who says "I wasn't offended by that" and then they act like that means that no one is allowed to find it offensive. That anyone who says they are offended by it must be posturing, putting on a show to score victim points.
This is a hilarious stance; given you were just yesterday arguing that Blood Libel wasn't anti-Semitic and that Jim Crow can be used in a non-racist context.
What an incredibly disingenuous and insulting representation of what I actually said and argued.
The Nazi dog case was ridiculous, Britain should be ashamed to have it on the books. It reaffirms my belief that the law is a cudgel and not suited to the subtleties of humor or satire.
The thread has already gone over why that dude was not being "humorous" nor "satirical."
You mean the thread has gone over why some people hold that opinion.
Edited for clarity and politeness.
Oh yes, it's totally hilarious when a dog raises its paw when you say "gas the Jews." That's totally hilarious and not at all hate speech disguised as "ironic racism."
As a Jew I find it hilarious but what do i know. I secretly want to Gas myself or my people, right?
Humour is about the unexpected. Damn straight a dog throwing the Heil is funny. I’m not saying you have to laugh, but you don’t get to define it for everyone.
A tactic you can set your watch to with conservative pundits when an offensive comment about a minority is made is to trot out a member of that minority community who says "I wasn't offended by that" and then they act like that means that no one is allowed to find it offensive. That anyone who says they are offended by it must be posturing, putting on a show to score victim points.
This seems in incredible bad faith given what Frankie just said and the context of this discussion. It's clear he means that you don't get to determine people should find it offensive, not that no one is allowed to find it offensive.
Beyond that frankie is not being trotted out by a conservative pundit to promote some side in a discussion, but just honestly giving his opinion. Even if it's wrong, even if it doesn't mean much being just the opinion of one random guy on the internet, even if it is the opinion of an even greater idiot than me (no offense @Frankiedarling ), it is dishonest to dismiss anyone's opinion as if they are not an equal participant in this forum but an agent of some greater force.
@Julius as I've already stated on the previous page to Frankiedarling, I was not trying to make a direct statement about him occupying that role, but that his statement in this instance reminds me of other instances where such things do occur. I didn't make such a clarification in the initial post, unfortunately, but the record has been set straight.
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
shit man I think frankie is wrong. Insofar as the fact that it was a joke doesn't mean it wasn't hateful or offensive. like, it was an obvious joke. Meechan taught a dog to do a nazi salute! He wasn't cryptically trying to convey some serious message, though he very clearly conveyed that he found casual anti-Semitism hilarious. But he wasn't disguising shit. I don't think he was a convinced anti-Semite. In fact, I think he probably believed/s himself to be pro-Jewish and not at all racially prejudiced. These sinister motivations attributed to him seem somewhat implausible.
That is not to say that I think Count Dankula won't be one of the first to apply for a position as camp guard or people hunter or something similar, just on the basis of him being a tool alone. The idea behind fascism is not that everybody should be a true hardcore believer, it is to make certain beliefs into generally accepted truths in society. Not everybody has to be an active member of the Nazi party, you just have to get certain Nazi claims accepted as true by general society. You want people to go about their regular business while believing your truths. Get people to pick a job as guard because it offers a decent income with good benefits, and have them not even consider questioning the rightness of what happens.
The Nazi dog case was ridiculous, Britain should be ashamed to have it on the books. It reaffirms my belief that the law is a cudgel and not suited to the subtleties of humor or satire.
The thread has already gone over why that dude was not being "humorous" nor "satirical."
You mean the thread has gone over why some people hold that opinion.
Edited for clarity and politeness.
Oh yes, it's totally hilarious when a dog raises its paw when you say "gas the Jews." That's totally hilarious and not at all hate speech disguised as "ironic racism."
As a Jew I find it hilarious but what do i know. I secretly want to Gas myself or my people, right?
Humour is about the unexpected. Damn straight a dog throwing the Heil is funny. I’m not saying you have to laugh, but you don’t get to define it for everyone.
A tactic you can set your watch to with conservative pundits when an offensive comment about a minority is made is to trot out a member of that minority community who says "I wasn't offended by that" and then they act like that means that no one is allowed to find it offensive. That anyone who says they are offended by it must be posturing, putting on a show to score victim points.
This seems in incredible bad faith given what Frankie just said and the context of this discussion. It's clear he means that you don't get to determine people should find it offensive, not that no one is allowed to find it offensive.
