Well honestly Joss Whedon is a pretty terrible female character writers. Every one of his "strong" women need a man to be complete.
I thought Buffy got involved with Angel and Spike not because she needed to, but because she wanted to. That said, I despise both of them. Angel is all "gosh I'm emo and broken, don't you think I'm sexy" and Spike is a git.
David Boreanaz can be emo till the cows come home. The man is just hot.
i'm not really feeling the "war on christmas" thing. mostly i think that people do not react all that well to what they see as demands, especially from "outsiders".
Well, to the extent that "outsiders" modulates things like empathy and respect, I guess so.
But I guess I find it problematic that all these people find sexual assault victims to be "outsiders" making illegitimate demands.
I find that fundamentally problematic, because I think it speaks to privilege and a lack of awareness.
I think it should be easy to empathize with people from marginalized groups who get offended at stuff that doesn't bother you at all. It should be really easy to put yourself in their shoes and understand how this can be hurtful for them. Even if you end up standing by what you said, that very simple, very easy, very basic empathy should still occur and it should inform your response to their offense.
There was an article I read recently in some sociological or psychological journal about defining "humor" as "benign-rule breaking" and that this is one of the most comprehensive definitions of humor yet put forward. I particularly liked it, especially because it does a good job of explaining "offense." What is benign rule-breaking for one person is malignant to another, because of their frame of reference. Humor that tackles religion is hilarious to me, while it is not to someone else because they take religion seriously (so breaking its rules is a serious offense, not a benign one).
This is relevant to comedy because someone will always disagree with you on what is benign rule-breaking and what isn't. So, short of humor that really does advocate nasty stuff (i.e. there is a difference between rape jokes, and jokes that condone rape. I'm sure you can picture a Venn diagram here), comedy shouldn't be super concerned with self-censoring, except based on what the comedian themselves finds funny. Audiences will naturally coalesce accordingly.
I don't think rape is special in this way. At the end of the day, we're talking about words causing people pain. And that can happen for a multitude of reasons, as a result of all manner of perfectly defensible humor. I know some people attach perpetuating rape culture to rape jokes a priori, but I disagree with this, though that's another conversation really (personally I find the whole concept of language policing to be pretty stupid, which is very much at odds with most of feminism right now it seems like).
However, when people express discomfort or pain or offense with things you have said, you should not turn around and ridicule them -- because you yourself undoubtedly have rules that you would not consider benign to break. We're all capable of being offended, and it's all equally personal and mostly arbitrary and a result of our environment and our principles and we shouldn't try to generalize it out to moral truth. But we should have basic respect and decency for other people. Which means if people are offended at your jokes as a comedian, you should look at your humor and check it for something legitimately troubling (like condoning or trivializing rape, which I don't personally feel the original comic did, but the shirt definitely did), decide for yourself, and either apologize because it did cross a line, or say nothing, knowing that not everyone belongs in your audience and your comedy does not belong in everyone's brain.
But when people do voice their offense to you, there should be understanding and empathy, not anger. And in some forums and to some audiences, it is worthwhile to self-censor. Especially if you are, say, a politician, whose message is intended for roughly universal consumption within your district, or you are a broadcast network who reaches a wider swath than a niche cable network or web-comic. Because that self-censorship is an indicator of respect and empathy displayed towards other human beings. And that is something which should always be reasonably extended. It is not reasonable to tailor your humor to offend no one, because that is virtually impossible. It may be reasonable to tailor your humor if something you did suddenly offended a significant portion of your audience who otherwise enjoy your work. It may be reasonable to tailor your message to a very broad group if you are addressing a wide swath of people. And, again, it's always inappropriate to advocate hateful or bigoted viewpoints, even if your audience might not raise objection. That's a separate issue.
When people become angry because someone expressed offense, or asked to be accommodated -- well to me that displays a fundamental lack of empathy and respect that I find troubling, and significantly moreso when that lack of empathy is directed at a particular marginalized group, because I don't think you can detach a lack of empathy for oppressed group from the atmosphere of dehumanization and undeservingness that attends discrimination and bigotry and privilege.
