A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday revived a Pennsylvania anti-harassment and anti-discrimination professional rule for lawyers, rejecting a lawsuit that challenged the rule as unconstitutional.
Reversing a federal judge's decision, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that Zachary Greenberg, an attorney with the non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, had not shown that the professional conduct rule threatened his free speech rights.
Greenberg's free speech claim is "not objectively reasonable or cannot be fairly traced to the rule," the court said, ordering his case dismissed for lack of standing.
The Pennsylvania rule, which is modeled after an American Bar Association rule, prohibits lawyers from knowingly engaging "in conduct constituting harassment or discrimination" based on race, sex, religion and other grounds.
Greenberg claimed he risked violating the rule because of presentations he gives about offensive and derogatory language. But the 3rd Circuit panel said the rule "does not arguably prohibit anything Greenberg plans to do."
The lawyer's argument was classic "self-censorship" gooseshit:
Greenberg said in court papers that the rule made him uncomfortable to speak freely on sensitive topics like race, citing law professors who have received complaints and others who have lost their jobs. But that is due to the "social climate" and not Pennsylvania's anti-harassment rule, the panel said.
Surprise - free speech means having to live with the consequences of one's speech! Who knew? But the sad part is that he managed to get a lower court to buy his argument.
A federal appeals court resuscitated a high school softball dad’s lawsuit when it ruled that the school district’s decision to ban the father from his daughter’s sports events was a violation of the First Amendment.
Randall McElhaney, the father of “L.M.,” a softball player at Upperman High School in Baxter, Tennessee, was an enthusiastic supporter of his daughter’s participation in sports. McElhaney was a season ticket holder with seats behind home plate. L.M. initially played second base and pitched for her school’s team, but during her senior year, her playing time during games decreased dramatically.
Although parents had been instructed not to discuss decisions related to playing time with coaching staff, McElhaney sent a series of lengthy text messages to L.M.’s coach expressing frustration with the choices of which players to put in the games.
Williams, believing that McElhaney had violated the team’s policy about communicating about coaching decisions, reported McElhaney’s texts to the school principal who agreed that the messages had been inappropriate and banned McElhaney from a week of softball games.
McElhaney challenged the suspension to the school board, but was unsuccessful. He then attended L.M.’s game in contravention of the principal’s suspension directive. Although McElhaney was not said to have disrupted the game in any way, the principal saw him at the game and asked him to leave. A school resource officer told McElhaney that failure to leave would render him a trespasser. McElhaney did leave, then sued the school administration and the resource officer for violation of his First Amendment rights and for violation of his due process rights for taking his property (his season tickets) without compensation.
Readler next schooled the lower court on the legal implications of restricting what parents are permitted to say.
“[D]efendants believe that the First Amendment allows them to place ‘substance restrictions’ on parental speech to school officials, including a prohibition against ‘directly debating with [a] coach about playing time,'” Readler wrote. “As a matter of decorum, that rule might well make good sense. But for better or worse, the First Amendment protects many statements and actions that arguably lack decorum.”
Yeah this is a shitty ruling in the vein of Countermann (which was discussed earlier in the thread), where the courts basically say "Actually, the First Amendment is a suicide pact." The rule isn't about "decorum", it was put in place so that parents don't fucking harass staff in their personal lives. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised when courts ruled it was OK for a bigot to harass a Black elected officeholder out of office.
Good news, stupid think of the children anti-porn law (H.B. 1181) shut down in Texas. Hopefully the other similar state laws follow suit and set the stage to stop any national bullshit.
A federal appeals court resuscitated a high school softball dad’s lawsuit when it ruled that the school district’s decision to ban the father from his daughter’s sports events was a violation of the First Amendment.
Randall McElhaney, the father of “L.M.,” a softball player at Upperman High School in Baxter, Tennessee, was an enthusiastic supporter of his daughter’s participation in sports. McElhaney was a season ticket holder with seats behind home plate. L.M. initially played second base and pitched for her school’s team, but during her senior year, her playing time during games decreased dramatically.
Although parents had been instructed not to discuss decisions related to playing time with coaching staff, McElhaney sent a series of lengthy text messages to L.M.’s coach expressing frustration with the choices of which players to put in the games.
Williams, believing that McElhaney had violated the team’s policy about communicating about coaching decisions, reported McElhaney’s texts to the school principal who agreed that the messages had been inappropriate and banned McElhaney from a week of softball games.
McElhaney challenged the suspension to the school board, but was unsuccessful. He then attended L.M.’s game in contravention of the principal’s suspension directive. Although McElhaney was not said to have disrupted the game in any way, the principal saw him at the game and asked him to leave. A school resource officer told McElhaney that failure to leave would render him a trespasser. McElhaney did leave, then sued the school administration and the resource officer for violation of his First Amendment rights and for violation of his due process rights for taking his property (his season tickets) without compensation.
Readler next schooled the lower court on the legal implications of restricting what parents are permitted to say.
“[D]efendants believe that the First Amendment allows them to place ‘substance restrictions’ on parental speech to school officials, including a prohibition against ‘directly debating with [a] coach about playing time,'” Readler wrote. “As a matter of decorum, that rule might well make good sense. But for better or worse, the First Amendment protects many statements and actions that arguably lack decorum.”