Beyond that frankie is not being trotted out by a conservative pundit to promote some side in a discussion, but just honestly giving his opinion. Even if it's wrong, even if it doesn't mean much being just the opinion of one random guy on the internet, even if it is the opinion of an even greater idiot than me (no offense @Frankiedarling ), it is dishonest to dismiss anyone's opinion as if they are not an equal participant in this forum but an agent of some greater force.
Your eloquence erased the pain of harsh realities, no offence taken.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Julius as I've already stated on the previous page to Frankiedarling, I was not trying to make a direct statement about him occupying that role, but that his statement in this instance reminds me of other instances where such things do occur. I didn't make such a clarification in the initial post, unfortunately, but the record has been set straight.
Ah ok sorry dude, it seems I missed that. I apologize for accusing you of bad faith. It's just that I encounter a lot of dismissal of voices because they're bots/trolls or whatever, and i get annoyed because it is usually done to avoid defending opinions that look unstable. But again I missed it and sorry for that.
Part of how hatred spreads is people not taking the hatred seriously. They don't really think that anti-Semitism is cool, but they think it's hilarious to make anti-Semitic jokes. So they don't take it as seriously as they should when people don't talk about it ironically. Ironic racism is still racism.
"It's just a joke", well, yeah...
It's always just a joke, right up until it's not because not everyone is in the "joke".
Like people spreading conspiracy theories as a joke, and suddenly a pizza parlor gets shot up.
I fucking hate that defense of bigotry, "it's just a joke", well so fucking what?
+11
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
"It's just a joke", well, yeah...
It's always just a joke, right up until it's not because not everyone is in the "joke".
Like people spreading conspiracy theories as a joke, and suddenly a pizza parlor gets shot up.
I fucking hate that defense of bigotry, "it's just a joke", well so fucking what?
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
"It's just a joke", well, yeah...
It's always just a joke, right up until it's not because not everyone is in the "joke".
Like people spreading conspiracy theories as a joke, and suddenly a pizza parlor gets shot up.
I fucking hate that defense of bigotry, "it's just a joke", well so fucking what?
I still think that comic is mistaken and preachy. It’s based on the flawed premise that, A, the audience is some privileged individual that doesn’t understand hate, and B, they have no empathy and could never understand hate unless it was turned on them.
But guess what, lots of people live through hate and brutal attacks, and think humor is a great way to cope with it. Yes even inappropriate, racist, sexist humor.
And even if you haven’t, that doesn’t mean you’re too stupid to realize that one day the hate could spread to you. People aren’t generally sociopaths lacking empathy. Perhaps we just think humor is a terrible place to try and limit the spread of hate, because we believe it doesn’t actually spread hate. It could even lessen it, and it certainly can be helpful for some who’ve experienced it.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
"It's just a joke", well, yeah...
It's always just a joke, right up until it's not because not everyone is in the "joke".
Like people spreading conspiracy theories as a joke, and suddenly a pizza parlor gets shot up.
I fucking hate that defense of bigotry, "it's just a joke", well so fucking what?
Because..... that changes the meaning of what was said? Unless you’re arguing that context is utterly irrelevant and helpless before the merciless and unforgiving fist of syllables, and that is a poor argument to make.
That is the “so fucking what” of the matter. If you are incapable of understanding the difference between Hitler and his fascist army and the absurd humour of teaching a dog to heil on command, that is squarely on you. Humour, contrary to what I see declared here, is not some deep revealing of the human soul. A vast swathe of what we find funny is found thus because it is absurd, unexpected, shocking. Its how you can make a dead baby joke but not actually support the death of young infants.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
Eh, how jokes work as ideas is super unintuitive and I'll bet nobody really knows how any given joke affects the idea sphere. That comic isn't even about jokes; it's about an idea that existed before the joke. Nobody's bothered to research this, so it's all just speculation.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
I don't have a problem with the "liquid nature of humor".
I have a problem with the long, ignoble history of using bigotry - soft and less so - to get cheap laughs. I'm reminded of what Dave Chapelle said as to why he just walked away from his critically and commercially successful sketch comedy show - that he did it because he felt that there were people laughing at his sketches not because they were making racism absurd, but for the racism.
I have a problem with the alt-right using (and openly discussing using) "it's just a joke" as a way to play off their spreading hate while identifying recruits. It's the "Schrodinger's Douchebag" gambit - say something bigoted, and if you get pushback, just claim "it was a joke" - while noting who didn't push back.
And finally, I have a problem with people wanting to say that humor is powerful but never want to acknowledge that its power can be wielded in furtherance of horrible ends. Once again, it's the conflict between "sticks and stones" and "this machine kills fascists" - and once again, the fact that the former is a lie we tell ourselves doesn't stop people from choosing it.