The great big world of discrimination and bigotry exists, in my view, to deny people things. Resources, equality, opportunity, freedoms. To have privilege is, definitionally, to have an advantage others do not. Which, by itself, sounds like something most human beings desire (which is probably why privilege is appealing). To privilege oneself is to necessarily deny others. When people subscribe to views that are bigoted, it is generally (I feel -- and probably on an unconscious level; I think this is probably mostly sub-cortical behavior, evolved behavior) to rationalize a denial of resources/opportunity to a group for self-benefit.
Racism is bad because it creates and perpetuates a system where a socially-defined group of people are systematically and ruthlessly denied the resources and opportunities and freedoms and dignities that should be afforded to all people equally. The same goes for sexism and homophobia and transphobia and whatever else.
Discrimination does not exist in the mind of bigots as an end unto itself -- even if they are not fully aware of it, it exists to motivate them to privilege themselves over others. And this is always how discrimination plays out. I mean racism in America meant the destruction of post-war progressivism because people were uncomfortable with how many resources were being allocated to African Americans. Prejudice exists to establish and enforce inequality of rights, and of resources.
I say this because one cannot be prejudiced and empathetic simultaneously. Empathy is the opposite of discrimination. It is the thing we extend to the in-group, to the people we believe deserve our support and respect and who deserve the same slice of pie that we enjoy. It is the thing we extend first and most powerfully to our loved ones, then to our neighbors and friends, and then to our broadest in-groups. It is part of what defines the in-group. It is an evolved response compelling us to come to the aid of our brothers and sisters. There is a reason the great civil rights leaders of the 20th century spoke often and profoundly of love.
So when I see a distinct lack of empathy exhibited for marginalized groups -- I cannot, I will not dissociate it from the reality of prejudice and bigotry, whose heart pulses with alienation. To see another as human, as worthy of respect, is to begin to see them as part of the in-group. And for someone whose goal is to see all people as part of the in-group, I cannot help but be distressed when empathy is retracted from groups of people.
Yes, the feminist blogosphere responded with vitriol in turn, but mostly after the response strip, which was passive-aggressive and itself displayed a distinct and saddening lack of empathy. Anger engenders anger, hate engenders hate.
When the privileged display anger and hate for the oppressed, it should pain us all.
Fartacus on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
Also, the creeper song on SNL this weekend was great. It was a genuinely good show, and Jessie Eisenberg does a damn good job on it.
I like hosts that can actually do SNL and not butcher their lines the entire time.
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
while i am not directly refuting your point will, i must do two things
i must mention that i am kind of uncomfortable with this sentence
but then again, that shit is par for the course on many of those feminist sites, so i guess she's mostly preaching to the choir.
and i must also peace out for a bit before i get into trouble
I read a lot of feminist blogs, like, legitly, but I understand what he means. There was a blog on one of them a while back that talked about the outrage treadmill - how there's a pressure in activist blogs to blow up every issue into an even bigger outrage than the one before it to maintain readership. That there was a feedback loop to creating bigger and bigger blowups, and feel more and more righteous indignation.
Ultimately, though, this just perpetuates an us vs them mentality, and dehumanizes your opponents in the same way that you're trying to fight, rather than engaging them. It isn't communication.
The dickwolves shirt wasn't removed because someone yelled at Gabe loud enough, but because actual people engaged him in communication.
this goes along with my impressions. and your cartoon is fitting.
i used to read democratic websites back in the bush era and, i guess, kind of escalated my outrage to a point where i was probably one of the people clamoring for MORE DISSENT GODDAMNIT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THOSE FUCKERS LISTEN until i kind of backed off and got a kind of distaste for not only the enterprise but the methods.
the feminist blogs i've read have entirely been things i've been linked to from this forum, generally by stalwarts like the cat or mythago or arch. and they are not for me, not are they intended to be for me.
Well honestly Joss Whedon is a pretty terrible female character writers. Every one of his "strong" women need a man to be complete.