Yeah this is a shitty ruling in the vein of Countermann (which was discussed earlier in the thread), where the courts basically say "Actually, the First Amendment is a suicide pact." The rule isn't about "decorum", it was put in place so that parents don't fucking harass staff in their personal lives. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised when courts ruled it was OK for a bigot to harass a Black elected officeholder out of office.
I never thought I would say I feel bad for school administrators. When I was a kid it seemed like the courts reinforced a doctrine of total control and zero culpability, and now it's the complete opposite, even when a district does everything right, just like in the preaching football coach on the 50 yard line case, if they're a public school, the courts say get fucked. So eventually there won't be softball teams because they won't have the staff or ability to deal with a bunch of overzealous Karens screaming at them about coaching calls. But ultra private christian schools can continue to do whatever they want.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Yeah. That has been surprising. On the one hand I get it, it's a "there but for the grace of god go I" deals. But then the more I listen to comedians on podcasts these days, I've realized that in a lot of ways, they circle the wagons to protect many incredibly toxic people, and/or are incredibly toxic themselves. It's gross to me the kind of safety bubbles weirdos like Bobby Lee get.
There's a very toxic culture around stand-up in particular where there's this idea that comedians have to be allowed to punch down with horribly bigoted and offensive jokes because this is "how comedy works". I thought this column in response to the outing of Russell Brand as a sexual predator illustrated the problem:
What is completely bizarre, with the benefit of 2023 hindsight, is how the Sachsgate story was framed, both by those who were reflexive defenders of the BBC and “comedy” and free speech (then a somewhat lefty preoccupation, funnily enough), AND by those who wished their destruction. Fleet Street quickly settled into tribes and covered it as a story where each assumed the other was acting out of vested interests. This was back when our only culture wars were about things that happened on the BBC. (My how we’ve grown.) Mail vox pops were incandescent; some Guardian ones found it an “overreaction”.
When the Brand expose broke last weekend, I found myself transported back to that time. And with my 2023 head on, rather sickening alarm bells began to ring, because I knew – I knew – that I wouldn’t have centred anything I wrote about it on Georgina Baillie. I had this shaming suspicion I had treated it as a sort of media story – and so it proved. My mentions of it say Ross and Brand were total scumbags, but they chiefly ridicule the fact that people complained to Ofcom because of the Mail titles’ coverage, despite never having heard the original broadcast. I mean … so what? Speaking of moronic points: LOOK NO FURTHER. Dear 2008 Marina: you think you’re being clever but you’re being horribly obtuse. Get your head out of your arse. It doesn’t matter whether or not they heard it, it’s still hideous and they have every right to think it’s absolutely unacceptable for the BBC to have aired it.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Yeah. That has been surprising. On the one hand I get it, it's a "there but for the grace of god go I" deals. But then the more I listen to comedians on podcasts these days, I've realized that in a lot of ways, they circle the wagons to protect many incredibly toxic people, and/or are incredibly toxic themselves. It's gross to me the kind of safety bubbles weirdos like Bobby Lee get.
There's a very toxic culture around stand-up in particular where there's this idea that comedians have to be allowed to punch down with horribly bigoted and offensive jokes because this is "how comedy works". I thought this column in response to the outing of Russell Brand as a sexual predator illustrated the problem:
What is completely bizarre, with the benefit of 2023 hindsight, is how the Sachsgate story was framed, both by those who were reflexive defenders of the BBC and “comedy” and free speech (then a somewhat lefty preoccupation, funnily enough), AND by those who wished their destruction. Fleet Street quickly settled into tribes and covered it as a story where each assumed the other was acting out of vested interests. This was back when our only culture wars were about things that happened on the BBC. (My how we’ve grown.) Mail vox pops were incandescent; some Guardian ones found it an “overreaction”.
When the Brand expose broke last weekend, I found myself transported back to that time. And with my 2023 head on, rather sickening alarm bells began to ring, because I knew – I knew – that I wouldn’t have centred anything I wrote about it on Georgina Baillie. I had this shaming suspicion I had treated it as a sort of media story – and so it proved. My mentions of it say Ross and Brand were total scumbags, but they chiefly ridicule the fact that people complained to Ofcom because of the Mail titles’ coverage, despite never having heard the original broadcast. I mean … so what? Speaking of moronic points: LOOK NO FURTHER. Dear 2008 Marina: you think you’re being clever but you’re being horribly obtuse. Get your head out of your arse. It doesn’t matter whether or not they heard it, it’s still hideous and they have every right to think it’s absolutely unacceptable for the BBC to have aired it.
Reading the article, it appears the point is that going into a media frenzy focused on the comedian, who is a media expert, is playing a game they're very comfortable with and have every advantage in turning to their benefit.
On the other side, the victim has none of those advantages, and amidst the noise of the epic celebrity battle going on, tabloids and the like are free to abuse the victim further while everyone else is distracted.
Therefore, the article proposes to highlight the victim rather than the celebrity perpetrator.
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.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
A.K.A. "this machine kills fascists" vs. "sticks and stones" - the contradiction at the heart of free speech "absolutism".