I think, in this sub forum, our views on humor are more extreme and less nuanced than our views on speech. I've yet to see someone try to bridge the gap of polarization in a few years; I think I've tried a few times, but I gave up long ago
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
The UK prosecution of a man who taught a dog to emulate a Nazi, whether it was overzealous or not, is hardly proof that you can't have hate speech laws in a free society.
There are always bad implementations of ideas. Doesn't necessarily mean the idea itself is flawed.
I think Canada's hate speech laws have been a positive for this country, especially because they haven't stopped people from saying offensive things. Offense is not something that can be legislated, and we didn't try. The laws are about promoting violence through speech, which is what this whole debate is about. Getting into the weeds about offense or whether something is a joke is irrelevant.
I don't care if something is a joke. That has no bearing on whether it's promoting violence against an identifiable group.
And it's really funny to me that this thread dismissed his joining UKIP as a Post Hoc fallacy, but then say him saying it was a joke after doing it TOTALLY counts. Give me a break. Joining a racist organization after making racist 'jokes' is absolutely indicative of his greater reasoning. It doesn't stand on its own, but if someone insists they're not a Nazi, repeatedly, and then joins the Nazi party, then they were a fucking Nazi the whole time.
But none of that is applicable with what I believe hate speech laws should be about.
They shouldn't ban people from being Nazis. But they absolutely should ban Nazi speech about exterminating Jews.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
Thinking about it, I believe you can make a distinction of "Making fun at/of Racism," and "Making fun with Racism." Where the former is mocking the absurdity of racists and the later is attempting to create a situation where the racism is used in an absurd way.
The first is mostly fine, if yeah you can get Chappelle's shows issues at people not being aware that racism is not to be sympathized with. But the later means you have created a scenario, however specific, where the racism is okay. And it should never be okay.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
Not all jokes are made equal.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
And sometimes it carries the seeds of truth nobody is willing to speak in polite company.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
Thinking about it, I believe you can make a distinction of "Making fun at/of Racism," and "Making fun with Racism." Where the former is mocking the absurdity of racists and the later is attempting to create a situation where the racism is used in an absurd way.
The first is mostly fine, if yeah you can get Chappelle's shows issues at people not being aware that racism is not to be sympathized with. But the later means you have created a scenario, however specific, where the racism is okay. And it should never be okay.
The problem is that the root of humor is not making fun of someone, it's making fun of a concept. Sometimes the people are the concepts, and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes it also gets meta by making fun of how we view and treat racism in society, or how we set guidelines for humor. It's a very anarchic method of communication. It's also the most vulnerable to chilling, because nobody's going to make any great sacrifices to defend a joke.
There are lots of things I find funny that bring me happiness, but I'm not completely sure you'll enjoy them, so I quietly enjoy these things by myself. I'll support the people who make such things in certain ways and just not talk about it with you. So if you wonder why certain things continue to exist despite the affrontery to you, maybe it's because of me and other people like me. Who knows? That's okay, right?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
So, working with your premise, what was the concept that was being made fun of by training a dog to respond to anti-Semetic commands? It wasn't the ideology behind Nazism and anti-Semitism, it was of cute little doggies being innocent and pure.
Even as an antithesis to "cute and innocent," the Nazi imagery and slogans aren't being mocked or challenged by the video. The punchline might be Hitler, but Hitler isn't the punchline.
So, working with your premise, what was the concept that was being made fun of by training a dog to respond to anti-Semetic commands? It wasn't the ideology behind Nazism and anti-Semitism, it was of cute little doggies being innocent and pure.
Even as an antithesis to "cute and innocent," the Nazi imagery and slogans aren't being mocked or challenged by the video. The punchline might be Hitler, but Hitler isn't the punchline.
The punchline was absurdity, because a dog throwing a Nazi salute is on its face absurd and utterly unexpected.
The only good part of this is how it reminds that a joke loses itself upon dissection. A theoretical tribunal picking apart a joke to determine its legality is more absurd an idea than the Nazi Dog, and the fact that it actually happened makes me unhappy. That people are defending it is just depressing.
Funny think about the "it's just a joke", is that it gets trotted out constantly for seemingly genuine calls for genocide.
But, you know, "it's just a joke", so we can't criticize it.
Well i say bullshit to that.
If the joke is hateful, bigoted, insulting, malicious/mean (like, you know, training someone else dog to do a nazi salute is), or just making claims that are not true.
Then "it's just a joke" is not a fucking get out of jail (possibly literally) free card.
