We NEED to behave in ways that we know are taboo, in a situation where we know that there are not consequences for doing so. Right now, at least in some parts of society, the âOMG avoid offending people, especially if they are people who as a group have suffered inequalityâ urge is driving us to a lot of self-censorship and institutionalized censorship.
Being sensitive is great. Arbitrary thought control is not so great. We should all practice thinking things weâre not supposed to think, because it will turn out that some of the societally unacceptable things that weâre not supposed to think will turn out to be things tomorrow that we were embarrassed not to have thought in the past. (E.g., there was a time when homosexuality and child abuse were thought of as being very much in the same category by mainstream society, even though today most of us would consider lumping those two things into the same category to be offensive.) Yes, most of the time the things we think will be things that arenât good, but if we donât practice thinking things that are taboo, we will never also stumble upon the ones that it will turn out we should have been thinking.
The âlicensed foolâ of Renaissance tradition was the one who was allowed to say the things that people were thinking, but that society didnât allow people to say. Stand-up comics sort of serve those roles today, although the social media shame squad is making it hard even for some of them. Games like this also serve that role. There is an explicit âthis is not serious, sniggle at naughty thingsâ. Itâs OK. Just do it. Recognize it for what it is. But telling people âJust Stopâ, and arguing social harm when people are saying things you donât think they should be saying, creates the greater social harm of making freedom of thought into something that is bad and needs to be squelched.
Also: itâs just a game. People are giggling about it. Get over it. There are real things in life to be offended about, but if you look for every small thing that could be offensive and get all worked up about it, all conversation will turn into âmore offended than thouâ finger-pointing that will do little other than convince everybody to just keep their mouth shut, and not to actually discuss and evaluate (and potentially change, for the better) their opinions.
Playing Cards Against Humanity is kind of like playing Grand Theft Auto. GTAâs known as the game where you can hump a hooker, run her down, and steal her money â which, yes, you can totally do. CAHâs full of unbelievably offensive cards, itâs true â itâs sort of what made them famous. But just as thereâs so much more to GTA than hooker-murder, thereâs so much more to CAH if you want there to be. The offensive cards can be hilarious, and not because theyâre ânaughtyâ, but because of the unexpected leaps into surreal craziness they provide. But the non-offensive cards are almost always the funniest. The last time I played CAH at a party, we were falling on the floor, eyes streaming with laughter when someone played âA box of biscuits, a box of mixed biscuits, and a biscuit mixer.â You had to be there.
It was only a matter of time before BB realized that CAH was Something Being Enjoyed For Unapproved Reasons. Tiresome Puritans are tiresome.
Iâve never played CAH, but just ordered it.
Next time I play Cards Against Humanity itâll be with my grandmother because sheâs a ______________________________.
But that ignores the classic distinction between punching up and punching down. Your classic court jester was making fun of the people in power, not the peasants and foreigners (usually). Thatâs the distinction that eluded people who tried to defend Andrew Dice Clay and Carlos Mencia, and thatâs the distinction here. Me, I think that CAH may be useful as a litmus test to determine which of your friends are closet assholes.
I enjoy the bit where you admit that you are biased and agree with whatever they say. Thatâs nice journalism. Speaking of which this sort of click bait garbage brings down the respect of the site. Everyone i have ever played this game with loves it. Can there be any moments in our lives that we can just release all societal stigmas that force us to behave to the sterilized standards of decency that are shoved down our throats in this social media run world? Can we be allowed to be dirty, lewd, and silly without jackwagons telling us it is wrong to have fun? Iâm sure that better games exsist but its cheap meaningless fun that we should be allowed to have without being told itâs wrong.
For a lot of the âoffense policeâ, thatâs a feature, not a bug. Make it socially impossible to say anything but utterly harmless and nurturing nanny speak, and there will be no troublesome or offensive speech to trigger or offend.
âCan there be any moments in our lives that we can just release all societal stigmas that force us to behave to the sterilized standards of decency that are shoved down our throats in this social media run world?â
Iâm sorry, but that reads like âI want to be a jerkâ said in a fancy way.