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Yeah. That has been surprising. On the one hand I get it, it's a "there but for the grace of god go I" deals. But then the more I listen to comedians on podcasts these days, I've realized that in a lot of ways, they circle the wagons to protect many incredibly toxic people, and/or are incredibly toxic themselves. It's gross to me the kind of safety bubbles weirdos like Bobby Lee get.
There's a very toxic culture around stand-up in particular where there's this idea that comedians have to be allowed to punch down with horribly bigoted and offensive jokes because this is "how comedy works". I thought this column in response to the outing of Russell Brand as a sexual predator illustrated the problem:
What is completely bizarre, with the benefit of 2023 hindsight, is how the Sachsgate story was framed, both by those who were reflexive defenders of the BBC and “comedy” and free speech (then a somewhat lefty preoccupation, funnily enough), AND by those who wished their destruction. Fleet Street quickly settled into tribes and covered it as a story where each assumed the other was acting out of vested interests. This was back when our only culture wars were about things that happened on the BBC. (My how we’ve grown.) Mail vox pops were incandescent; some Guardian ones found it an “overreaction”.
When the Brand expose broke last weekend, I found myself transported back to that time. And with my 2023 head on, rather sickening alarm bells began to ring, because I knew – I knew – that I wouldn’t have centred anything I wrote about it on Georgina Baillie. I had this shaming suspicion I had treated it as a sort of media story – and so it proved. My mentions of it say Ross and Brand were total scumbags, but they chiefly ridicule the fact that people complained to Ofcom because of the Mail titles’ coverage, despite never having heard the original broadcast. I mean … so what? Speaking of moronic points: LOOK NO FURTHER. Dear 2008 Marina: you think you’re being clever but you’re being horribly obtuse. Get your head out of your arse. It doesn’t matter whether or not they heard it, it’s still hideous and they have every right to think it’s absolutely unacceptable for the BBC to have aired it.
My first introduction to Russel Brand a decade ago was him being a dick. I'm not surprised at all to find out he's a sexual predator. Like, the only male comedians I would be surprised to learn were predators are Weird Al and Brennan Lee Mulligan.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Yeah. That has been surprising. On the one hand I get it, it's a "there but for the grace of god go I" deals. But then the more I listen to comedians on podcasts these days, I've realized that in a lot of ways, they circle the wagons to protect many incredibly toxic people, and/or are incredibly toxic themselves. It's gross to me the kind of safety bubbles weirdos like Bobby Lee get.
There's a very toxic culture around stand-up in particular where there's this idea that comedians have to be allowed to punch down with horribly bigoted and offensive jokes because this is "how comedy works". I thought this column in response to the outing of Russell Brand as a sexual predator illustrated the problem:
What is completely bizarre, with the benefit of 2023 hindsight, is how the Sachsgate story was framed, both by those who were reflexive defenders of the BBC and “comedy” and free speech (then a somewhat lefty preoccupation, funnily enough), AND by those who wished their destruction. Fleet Street quickly settled into tribes and covered it as a story where each assumed the other was acting out of vested interests. This was back when our only culture wars were about things that happened on the BBC. (My how we’ve grown.) Mail vox pops were incandescent; some Guardian ones found it an “overreaction”.
When the Brand expose broke last weekend, I found myself transported back to that time. And with my 2023 head on, rather sickening alarm bells began to ring, because I knew – I knew – that I wouldn’t have centred anything I wrote about it on Georgina Baillie. I had this shaming suspicion I had treated it as a sort of media story – and so it proved. My mentions of it say Ross and Brand were total scumbags, but they chiefly ridicule the fact that people complained to Ofcom because of the Mail titles’ coverage, despite never having heard the original broadcast. I mean … so what? Speaking of moronic points: LOOK NO FURTHER. Dear 2008 Marina: you think you’re being clever but you’re being horribly obtuse. Get your head out of your arse. It doesn’t matter whether or not they heard it, it’s still hideous and they have every right to think it’s absolutely unacceptable for the BBC to have aired it.
My first introduction to Russel Brand a decade ago was him being a dick. I'm not surprised at all to find out he's a sexual predator. Like, the only male comedians I would be surprised to learn were predators are Weird Al and Brennan Lee Mulligan.
Yeah, there's a lot of "wow, comedians who make jokes about sexual abuse turn out to be sexual abusers - who would have thought?"
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Yeah. That has been surprising. On the one hand I get it, it's a "there but for the grace of god go I" deals. But then the more I listen to comedians on podcasts these days, I've realized that in a lot of ways, they circle the wagons to protect many incredibly toxic people, and/or are incredibly toxic themselves. It's gross to me the kind of safety bubbles weirdos like Bobby Lee get.
There's a very toxic culture around stand-up in particular where there's this idea that comedians have to be allowed to punch down with horribly bigoted and offensive jokes because this is "how comedy works". I thought this column in response to the outing of Russell Brand as a sexual predator illustrated the problem:
What is completely bizarre, with the benefit of 2023 hindsight, is how the Sachsgate story was framed, both by those who were reflexive defenders of the BBC and “comedy” and free speech (then a somewhat lefty preoccupation, funnily enough), AND by those who wished their destruction. Fleet Street quickly settled into tribes and covered it as a story where each assumed the other was acting out of vested interests. This was back when our only culture wars were about things that happened on the BBC. (My how we’ve grown.) Mail vox pops were incandescent; some Guardian ones found it an “overreaction”.