If you can't stand by your words without a "it's just a joke" to absolve you of any responsibility, then the problem is not in people who "can't take a joke", the problem is that you are a shitty comedian, and probably even shittier person.
So, working with your premise, what was the concept that was being made fun of by training a dog to respond to anti-Semetic commands? It wasn't the ideology behind Nazism and anti-Semitism, it was of cute little doggies being innocent and pure.
Even as an antithesis to "cute and innocent," the Nazi imagery and slogans aren't being mocked or challenged by the video. The punchline might be Hitler, but Hitler isn't the punchline.
I'm going to be lazy and say it's making fun of how we view and treat racism in society. Kind of like Tay the neo-Nazi millennial chatbot, there is something absurd about making an animal that will never know the context of its actions do something offensive. The dog is still as innocent as it ever was because it is incapable of cognitively processing the behaviors it was taught.
Now, if a dog was trained to attack or menace people of a certain race, that's much less absurd and would be very hard to qualify as a joke, though I can think of a few scenarios where this is possible in the abstract.
I'm not making a judgment call on what criteria make jokes ok or not, because this is a really complex topic.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
So, working with your premise, what was the concept that was being made fun of by training a dog to respond to anti-Semetic commands? It wasn't the ideology behind Nazism and anti-Semitism, it was of cute little doggies being innocent and pure.
Even as an antithesis to "cute and innocent," the Nazi imagery and slogans aren't being mocked or challenged by the video. The punchline might be Hitler, but Hitler isn't the punchline.
I'm going to be lazy and say it's making fun of how we view and treat racism in society. Kind of like Tay the neo-Nazi millenial chatbot, there is something absurd about making an animal that will never know the context of its actions do something offensive. The dog is still as innocent as it ever was because it is incapable of cognitively processing the behaviors it was taught.
Now, if a dog was trained to attack or menace people of a certain race, that's much less absurd and would be very hard to qualify as a joke, though I can think of a few scenarios where this is possible in the abstract.
I'm not making a judgment call on what criteria make jokes ok or not, because this is a really complex topic.
The dog is innocent because it doesn't understand its actions are racist. But this discussion has never been about whether or not the dog harbors racist thoughts. The discussion has been about the owner.
Is the owner innocent because he claims the actions are not racist?
Are all people who don't consider their actions to be racist innocent of racism, regardless of how racist others find their actions?
The fact of the matter is that most people who don't think of themselves as racists still commit racist acts. That's how systemic racism functions! People internalize racist beliefs subconsciously and act on them without even realizing it. And ironic racism is still racism.
You're certainly right that it's a complex subject. Being opposed to racism is a constant struggle, both external and internal.
So, working with your premise, what was the concept that was being made fun of by training a dog to respond to anti-Semetic commands? It wasn't the ideology behind Nazism and anti-Semitism, it was of cute little doggies being innocent and pure.
Even as an antithesis to "cute and innocent," the Nazi imagery and slogans aren't being mocked or challenged by the video. The punchline might be Hitler, but Hitler isn't the punchline.
I'm going to be lazy and say it's making fun of how we view and treat racism in society. Kind of like Tay the neo-Nazi millenial chatbot, there is something absurd about making an animal that will never know the context of its actions do something offensive. The dog is still as innocent as it ever was because it is incapable of cognitively processing the behaviors it was taught.
Now, if a dog was trained to attack or menace people of a certain race, that's much less absurd and would be very hard to qualify as a joke, though I can think of a few scenarios where this is possible in the abstract.
I'm not making a judgment call on what criteria make jokes ok or not, because this is a really complex topic.
The dog is innocent because it doesn't understand its actions are racist. But this discussion has never been about whether or not the dog harbors racist thoughts. The discussion has been about the owner.
Is the owner innocent because he claims the actions are not racist?
Are all people who don't consider their actions to be racist innocent of racism, regardless of how racist others find their actions?
The fact of the matter is that most people who don't think of themselves as racists still commit racist acts. That's how systemic racism functions! People internalize racist beliefs subconsciously and act on them without even realizing it. And ironic racism is still racism.
You're certainly right that it's a complex subject. Being opposed to racism is a constant struggle, both external and internal.
I've yet to find a person innocent of racism, so my answer is that the owner is not innocent of racism. But that's a cop out.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
I realize you're intentionally waxing a bit philosophical there, but my question there is asking about whether or not he's innocent in regards to the specific situation under discussion.
I realize you're intentionally waxing a bit philosophical there, but my question there is asking about whether or not he's innocent in regards to the specific situation under discussion.
Like, of breaching section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 under current UK law? Guilty. Of being a racist? That's a philosophical question that deserves a philosophical answer.