I thought Buffy got involved with Angel and Spike not because she needed to, but because she wanted to. That said, I despise both of them. Angel is all "gosh I'm emo and broken, don't you think I'm sexy" and Spike is a git.
I thought the episodes with the whole Spike thing were some product of weird back-and-forth between two of the writers?
Also I don't even really get Preacher's criticism. This very forum, with posters of both genders, spends a huge amount of time angsting over the lack of companionship in one form or another. I mean people being cut up about relationships is kind of a universal theme.
Ultimately unless they ban the dickwolves shirts from pax, I can see more people wearing them now then they would have prior to this "controversy". So mission accomplished.
Seriously, now I have to find one online, pay like $100 for it (I was gonna buy one for PAX Prime this year) and then wear it to PAX and probably get into a fight with some neckbeard white knight and get booted by that mean enforcer with the ultilikilt or the lady that liked to boss people around in line.
(I'm making up the PAX enforcers... or am I?)
Don't worry not chuck, when the white knight shows up we'll just tell him he has nothing to fear from the dick wolves as they have standards.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
FYI that post contains what I think are some of my best thoughts on issues of privilege and discrimination generally, and provide insight into a lot of the things I say around here. I hope people will choose to read it entirely.
I will accommodate rape victims if they will sufficiently threatened by this shirt, just as I avoid saying the word rape in a flippant capacity around girls. Is this legally required, or some kind of grand declaration of how I feel w/r/t freedom of speech? No, but it's nice being a functional member of society.
If these protesters are actually doing all of this in good faith, which I personally don't believe, then Mike and Jerry did the right thing in pulling the shirt. "Right" in what capacity - socially, morally, ethically? I'm not actually sure.
I had a lot more to say in this message, but it was all just legal and philosophical masturbation.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Well honestly Joss Whedon is a pretty terrible female character writers. Every one of his "strong" women need a man to be complete.
I thought Buffy got involved with Angel and Spike not because she needed to, but because she wanted to. That said, I despise both of them. Angel is all "gosh I'm emo and broken, don't you think I'm sexy" and Spike is a git.
David Boreanaz can be emo till the cows come home. The man is just hot.
But the character is fucking annoying. And somehow Buffy's panties just fly off for both of them.
Ultimately unless they ban the dickwolves shirts from pax, I can see more people wearing them now then they would have prior to this "controversy". So mission accomplished.
Seriously, now I have to find one online, pay like $100 for it (I was gonna buy one for PAX Prime this year) and then wear it to PAX and probably get into a fight with some neckbeard white knight and get booted by that mean enforcer with the ultilikilt or the lady that liked to boss people around in line.
(I'm making up the PAX enforcers... or am I?)
that enforcer with the utilikilt was something. even in a convention of nerds he was weirdly out of place.
i felt like he was being violently rejected upon his transplant from seattle to boston, the way the human body would reject a lizard kidney.
Irond Will on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
FYI that post contains what I think are some of my best thoughts on issues of privilege and discrimination generally, and provide insight into a lot of the things I say around here. I hope people will choose to read it entirely.
looks like it might make more sense as a thread OP than a chat post
Well honestly Joss Whedon is a pretty terrible female character writers. Every one of his "strong" women need a man to be complete.
I thought Buffy got involved with Angel and Spike not because she needed to, but because she wanted to. That said, I despise both of them. Angel is all "gosh I'm emo and broken, don't you think I'm sexy" and Spike is a git.
David Boreanaz can be emo till the cows come home. The man is just hot.
But the character is fucking annoying. And somehow Buffy's panties just fly off for both of them.
And his character on Bones isn't any less annoying. But my boxers would go flying off if the opportunity just presented itself.
Well honestly Joss Whedon is a pretty terrible female character writers. Every one of his "strong" women need a man to be complete.
I thought Buffy got involved with Angel and Spike not because she needed to, but because she wanted to. That said, I despise both of them. Angel is all "gosh I'm emo and broken, don't you think I'm sexy" and Spike is a git.
David Boreanaz can be emo till the cows come home. The man is just hot.
But the character is fucking annoying. And somehow Buffy's panties just fly off for both of them.