When the Brand expose broke last weekend, I found myself transported back to that time. And with my 2023 head on, rather sickening alarm bells began to ring, because I knew – I knew – that I wouldn’t have centred anything I wrote about it on Georgina Baillie. I had this shaming suspicion I had treated it as a sort of media story – and so it proved. My mentions of it say Ross and Brand were total scumbags, but they chiefly ridicule the fact that people complained to Ofcom because of the Mail titles’ coverage, despite never having heard the original broadcast. I mean … so what? Speaking of moronic points: LOOK NO FURTHER. Dear 2008 Marina: you think you’re being clever but you’re being horribly obtuse. Get your head out of your arse. It doesn’t matter whether or not they heard it, it’s still hideous and they have every right to think it’s absolutely unacceptable for the BBC to have aired it.
My first introduction to Russel Brand a decade ago was him being a dick. I'm not surprised at all to find out he's a sexual predator. Like, the only male comedians I would be surprised to learn were predators are Weird Al and Brennan Lee Mulligan.
Yeah, there's a lot of "wow, comedians who make jokes about sexual abuse turn out to be sexual abusers - who would have thought?"
Louis CK was the one that got me. He actually had a whole bit about how women interacting with men have it so much worse off than men interacting with women and whoops, turns out despite knowing the problem exists and acknowledging that it is a problem, he was 100% a willing part of it.
I'm still waiting for the ball to drop on Bill Burr, but I might be waiting forever
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.
His dumbshit offensively-ignorant jokes aren’t the ball dropping?
Like the Russell Brand situation, the ball dropping would be him doing something abusive rather than whatever he chooses to be his comedy.
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.
His dumbshit offensively-ignorant jokes aren’t the ball dropping?
Like the Russell Brand situation, the ball dropping would be him doing something abusive rather than whatever he chooses to be his comedy.
The ball drop is when it comes out that they did it. Some abusers got away with it for decades before it became public. For a long time, that's just how things were in Hollywood.
Also there are like a zillion ways to tell transgressive jokes that touch on other groups where the punchline isn't just fancying up, "<slur>s, amirite?"
You might get some heat from Twitter depending on the specifics of a joke, but if it's not just a nudge and a wink at your shared bigotry 99% of people are going to give the benefit of the doubt, even if they land on not finding it funny.
...but a lot of comedians are glad to just nudge and wink at shared bigotry.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
First off, there is actually a body of research on the harm done by slurs and bigoted speech to those targeted by it - this is where we get concepts like stereotype threat from. So the argument that "little effort" is given in researching this is laughably unaware.
Beyond that, your comparisons are poorly structured (and I would recommend watching the Paul F. Tompkins video linked above, as it does a good job of explaining why they don't actually fundamentally work.) The reason "OK Boomer" is "acceptable" (and it's worth pointing out that there are people who argue that it really isn't) while a blatantly misogynistic statement isn't is because the phrase is a response to ageist attacks from the older generation towards younger generations. And I imagine that the Burr rant you're talking about is a skewering of the stereotype surrounding Philadelphia and its residents - a stereotype that it's worth pointing out the community is very much in on and encourages in several ways, which is very different from going after ethnic stereotypes.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
First off, there is actually a body of research on the harm done by slurs and bigoted speech to those targeted by it - this is where we get concepts like stereotype threat from. So the argument that "little effort" is given in researching this is laughably unaware.
Beyond that, your comparisons are poorly structured (and I would recommend watching the Paul F. Tompkins video linked above, as it does a good job of explaining why they don't actually fundamentally work.) The reason "OK Boomer" is "acceptable" (and it's worth pointing out that there are people who argue that it really isn't) while a blatantly misogynistic statement isn't is because the phrase is a response to ageist attacks from the older generation towards younger generations. And I imagine that the Burr rant you're talking about is a skewering of the stereotype surrounding Philadelphia and its residents - a stereotype that it's worth pointing out the community is very much in on and encourages in several ways, which is very different from going after ethnic stereotypes.
Right so some people think you can 'Okay Boomer" and some can't. How is that not meat during lent? Are we going to smash a Rolling Stones album into some K-Pop merch in the Large Hadron Collider and come up with an answer?
As to the quantifiability, what is the unit of measure? Burr uses gay slurs say 50 times in the rant. Now when it was performed it was Infront of a crowd of 10,000. It's now been viewed on youtube 20m times. If is cause harm over the last decade we should have seen it by now. Is he responsible for 50, 500k or 1 billion BHUs(Boston Harmful Units)?
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
No, it’s quite contradictory unless you adopt the position that the person speaking is the only person allowed to evaluate the effect of that speech.
It’s not a left-right thing, it’s an attitude toward the use of language and the role of the audience.