Is racism part of us or just part of the things we do? The absurdity of the dog and chatbot proves that these are meaningfully separable. Our knowledge separates us from them and makes us culpable while they are not. What is the requisite amount of knowledge, though, that makes a person guilty of intentional racism vs unintentional racism? I'm not sure. Does basic knowledge of the history of the world suffice, or do you have to have expert knowledge on how the mind works and the reasoning skills to back it up? Who among us can draw that line and not commit unforgivable error?
Or is the comedian innocent of being funny, which pragmatically is the real metric we use to determine whether or not a joke is okay? Eh, apparently not funny enough.
Anyway, whatever.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
You're waxing too philosophical again. I'm not asking whether he is, overall, a racist. I'm asking whether the actions he took were racist or not.
You're conflating committing a racist act or uttering something racist with being a racist. That's a philosophical debate that is beyond the scope of this thread and not one that I have any particular interest engaging with, because I've already made my position clear that one can say racist things and commit racist actions without consciously considering themselves a racist person.
You're waxing too philosophical again. I'm not asking whether he is, overall, a racist. I'm asking whether the actions he took were racist or not.
You're conflating committing a racist act or uttering something racist with being a racist. That's a philosophical debate that is beyond the scope of this thread and not one that I have any particular interest engaging with, because I've already made my position clear that one can say racist things and commit racist actions without consciously considering themselves a racist person.
What makes it difficult is that for something to be racist you have to understand intent. If I deny service to a minority, there is no way to assess the racism of the act without knowing my intentions. I may be denying them for a number of legitimate reasons (maybe they want to pay with bitcoin which I don’t accept), or I could be denying them for racist reasons (I don’t want to serve thugs, or those people, or I don’t want them to scare away my “good” clients).
Then there is racism by affect, which let’s call institutional racism. Even if my intentions are perfectly fine, the ultimate affect of my actions could disproportionately affect minorities. This is even harder to guard against, because you have to weigh the legitimate rights of the majority with unintended harm to minorities.
So while I understand the lament for protecting jokes or other speech, seemingly giving cover to racists by allowing them to fig leaf their way out of consequences for racism, I maintain that allowing minimal evidence of intent is more harmful than good and ultimately uneccessary.
In cases of targeted harassment, which is often the examples provided when discussing hate speech laws, I think it is far easier to prove an intent to harass or instill fear than it is to prove an intent to be racist. This is where I would focus efforts on improving legal recourses for those affected, as the harm is much greater and the intent much easier to prove.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
You're waxing too philosophical again. I'm not asking whether he is, overall, a racist. I'm asking whether the actions he took were racist or not.
You're conflating committing a racist act or uttering something racist with being a racist. That's a philosophical debate that is beyond the scope of this thread and not one that I have any particular interest engaging with, because I've already made my position clear that one can say racist things and commit racist actions without consciously considering themselves a racist person.
Oh, that's easier. Yeah, the joke is racist because it reinforces ethnic stereotypes by reminding people of the Nazi offenses against the Jewish people. This definition, however, is very broad and encompasses a lot of jokes society deems ok. This begs the question: is a joke not okay because it's racist?
This is inflammatory wording and makes it hard to nail down a precise and useful definition. Observe: google racist joke and you will find that professor Christie Davies published a work on ethnic humor defining an ethnic joke as "centered on the three main themes of stupidity, canniness and sexual behavior." Why use the word ethnic instead of racist? Well, people will continually try to redefine racist wherever it is applied because of its negative social connotations. We will never reach practical consensus on the less obvious instances of racist behavior, hence the relabeling to prevent us from being distracted from context.
Therefore, while the joke may be considered to be racist by non standardized definitions and therefore has unstandardized significance, it does not qualify as an ethnic joke according to the best standard.
In short, I in particular subjectively find it racist according to the definition that appeals most to me, though if you query me further, you may not like what I believe this signifies. The joke fails to meet the more objective definition of an ethnic joke, mainly because it does not directly reinforce racial stereotypes.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
Posts
I thought it was an analysis of the use of the guidelines but it was more a complaint that they aren’t very clear.
For what it’s worth, the UK apparently has laws against grossly offensive speech. They were amazingly vague laws, so they released a set of guidelines on when to bring prosecution:
The paper has the following complaints about how the law is used and the guidelines:
To be clear, these are not my opinions. Just summarizing the article.
Reading through the judges comments, and I love when they state that their findings have no bearing on other cases and do not set a precedent.
Like what the fuck are they trying to say with that? “I know this ruling is all kinds of fucked up, but I’m going to do it anyway, please don’t copy this ruling for anyone else.”