FYI that post contains what I think are some of my best thoughts on issues of privilege and discrimination generally, and provide insight into a lot of the things I say around here. I hope people will choose to read it entirely.
looks like it might make more sense as a thread OP than a chat post
hint
hint
hint
yeah ok
i gotta go run a quick errand but I'll come back, edit some things down and expand on others and turn it into an OP
Ultimately unless they ban the dickwolves shirts from pax, I can see more people wearing them now then they would have prior to this "controversy". So mission accomplished.
Seriously, now I have to find one online, pay like $100 for it (I was gonna buy one for PAX Prime this year) and then wear it to PAX and probably get into a fight with some neckbeard white knight and get booted by that mean enforcer with the ultilikilt or the lady that liked to boss people around in line.
(I'm making up the PAX enforcers... or am I?)
that enforcer with the utilikilt was something. even in a convention of nerds he was weirdly out of place.
i felt like he was being violently rejected upon his transplant from seattle to boston, the way the human body would reject a lizard kidney.
He was a really cool guy from my limited interaction.
I honestly only had beef with one enforcer, and it really wasn't her fault, it was the fault of her having to deal with some unplannable complications with the venue.
They had D&D live, Wil Wheaton, and an Evening with Scott and Kris back to back to back, at the same theater, and you basically got to pick one and they all had 1.5 hour waits and you couldn't get out of one and get back in line because it would be too late.
She was not really all that helpful at explaining that, but again, that's because she was probably getting a LOT of unwarranted aggression about it, some of which may have come from me.
I was very pissed, because for me it's not a $100 investment in PAX 3 day passes, but more like a $2000 investment with hotel, plane tickets, etc. (The wife came with me) and I didn't want to be told what I could and could not see.
Again, I was in the wrong there though, and hopefully they plan around it next year now that they know what the turnout will be.
I will accommodate rape victims if they will sufficiently threatened by this shirt, just as I avoid saying the word rape in a flippant capacity around girls.
I will accommodate rape victims if they will sufficiently threatened by this shirt, just as I avoid saying the word rape in a flippant capacity around girls.
men can be raped too
It is not however, something we are generally afraid of.
Like, I am afraid I might get robbed and stabbed in the process. But not robbed and raped.
Posts
always the dickwolves
how come nobody ever gets mad for the vaginawolves?
it's not really gossip
Mori got into trouble a while back for bringing his bdsm relationship with Arivia into chat
that's basically it
David Boreanaz can be emo till the cows come home. The man is just hot.
Well, to the extent that "outsiders" modulates things like empathy and respect, I guess so.
But I guess I find it problematic that all these people find sexual assault victims to be "outsiders" making illegitimate demands.
I find that fundamentally problematic, because I think it speaks to privilege and a lack of awareness.
I think it should be easy to empathize with people from marginalized groups who get offended at stuff that doesn't bother you at all. It should be really easy to put yourself in their shoes and understand how this can be hurtful for them. Even if you end up standing by what you said, that very simple, very easy, very basic empathy should still occur and it should inform your response to their offense.
There was an article I read recently in some sociological or psychological journal about defining "humor" as "benign-rule breaking" and that this is one of the most comprehensive definitions of humor yet put forward. I particularly liked it, especially because it does a good job of explaining "offense." What is benign rule-breaking for one person is malignant to another, because of their frame of reference. Humor that tackles religion is hilarious to me, while it is not to someone else because they take religion seriously (so breaking its rules is a serious offense, not a benign one).
This is relevant to comedy because someone will always disagree with you on what is benign rule-breaking and what isn't. So, short of humor that really does advocate nasty stuff (i.e. there is a difference between rape jokes, and jokes that condone rape. I'm sure you can picture a Venn diagram here), comedy shouldn't be super concerned with self-censoring, except based on what the comedian themselves finds funny. Audiences will naturally coalesce accordingly.
I don't think rape is special in this way. At the end of the day, we're talking about words causing people pain. And that can happen for a multitude of reasons, as a result of all manner of perfectly defensible humor. I know some people attach perpetuating rape culture to rape jokes a priori, but I disagree with this, though that's another conversation really (personally I find the whole concept of language policing to be pretty stupid, which is very much at odds with most of feminism right now it seems like).