There’s a radio host locally (that I generally enjoy) whose pet issue is people in entertainment suffering consequences for their speech (i.e. Don Imus). His position is that someone who has to talk for their job shouldn’t lose their job just for talking, and it feels very self-serving every time it comes up.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
First off, there is actually a body of research on the harm done by slurs and bigoted speech to those targeted by it - this is where we get concepts like stereotype threat from. So the argument that "little effort" is given in researching this is laughably unaware.
Beyond that, your comparisons are poorly structured (and I would recommend watching the Paul F. Tompkins video linked above, as it does a good job of explaining why they don't actually fundamentally work.) The reason "OK Boomer" is "acceptable" (and it's worth pointing out that there are people who argue that it really isn't) while a blatantly misogynistic statement isn't is because the phrase is a response to ageist attacks from the older generation towards younger generations. And I imagine that the Burr rant you're talking about is a skewering of the stereotype surrounding Philadelphia and its residents - a stereotype that it's worth pointing out the community is very much in on and encourages in several ways, which is very different from going after ethnic stereotypes.
Right so some people think you can 'Okay Boomer" and some can't. How is that not meat during lent? Are we going to smash a Rolling Stones album into some K-Pop merch in the Large Hadron Collider and come up with an answer?
As to the quantifiability, what is the unit of measure? Burr uses gay slurs say 50 times in the rant. Now when it was performed it was Infront of a crowd of 10,000. It's now been viewed on youtube 20m times. If is cause harm over the last decade we should have seen it by now. Is he responsible for 50, 500k or 1 billion BHUs(Boston Harmful Units)?
You're looking for a bright line where none exists. Again, while there are some ageist aspects to "OK Boomer", it's not the whole story of a comment that grew out of intergenerational conflict. It's not just "you're old", but speaks to the struggle between the younger and older generations, especially the fact that younger generations are angry about how the older generations expect respect and obedience while being unwilling to take responsibility for their actions and abuses - and as such the comment is viewed quite differently than a flat out misogynistic statement, as in your original comparison. And even then, people do acknowledge that there is an ageist component that is harmful - but they're not going to distill a phrase that has a complicated background to just that ageism.
The rest of your argument is just laughable, and illustrates your reaching for that bright line - this idea of if we can create a numeric assessment of how "harmful" bigoted speech is, we can say that this is "too much", which is not how speech works. The reality is that bigoted, hateful speech has genuine harms that the subjects of that speech wind up being subject to, which can't just be rendered into a number, but instead have to be acknowledged as such. What free speech "absolutism" struggles with in this case is that the idea of speech causing harm places responsibility on the speaker for the harm they do, which winds up complicating the idea of free speech the ideology has, where the speaker is not to be held accountable for their speech. Which comes to the final part.
One of the ways the idea of "free speech" has been warped has been a warping of the concept of censorship, in order to use it as a thought terminating cliche to counter discussion of speech, its effect, and repercussions thereof. The best example of this is the concept of "self-censorship", which is an argument that it is "censorship" for speakers to have to worry that people will think poorly of them for their speech - an argument on display in the case discussed in this comment.
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
First off, there is actually a body of research on the harm done by slurs and bigoted speech to those targeted by it - this is where we get concepts like stereotype threat from. So the argument that "little effort" is given in researching this is laughably unaware.
Beyond that, your comparisons are poorly structured (and I would recommend watching the Paul F. Tompkins video linked above, as it does a good job of explaining why they don't actually fundamentally work.) The reason "OK Boomer" is "acceptable" (and it's worth pointing out that there are people who argue that it really isn't) while a blatantly misogynistic statement isn't is because the phrase is a response to ageist attacks from the older generation towards younger generations. And I imagine that the Burr rant you're talking about is a skewering of the stereotype surrounding Philadelphia and its residents - a stereotype that it's worth pointing out the community is very much in on and encourages in several ways, which is very different from going after ethnic stereotypes.
Right so some people think you can 'Okay Boomer" and some can't. How is that not meat during lent? Are we going to smash a Rolling Stones album into some K-Pop merch in the Large Hadron Collider and come up with an answer?
As to the quantifiability, what is the unit of measure? Burr uses gay slurs say 50 times in the rant. Now when it was performed it was Infront of a crowd of 10,000. It's now been viewed on youtube 20m times. If is cause harm over the last decade we should have seen it by now. Is he responsible for 50, 500k or 1 billion BHUs(Boston Harmful Units)?
It really does bug me that people treat free speech as though it's supposed to operate the right of first conquest.
It's like they believe the first person to say something is thereby immune for anyone else using their free speech to respond to it.
First come, first served, suckers!
It's called the preferred first speaker fallacy, or as Adam Serwer put it, the "right to monologue". And it ultimately comes back to contradiction at the heart of free speech "absolutism" - speech must be protected because it has the power to change the world, yet it is ephemeral and thus is unable to harm.
That Paul F Tompkins video shares my opinion, but way more incisive
Yeah I appreciate comedians calling out lazy comedians. Its like the comedy version of a Mick Foley "right here in *city we're in* pop". Telling shitty bigoted jokes is a lazy way of doing comedy no matter who makes money reliably doing them. Like Ricky Gervais as he frequently points out is a millionaire and he's just got a version of the one joke anymore.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Meta-opinions about how free speech is are ephemeral because it's all just communication. We talk a lot about the theory but it doesn't really congeal into a single concrete plan as the situation changes with each word spoken.