This is a hilarious stance; given you were just yesterday arguing that Blood Libel wasn't anti-Semitic and that Jim Crow can be used in a non-racist context.
And I don't want to go down that road about the Blood Libel, my intent was not to pass judgment but to provide a service to prevent something bad from happening to Jephery later. Eroding confidence is the last thing I want to do.
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.
It's not uncommon in Common Law practices for a judge to state that their ruling should be considered non-precedental. Usually because they think the facts of the case are too murky or specific to be applicable elsewhere.
So it's less "I think this ruling is all fucked up" and more "I would've probably made a different ruling if pretty much any fact in the case was different, so unless you get the exact same case don't look to this for guidance."
What an incredibly disingenuous and insulting representation of what I actually said and argued.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This seems in incredible bad faith given what Frankie just said and the context of this discussion. It's clear he means that you don't get to determine people should find it offensive, not that no one is allowed to find it offensive.
Beyond that frankie is not being trotted out by a conservative pundit to promote some side in a discussion, but just honestly giving his opinion. Even if it's wrong, even if it doesn't mean much being just the opinion of one random guy on the internet, even if it is the opinion of an even greater idiot than me (no offense @Frankiedarling ), it is dishonest to dismiss anyone's opinion as if they are not an equal participant in this forum but an agent of some greater force.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That is not to say that I think Count Dankula won't be one of the first to apply for a position as camp guard or people hunter or something similar, just on the basis of him being a tool alone. The idea behind fascism is not that everybody should be a true hardcore believer, it is to make certain beliefs into generally accepted truths in society. Not everybody has to be an active member of the Nazi party, you just have to get certain Nazi claims accepted as true by general society. You want people to go about their regular business while believing your truths. Get people to pick a job as guard because it offers a decent income with good benefits, and have them not even consider questioning the rightness of what happens.
Your eloquence erased the pain of harsh realities, no offence taken.
Ah ok sorry dude, it seems I missed that. I apologize for accusing you of bad faith. It's just that I encounter a lot of dismissal of voices because they're bots/trolls or whatever, and i get annoyed because it is usually done to avoid defending opinions that look unstable. But again I missed it and sorry for that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's always just a joke, right up until it's not because not everyone is in the "joke".
Like people spreading conspiracy theories as a joke, and suddenly a pizza parlor gets shot up.
I fucking hate that defense of bigotry, "it's just a joke", well so fucking what?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I still think that comic is mistaken and preachy. It’s based on the flawed premise that, A, the audience is some privileged individual that doesn’t understand hate, and B, they have no empathy and could never understand hate unless it was turned on them.
But guess what, lots of people live through hate and brutal attacks, and think humor is a great way to cope with it. Yes even inappropriate, racist, sexist humor.
And even if you haven’t, that doesn’t mean you’re too stupid to realize that one day the hate could spread to you. People aren’t generally sociopaths lacking empathy. Perhaps we just think humor is a terrible place to try and limit the spread of hate, because we believe it doesn’t actually spread hate. It could even lessen it, and it certainly can be helpful for some who’ve experienced it.
Because..... that changes the meaning of what was said? Unless you’re arguing that context is utterly irrelevant and helpless before the merciless and unforgiving fist of syllables, and that is a poor argument to make.
That is the “so fucking what” of the matter. If you are incapable of understanding the difference between Hitler and his fascist army and the absurd humour of teaching a dog to heil on command, that is squarely on you. Humour, contrary to what I see declared here, is not some deep revealing of the human soul. A vast swathe of what we find funny is found thus because it is absurd, unexpected, shocking. Its how you can make a dead baby joke but not actually support the death of young infants.
It’s a kind of magic.
And trying to claim that jokes don't actually spread hate feels like someone trying to claim that fire is wet and sky is green with orange polka dots.
I mean, "it's just a joke" is the favorite defense of people who get backlash for their bigoted ramblings, and sometimes they actually were jokes, bigoted, hateful, not funny for anyone who is not a terrile person jokes.
It's weird, really, how nothing ever seems spread hate, not jokes, not games, or movies, or comics, or books, definitely not speech, yet it keeps popping up everywhere.
I never claimed jokes can’t spread hate. I am, however, claiming that a great deal of humour carries an inherent context of insincerity and is based off saying the ridiculous, the untrue, the unexpected. You cannot engage with the idea of humour in the context of free speech while ignoring this.
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.
Even when the actual seeds of "truth" are complete bullshit.
And even when the joke is intended as insincere, those hearing it might not see it as such.