However, when people express discomfort or pain or offense with things you have said, you should not turn around and ridicule them -- because you yourself undoubtedly have rules that you would not consider benign to break. We're all capable of being offended, and it's all equally personal and mostly arbitrary and a result of our environment and our principles and we shouldn't try to generalize it out to moral truth. But we should have basic respect and decency for other people. Which means if people are offended at your jokes as a comedian, you should look at your humor and check it for something legitimately troubling (like condoning or trivializing rape, which I don't personally feel the original comic did, but the shirt definitely did), decide for yourself, and either apologize because it did cross a line, or say nothing, knowing that not everyone belongs in your audience and your comedy does not belong in everyone's brain.
But when people do voice their offense to you, there should be understanding and empathy, not anger. And in some forums and to some audiences, it is worthwhile to self-censor. Especially if you are, say, a politician, whose message is intended for roughly universal consumption within your district, or you are a broadcast network who reaches a wider swath than a niche cable network or web-comic. Because that self-censorship is an indicator of respect and empathy displayed towards other human beings. And that is something which should always be reasonably extended. It is not reasonable to tailor your humor to offend no one, because that is virtually impossible. It may be reasonable to tailor your humor if something you did suddenly offended a significant portion of your audience who otherwise enjoy your work. It may be reasonable to tailor your message to a very broad group if you are addressing a wide swath of people. And, again, it's always inappropriate to advocate hateful or bigoted viewpoints, even if your audience might not raise objection. That's a separate issue.
When people become angry because someone expressed offense, or asked to be accommodated -- well to me that displays a fundamental lack of empathy and respect that I find troubling, and significantly moreso when that lack of empathy is directed at a particular marginalized group, because I don't think you can detach a lack of empathy for oppressed group from the atmosphere of dehumanization and undeservingness that attends discrimination and bigotry and privilege.
The great big world of discrimination and bigotry exists, in my view, to deny people things. Resources, equality, opportunity, freedoms. To have privilege is, definitionally, to have an advantage others do not. Which, by itself, sounds like something most human beings desire (which is probably why privilege is appealing). To privilege oneself is to necessarily deny others. When people subscribe to views that are bigoted, it is generally (I feel -- and probably on an unconscious level; I think this is probably mostly sub-cortical behavior, evolved behavior) to rationalize a denial of resources/opportunity to a group for self-benefit.
Racism is bad because it creates and perpetuates a system where a socially-defined group of people are systematically and ruthlessly denied the resources and opportunities and freedoms and dignities that should be afforded to all people equally. The same goes for sexism and homophobia and transphobia and whatever else.
Discrimination does not exist in the mind of bigots as an end unto itself -- even if they are not fully aware of it, it exists to motivate them to privilege themselves over others. And this is always how discrimination plays out. I mean racism in America meant the destruction of post-war progressivism because people were uncomfortable with how many resources were being allocated to African Americans. Prejudice exists to establish and enforce inequality of rights, and of resources.
I say this because one cannot be prejudiced and empathetic simultaneously. Empathy is the opposite of discrimination. It is the thing we extend to the in-group, to the people we believe deserve our support and respect and who deserve the same slice of pie that we enjoy. It is the thing we extend first and most powerfully to our loved ones, then to our neighbors and friends, and then to our broadest in-groups. It is part of what defines the in-group. It is an evolved response compelling us to come to the aid of our brothers and sisters. There is a reason the great civil rights leaders of the 20th century spoke often and profoundly of love.
So when I see a distinct lack of empathy exhibited for marginalized groups -- I cannot, I will not dissociate it from the reality of prejudice and bigotry, whose heart pulses with alienation. To see another as human, as worthy of respect, is to begin to see them as part of the in-group. And for someone whose goal is to see all people as part of the in-group, I cannot help but be distressed when empathy is retracted from groups of people.