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.
Meta-opinions about how free speech is are ephemeral because it's all just communication. We talk a lot about the theory but it doesn't really congeal into a single concrete plan as the situation changes with each word spoken.
I agree. Speech is highly contextual and there is no rule that covers all situations. But that just means that we need to better understand the context so we can communicate properly.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
He was on some show both sides'ing the situation over Dave Chappelle becoming a phobist asshole awhile back, which I found pretty distasteful and boomer-ish. But when it comes to American politics he's been pretty firmly taking conservatives to the mat on his current show. He also was one of the only bigger media voices calling out inflation for what it really was, blatant price gouging.
Many comedians you'd expect to be better have been terrible about that sort of shit. The latest one I saw was Michelle Wolf.
Comedians in general, from what I've seen, have a much broader definition of what it considered acceptable speech then, like, the left on social media. Which would seem pretty obvious given what they do for a living.
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
First off, there is actually a body of research on the harm done by slurs and bigoted speech to those targeted by it - this is where we get concepts like stereotype threat from. So the argument that "little effort" is given in researching this is laughably unaware.
Beyond that, your comparisons are poorly structured (and I would recommend watching the Paul F. Tompkins video linked above, as it does a good job of explaining why they don't actually fundamentally work.) The reason "OK Boomer" is "acceptable" (and it's worth pointing out that there are people who argue that it really isn't) while a blatantly misogynistic statement isn't is because the phrase is a response to ageist attacks from the older generation towards younger generations. And I imagine that the Burr rant you're talking about is a skewering of the stereotype surrounding Philadelphia and its residents - a stereotype that it's worth pointing out the community is very much in on and encourages in several ways, which is very different from going after ethnic stereotypes.
Also that rant was in response to the crowd being total dicks to the comedians that performed before Burr during a tour. That tour was organized by Opie and Anthony shock jock radio show which I saw in Cleveland, and believe me when I tell you it was a crowd of dipshits. I'm not a big Burr fan but I give him a pass on the Philly rant for the circumstances and considering he expressed regrets ever since.
"I didn't want to do the show at that point, so really, them booing to the level that they did was my fault," Burr said.
"I wasn't a professional. What I should have done was I should have kept my head in the game to survive it. So, I came out and threw gas on a fire that was already going."
Meta-opinions about how free speech is are ephemeral because it's all just communication. We talk a lot about the theory but it doesn't really congeal into a single concrete plan as the situation changes with each word spoken.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but this comes across as some incredibly "spherical cow" bullshit. As Styro said, the concept of punching up and down aren't novel. If you need a concrete plan, if you are not in a marginalized group.... don't make jokes at their expense or expect to feel some serious backlash. You can expand from there.
The whole idea that "thats a shit thing to say and you shouldn't say it" constitutes censorship is silly
But that is a much different claim than what keeps getting asserted.
There is difference between saying "it's rude to fart in an elevator" and "farting in an elevator harms people"
People keep making consequentialisist claims(X act causes harm) and then act like having to prove that the consequences actually happen is an absurd barrier that shouldn't even be entertained.
But clearly(from this ir the education/book ban discussions). People dismiss claims of harm all the time.
Or to approach this another way. Here are two actual examples from my youth.
1) I regularly used gay slurs in video game chat.
2) I bought a deck of Tarot cards, and did readings for other kids. Including a neighbor's daughter. Said neighbor was very upset because I taught her daughter witchcraft.
What makes the harm I commited from the first real and the harm I commited in the second absurd.
The whole idea that "thats a shit thing to say and you shouldn't say it" constitutes censorship is silly
But that is a much different claim than what keeps getting asserted.
There is difference between saying "it's rude to fart in an elevator" and "farting in an elevator harms people"
People keep making consequentialisist claims(X act causes harm) and then act like having to prove that the consequences actually happen is an absurd barrier that shouldn't even be entertained.
But clearly(from this ir the education/book ban discussions). People dismiss claims of harm all the time.
Or to approach this another way. Here are two actual examples from my youth.
1) I regularly used gay slurs in video game chat.
2) I bought a deck of Tarot cards, and did readings for other kids. Including a neighbor's daughter. Said neighbor was very upset because I taught her daughter witchcraft.
What makes the harm I commited from the first real and the harm I commited in the second absurd.
Because (and again, this is stuff that is documented and researched) slurs contribute to creating a hostile environment for the people targeted, making them feel like they don't belong, isolating them from the wider community, harming their self-image, and way too often pushing them towards suicidal ideation. Which is why some of the oldest rules on this forum involve the banning of the use of slurs - so this forum can be a safe space for all, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender, etc. And yes, we don't always get it right, but it's clear that the staff here try damn hard to do so, and work to improve and be better.
And frankly, this has been explained to you in numerous threads, so your continued demand for people to explain why bigoted speech harms the people which it targets comes across less as we haven't explained it well enough, and more that you keep averting your eyes from the actual evidence. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is a contemptable lie, and if you haven't figured that out by listening to the people on the receiving end of bigotry, that's on you.