"It's just a joke" is a shitty defense.
And “some people hearing the joke might not think it’s a joke” is the weakest, most irrelevant wont someone think of the children ever spoken. Some people hear Love Thy Neighbour and think it means except those people.
It seems you have an issue with the liquid nature of humour, and the bad news following is it will never go away. It’s a fundamental part of the human psyche and expression. Which is generally why we make allowance for it and enshrine procreations for it— that is, when we’re not in the midst of a foolish authoritarian craze like Britain of the past few decades.
I don't have a problem with the "liquid nature of humor".
I have a problem with the long, ignoble history of using bigotry - soft and less so - to get cheap laughs. I'm reminded of what Dave Chapelle said as to why he just walked away from his critically and commercially successful sketch comedy show - that he did it because he felt that there were people laughing at his sketches not because they were making racism absurd, but for the racism.
I have a problem with the alt-right using (and openly discussing using) "it's just a joke" as a way to play off their spreading hate while identifying recruits. It's the "Schrodinger's Douchebag" gambit - say something bigoted, and if you get pushback, just claim "it was a joke" - while noting who didn't push back.
And finally, I have a problem with people wanting to say that humor is powerful but never want to acknowledge that its power can be wielded in furtherance of horrible ends. Once again, it's the conflict between "sticks and stones" and "this machine kills fascists" - and once again, the fact that the former is a lie we tell ourselves doesn't stop people from choosing it.
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.
There are always bad implementations of ideas. Doesn't necessarily mean the idea itself is flawed.
I think Canada's hate speech laws have been a positive for this country, especially because they haven't stopped people from saying offensive things. Offense is not something that can be legislated, and we didn't try. The laws are about promoting violence through speech, which is what this whole debate is about. Getting into the weeds about offense or whether something is a joke is irrelevant.
I don't care if something is a joke. That has no bearing on whether it's promoting violence against an identifiable group.
And it's really funny to me that this thread dismissed his joining UKIP as a Post Hoc fallacy, but then say him saying it was a joke after doing it TOTALLY counts. Give me a break. Joining a racist organization after making racist 'jokes' is absolutely indicative of his greater reasoning. It doesn't stand on its own, but if someone insists they're not a Nazi, repeatedly, and then joins the Nazi party, then they were a fucking Nazi the whole time.
But none of that is applicable with what I believe hate speech laws should be about.
They shouldn't ban people from being Nazis. But they absolutely should ban Nazi speech about exterminating Jews.
Thinking about it, I believe you can make a distinction of "Making fun at/of Racism," and "Making fun with Racism." Where the former is mocking the absurdity of racists and the later is attempting to create a situation where the racism is used in an absurd way.
The first is mostly fine, if yeah you can get Chappelle's shows issues at people not being aware that racism is not to be sympathized with. But the later means you have created a scenario, however specific, where the racism is okay. And it should never be okay.
The problem is that the root of humor is not making fun of someone, it's making fun of a concept. Sometimes the people are the concepts, and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes it also gets meta by making fun of how we view and treat racism in society, or how we set guidelines for humor. It's a very anarchic method of communication. It's also the most vulnerable to chilling, because nobody's going to make any great sacrifices to defend a joke.
There are lots of things I find funny that bring me happiness, but I'm not completely sure you'll enjoy them, so I quietly enjoy these things by myself. I'll support the people who make such things in certain ways and just not talk about it with you. So if you wonder why certain things continue to exist despite the affrontery to you, maybe it's because of me and other people like me. Who knows? That's okay, right?
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.
Even as an antithesis to "cute and innocent," the Nazi imagery and slogans aren't being mocked or challenged by the video. The punchline might be Hitler, but Hitler isn't the punchline.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The punchline was absurdity, because a dog throwing a Nazi salute is on its face absurd and utterly unexpected.
The only good part of this is how it reminds that a joke loses itself upon dissection. A theoretical tribunal picking apart a joke to determine its legality is more absurd an idea than the Nazi Dog, and the fact that it actually happened makes me unhappy. That people are defending it is just depressing.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But, you know, "it's just a joke", so we can't criticize it.
Well i say bullshit to that.
If the joke is hateful, bigoted, insulting, malicious/mean (like, you know, training someone else dog to do a nazi salute is), or just making claims that are not true.
Then "it's just a joke" is not a fucking get out of jail (possibly literally) free card.
If you can't stand by your words without a "it's just a joke" to absolve you of any responsibility, then the problem is not in people who "can't take a joke", the problem is that you are a shitty comedian, and probably even shittier person.