Yes, the feminist blogosphere responded with vitriol in turn, but mostly after the response strip, which was passive-aggressive and itself displayed a distinct and saddening lack of empathy. Anger engenders anger, hate engenders hate.
When the privileged display anger and hate for the oppressed, it should pain us all.
I like hosts that can actually do SNL and not butcher their lines the entire time.
this goes along with my impressions. and your cartoon is fitting.
i used to read democratic websites back in the bush era and, i guess, kind of escalated my outrage to a point where i was probably one of the people clamoring for MORE DISSENT GODDAMNIT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THOSE FUCKERS LISTEN until i kind of backed off and got a kind of distaste for not only the enterprise but the methods.
the feminist blogs i've read have entirely been things i've been linked to from this forum, generally by stalwarts like the cat or mythago or arch. and they are not for me, not are they intended to be for me.
and I didn't speak out because I was not a dickwolf
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I thought the episodes with the whole Spike thing were some product of weird back-and-forth between two of the writers?
Also I don't even really get Preacher's criticism. This very forum, with posters of both genders, spends a huge amount of time angsting over the lack of companionship in one form or another. I mean people being cut up about relationships is kind of a universal theme.
The real problem is when it's boring to watch.
it's not funny at all
Well Buffy herself was whiny and annoying and you could make that argument. She's a bad example.
But not really about Willow. Or Echo. Or Faith. Or Zoe etc
And I'm not saying he's a huge feminist, but the argument made freerepublic stuff seem lucid and reasoned
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Don't worry not chuck, when the white knight shows up we'll just tell him he has nothing to fear from the dick wolves as they have standards.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I hear about Issac getting beheaded and then reanimated into a clumsy puppt and I'm intrigued. I hear this and I'm grossed out.
If these protesters are actually doing all of this in good faith, which I personally don't believe, then Mike and Jerry did the right thing in pulling the shirt. "Right" in what capacity - socially, morally, ethically? I'm not actually sure.
I had a lot more to say in this message, but it was all just legal and philosophical masturbation.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
That was a long time ago though... like six months ago
But the character is fucking annoying. And somehow Buffy's panties just fly off for both of them.
that enforcer with the utilikilt was something. even in a convention of nerds he was weirdly out of place.
i felt like he was being violently rejected upon his transplant from seattle to boston, the way the human body would reject a lizard kidney.
we have to play magicka sometime
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's funny.
Well, until they show us he pissed himself, then it's just sad.
looks like it might make more sense as a thread OP than a chat post
hint
hint
hint
i am just listening to this at work
http://www.mta.me/
is that acceptable
i think i am too fat for my brooks brothers coat
And his character on Bones isn't any less annoying. But my boxers would go flying off if the opportunity just presented itself.
yeah ok
i gotta go run a quick errand but I'll come back, edit some things down and expand on others and turn it into an OP
What would a dick wolf eat? Would raping something give it enough viable nutrients?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Its an SNL skit.
He was a really cool guy from my limited interaction.
I honestly only had beef with one enforcer, and it really wasn't her fault, it was the fault of her having to deal with some unplannable complications with the venue.
They had D&D live, Wil Wheaton, and an Evening with Scott and Kris back to back to back, at the same theater, and you basically got to pick one and they all had 1.5 hour waits and you couldn't get out of one and get back in line because it would be too late.
She was not really all that helpful at explaining that, but again, that's because she was probably getting a LOT of unwarranted aggression about it, some of which may have come from me.
I was very pissed, because for me it's not a $100 investment in PAX 3 day passes, but more like a $2000 investment with hotel, plane tickets, etc. (The wife came with me) and I didn't want to be told what I could and could not see.
Again, I was in the wrong there though, and hopefully they plan around it next year now that they know what the turnout will be.
pleasepaypreacher.net
i'll fetch drinks
they'll call me 'boy'
okay this made me laugh though
chu i think you are excused from clothing
its an all or nothing deal though
I can only surmise that they subsist on controversy
men can be raped too
why do you keep saying this what happened
It is not however, something we are generally afraid of.
Like, I am afraid I might get robbed and stabbed in the process. But not robbed and raped.