Posts
The lawyer's argument was classic "self-censorship" gooseshit:
Surprise - free speech means having to live with the consequences of one's speech! Who knew? But the sad part is that he managed to get a lower court to buy his argument.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yeah this is a shitty ruling in the vein of Countermann (which was discussed earlier in the thread), where the courts basically say "Actually, the First Amendment is a suicide pact." The rule isn't about "decorum", it was put in place so that parents don't fucking harass staff in their personal lives. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised when courts ruled it was OK for a bigot to harass a Black elected officeholder out of office.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Colmenero
Summary from https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/31/texas-cannot-yet-enforce-id-checks-on-porn-sites/
I never thought I would say I feel bad for school administrators. When I was a kid it seemed like the courts reinforced a doctrine of total control and zero culpability, and now it's the complete opposite, even when a district does everything right, just like in the preaching football coach on the 50 yard line case, if they're a public school, the courts say get fucked. So eventually there won't be softball teams because they won't have the staff or ability to deal with a bunch of overzealous Karens screaming at them about coaching calls. But ultra private christian schools can continue to do whatever they want.
There's a very toxic culture around stand-up in particular where there's this idea that comedians have to be allowed to punch down with horribly bigoted and offensive jokes because this is "how comedy works". I thought this column in response to the outing of Russell Brand as a sexual predator illustrated the problem:
And in many cases (like the aforementioned Sachsgate incident) that broader definition is just comedians having their heads up their asses, trying to argue that they're somehow special when they act in an abusive and bigoted manner.
There’s a weird dichotomy where language is important and my clever use of it uncovers truths and provides insight but also speech is harmless and I’m just telling jokes and being offended means you don’t understand this obvious fact.
Reading the article, it appears the point is that going into a media frenzy focused on the comedian, who is a media expert, is playing a game they're very comfortable with and have every advantage in turning to their benefit.
On the other side, the victim has none of those advantages, and amidst the noise of the epic celebrity battle going on, tabloids and the like are free to abuse the victim further while everyone else is distracted.
Therefore, the article proposes to highlight the victim rather than the celebrity perpetrator.
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.
A.K.A. "this machine kills fascists" vs. "sticks and stones" - the contradiction at the heart of free speech "absolutism".
My first introduction to Russel Brand a decade ago was him being a dick. I'm not surprised at all to find out he's a sexual predator. Like, the only male comedians I would be surprised to learn were predators are Weird Al and Brennan Lee Mulligan.
Yeah, there's a lot of "wow, comedians who make jokes about sexual abuse turn out to be sexual abusers - who would have thought?"
Louis CK was the one that got me. He actually had a whole bit about how women interacting with men have it so much worse off than men interacting with women and whoops, turns out despite knowing the problem exists and acknowledging that it is a problem, he was 100% a willing part of 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.
Like the Russell Brand situation, the ball dropping would be him doing something abusive rather than whatever he chooses to be his comedy.
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 ball drop is when it comes out that they did it. Some abusers got away with it for decades before it became public. For a long time, that's just how things were in Hollywood.
You might get some heat from Twitter depending on the specifics of a joke, but if it's not just a nudge and a wink at your shared bigotry 99% of people are going to give the benefit of the doubt, even if they land on not finding it funny.
...but a lot of comedians are glad to just nudge and wink at shared bigotry.
It's only seems contradictory if you have a shared definition of what harm is.
I think the pro censoring positions be they left or right generally start with an effort to expand the scope of harm to cover an activity they want curtailed. You can go look back at the What is Violence thread to see this in action.
It's why "OK Boomer" is acceptable and "Shut up woman" isn't. We are against sexism, ageism okay. So one is harmful the other is 'well they fucking deserve it'.
There is a Bill Burr rant where he absolutely lays into Philadelphians. The level of derrision and vitriol in that compared to some lazy ethnic joke at an open mic night is like the noon sun to a candle.
But noone cares about the garbage people of the Philly metro area(in nonelection years), so its fine. It isn't 'harmful' that he spends 15 minutes laying into them, except for the plethora of f-slurs he uses doing it.
This modern construction of stuff being harmful or harmless iant anything more than an updated version of arguing over something being blasphemous. There's certainly little effort given to making quantifiable claims.
First off, there is actually a body of research on the harm done by slurs and bigoted speech to those targeted by it - this is where we get concepts like stereotype threat from. So the argument that "little effort" is given in researching this is laughably unaware.
Beyond that, your comparisons are poorly structured (and I would recommend watching the Paul F. Tompkins video linked above, as it does a good job of explaining why they don't actually fundamentally work.) The reason "OK Boomer" is "acceptable" (and it's worth pointing out that there are people who argue that it really isn't) while a blatantly misogynistic statement isn't is because the phrase is a response to ageist attacks from the older generation towards younger generations. And I imagine that the Burr rant you're talking about is a skewering of the stereotype surrounding Philadelphia and its residents - a stereotype that it's worth pointing out the community is very much in on and encourages in several ways, which is very different from going after ethnic stereotypes.
Right so some people think you can 'Okay Boomer" and some can't. How is that not meat during lent? Are we going to smash a Rolling Stones album into some K-Pop merch in the Large Hadron Collider and come up with an answer?