I'm going to be lazy and say it's making fun of how we view and treat racism in society. Kind of like Tay the neo-Nazi millennial chatbot, there is something absurd about making an animal that will never know the context of its actions do something offensive. The dog is still as innocent as it ever was because it is incapable of cognitively processing the behaviors it was taught.
Now, if a dog was trained to attack or menace people of a certain race, that's much less absurd and would be very hard to qualify as a joke, though I can think of a few scenarios where this is possible in the abstract.
I'm not making a judgment call on what criteria make jokes ok or not, because this is a really complex topic.
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.
The dog is innocent because it doesn't understand its actions are racist. But this discussion has never been about whether or not the dog harbors racist thoughts. The discussion has been about the owner.
Is the owner innocent because he claims the actions are not racist?
Are all people who don't consider their actions to be racist innocent of racism, regardless of how racist others find their actions?
The fact of the matter is that most people who don't think of themselves as racists still commit racist acts. That's how systemic racism functions! People internalize racist beliefs subconsciously and act on them without even realizing it. And ironic racism is still racism.
You're certainly right that it's a complex subject. Being opposed to racism is a constant struggle, both external and internal.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I've yet to find a person innocent of racism, so my answer is that the owner is not innocent of racism. But that's a cop out.
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Like, of breaching section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 under current UK law? Guilty. Of being a racist? That's a philosophical question that deserves a philosophical answer.
Is racism part of us or just part of the things we do? The absurdity of the dog and chatbot proves that these are meaningfully separable. Our knowledge separates us from them and makes us culpable while they are not. What is the requisite amount of knowledge, though, that makes a person guilty of intentional racism vs unintentional racism? I'm not sure. Does basic knowledge of the history of the world suffice, or do you have to have expert knowledge on how the mind works and the reasoning skills to back it up? Who among us can draw that line and not commit unforgivable error?
Or is the comedian innocent of being funny, which pragmatically is the real metric we use to determine whether or not a joke is okay? Eh, apparently not funny enough.
Anyway, whatever.
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.
You're conflating committing a racist act or uttering something racist with being a racist. That's a philosophical debate that is beyond the scope of this thread and not one that I have any particular interest engaging with, because I've already made my position clear that one can say racist things and commit racist actions without consciously considering themselves a racist person.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
What makes it difficult is that for something to be racist you have to understand intent. If I deny service to a minority, there is no way to assess the racism of the act without knowing my intentions. I may be denying them for a number of legitimate reasons (maybe they want to pay with bitcoin which I don’t accept), or I could be denying them for racist reasons (I don’t want to serve thugs, or those people, or I don’t want them to scare away my “good” clients).
Then there is racism by affect, which let’s call institutional racism. Even if my intentions are perfectly fine, the ultimate affect of my actions could disproportionately affect minorities. This is even harder to guard against, because you have to weigh the legitimate rights of the majority with unintended harm to minorities.
So while I understand the lament for protecting jokes or other speech, seemingly giving cover to racists by allowing them to fig leaf their way out of consequences for racism, I maintain that allowing minimal evidence of intent is more harmful than good and ultimately uneccessary.
In cases of targeted harassment, which is often the examples provided when discussing hate speech laws, I think it is far easier to prove an intent to harass or instill fear than it is to prove an intent to be racist. This is where I would focus efforts on improving legal recourses for those affected, as the harm is much greater and the intent much easier to prove.
Oh, that's easier. Yeah, the joke is racist because it reinforces ethnic stereotypes by reminding people of the Nazi offenses against the Jewish people. This definition, however, is very broad and encompasses a lot of jokes society deems ok. This begs the question: is a joke not okay because it's racist?
This is inflammatory wording and makes it hard to nail down a precise and useful definition. Observe: google racist joke and you will find that professor Christie Davies published a work on ethnic humor defining an ethnic joke as "centered on the three main themes of stupidity, canniness and sexual behavior." Why use the word ethnic instead of racist? Well, people will continually try to redefine racist wherever it is applied because of its negative social connotations. We will never reach practical consensus on the less obvious instances of racist behavior, hence the relabeling to prevent us from being distracted from context.
Therefore, while the joke may be considered to be racist by non standardized definitions and therefore has unstandardized significance, it does not qualify as an ethnic joke according to the best standard.
In short, I in particular subjectively find it racist according to the definition that appeals most to me, though if you query me further, you may not like what I believe this signifies. The joke fails to meet the more objective definition of an ethnic joke, mainly because it does not directly reinforce racial stereotypes.
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.
Sure. By all means. Criticize a joke cuz you don’t get it or because you think it sinister. Legality should not enter into it.