As to the quantifiability, what is the unit of measure? Burr uses gay slurs say 50 times in the rant. Now when it was performed it was Infront of a crowd of 10,000. It's now been viewed on youtube 20m times. If is cause harm over the last decade we should have seen it by now. Is he responsible for 50, 500k or 1 billion BHUs(Boston Harmful Units)?
No, it’s quite contradictory unless you adopt the position that the person speaking is the only person allowed to evaluate the effect of that speech.
It’s not a left-right thing, it’s an attitude toward the use of language and the role of the audience.
There’s a radio host locally (that I generally enjoy) whose pet issue is people in entertainment suffering consequences for their speech (i.e. Don Imus). His position is that someone who has to talk for their job shouldn’t lose their job just for talking, and it feels very self-serving every time it comes up.
You're looking for a bright line where none exists. Again, while there are some ageist aspects to "OK Boomer", it's not the whole story of a comment that grew out of intergenerational conflict. It's not just "you're old", but speaks to the struggle between the younger and older generations, especially the fact that younger generations are angry about how the older generations expect respect and obedience while being unwilling to take responsibility for their actions and abuses - and as such the comment is viewed quite differently than a flat out misogynistic statement, as in your original comparison. And even then, people do acknowledge that there is an ageist component that is harmful - but they're not going to distill a phrase that has a complicated background to just that ageism.
The rest of your argument is just laughable, and illustrates your reaching for that bright line - this idea of if we can create a numeric assessment of how "harmful" bigoted speech is, we can say that this is "too much", which is not how speech works. The reality is that bigoted, hateful speech has genuine harms that the subjects of that speech wind up being subject to, which can't just be rendered into a number, but instead have to be acknowledged as such. What free speech "absolutism" struggles with in this case is that the idea of speech causing harm places responsibility on the speaker for the harm they do, which winds up complicating the idea of free speech the ideology has, where the speaker is not to be held accountable for their speech. Which comes to the final part.
One of the ways the idea of "free speech" has been warped has been a warping of the concept of censorship, in order to use it as a thought terminating cliche to counter discussion of speech, its effect, and repercussions thereof. The best example of this is the concept of "self-censorship", which is an argument that it is "censorship" for speakers to have to worry that people will think poorly of them for their speech - an argument on display in the case discussed in this comment.
What the fuck
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's like they believe the first person to say something is thereby immune for anyone else using their free speech to respond to it.
First come, first served, suckers!
It's called the preferred first speaker fallacy, or as Adam Serwer put it, the "right to monologue". And it ultimately comes back to contradiction at the heart of free speech "absolutism" - speech must be protected because it has the power to change the world, yet it is ephemeral and thus is unable to harm.
Yeah I appreciate comedians calling out lazy comedians. Its like the comedy version of a Mick Foley "right here in *city we're in* pop". Telling shitty bigoted jokes is a lazy way of doing comedy no matter who makes money reliably doing them. Like Ricky Gervais as he frequently points out is a millionaire and he's just got a version of the one joke anymore.
pleasepaypreacher.net
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 agree. Speech is highly contextual and there is no rule that covers all situations. But that just means that we need to better understand the context so we can communicate properly.
Also that rant was in response to the crowd being total dicks to the comedians that performed before Burr during a tour. That tour was organized by Opie and Anthony shock jock radio show which I saw in Cleveland, and believe me when I tell you it was a crowd of dipshits. I'm not a big Burr fan but I give him a pass on the Philly rant for the circumstances and considering he expressed regrets ever since.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but this comes across as some incredibly "spherical cow" bullshit. As Styro said, the concept of punching up and down aren't novel. If you need a concrete plan, if you are not in a marginalized group.... don't make jokes at their expense or expect to feel some serious backlash. You can expand from there.
There is difference between saying "it's rude to fart in an elevator" and "farting in an elevator harms people"
People keep making consequentialisist claims(X act causes harm) and then act like having to prove that the consequences actually happen is an absurd barrier that shouldn't even be entertained.
But clearly(from this ir the education/book ban discussions). People dismiss claims of harm all the time.
Or to approach this another way. Here are two actual examples from my youth.
1) I regularly used gay slurs in video game chat.
2) I bought a deck of Tarot cards, and did readings for other kids. Including a neighbor's daughter. Said neighbor was very upset because I taught her daughter witchcraft.
What makes the harm I commited from the first real and the harm I commited in the second absurd.
Because (and again, this is stuff that is documented and researched) slurs contribute to creating a hostile environment for the people targeted, making them feel like they don't belong, isolating them from the wider community, harming their self-image, and way too often pushing them towards suicidal ideation. Which is why some of the oldest rules on this forum involve the banning of the use of slurs - so this forum can be a safe space for all, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender, etc. And yes, we don't always get it right, but it's clear that the staff here try damn hard to do so, and work to improve and be better.
And frankly, this has been explained to you in numerous threads, so your continued demand for people to explain why bigoted speech harms the people which it targets comes across less as we haven't explained it well enough, and more that you keep averting your eyes from the actual evidence. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is a contemptable lie, and if you haven't figured that out by listening to the people on the receiving end of bigotry, that's on you.