I feel thereâs a kind of brinkmanship involved with these âlook how superior I am by being much more sensitive than youâ articles, to the point where it gets to âhereâs why the thing you like is morally dubious and you are a bad person for liking itâ. It really feels like trying to bully the world into a better place.
These illustrations really nail the point home, letâs laugh at the stereotypical white, long haired, glasses wearing nerd who is spouting the bullshit âtransgressiveâ nonsense weâve projected on him. Because a cigar is never a cigar, and is always representative of the deeper corrupt nature of people today who feel that they can make jokes about serious issues.
CAH is over the top and outrageous, and thatâs why itâs so funny. As @rknop mentioned, the taboo nature of the game is what gives it itâs power, and having a space to explore this is very important. I would never hold the game up as some kind of saviour, necessary component of society or even an important release valve that serves this purpose, but itâs still in the same neighbourhood. The implication that the world would be a better place if people A) did not enjoy this game or B) the game didnât exist is pretty disingenuous.
In the privacy of your own home i think you are allowed to be a jerk if you want. We spend a lot of time in todayâs society making sure we donât offend people so itâs nice to get loose at your house with friends, family, cards, and beer.
What Iâve found kind of interesting lately is how CAH still has such a reputation for being such a transgressive game full of jokes you couldnât tell elsewhere, when⌠thatâs really a pretty small amount of the cards. The more recent expansions seem to be shying away from stuff that opens the way for racism/sexism in favor of dark humor and absurdity. A few weeks ago, my friends and I played an hour-long game. I kept my eyes open, but there werenât really any offensive jokes being made. We were too busy with boxes and sex goblins (with carnival penises), generally.
Iâve been thinking of going through my set and removing the cards that are pretty much designed to set up racist/sexist/whatever jokes. When we play, itâs with a pretty diverse group of people, so there are definitely some in there that lead to a lot of groans and, âReally, you guys?â comments. I suspect Iâd only need to get rid of about 20-30 cards in a stack thatâs now about as tall as my forearm.
Iâm pretty damn liberal, but I still think the potential to stay stupid shit is important. Like nungesser said, fixating exclusively on the fact you can kill hookers in GTA misses a lot of the commentary of GTA. (And donât get me wrong, GTA still has plenty of problems).
I can somewhat agree with the authorsâ argument that Cards Against Humanityâs âopenâ sandbox is skewed toward taboos. GTA is definitely in that realm. The sandbox lets you kill infinite hookers, but itâs not like you can open infinite lemonade stands for kids or help old ladies across the street. GTA mandates engagement with brutality and violence if you choose to engage with it at all. Cards is similar in that respect - youâre going to get a card with sex stuff on it within a few hands, pretty unavoidably.
But I think itâs a stretch to argue that the gameâs potential for nasty engagement with taboos is its only way to engage with them. And the authorâs arguments against anonymity remind me of the same ones against Yik Yak or anonymous chat - yes, there is the possibility to say stupid, racist/homophobic shit on such services. But I donât think the answer to that is âShut it down, shut it down forever!â And while I know that âItâs just a joke, deal with it, queerâ is the first line of defense for the bigot/sexist, humor still has incredible value in that it allows discussion that woulld have been hard to approach otherwise (just ask Amy Schumer/Jon Stewart/John Oliver/Amy Pohler).
The same platform that allows Chris Rock also allows Michael Richards, but fuck, so does the human experience. Crucially, I donât think Cards Against Humanity makes Michael Richards the only possibility, or even the highly-intended-wink-wink possibility the article implies. Heâs definitely there, no question, but heâs one of many options.
Beyond that, the authors of this article clearly has a major axe to grind, which makes it difficult reading. âI hate it because itâs shitâ is all weâve got for this? Iâm not impressed.
One can say something awful without also believing it, let alone defending it. If offensiveness is the problem, heck, letâs just watch some Itchy and Scratchy:
This. CAH can be used as an excuse to say offensive things, but many people play it without actually believing the content. The offensive stuff can be fun for people who genuinely object strongly to racism/sexism etc by way of making it ridiculous and surreal, or by lampshading nasty stuff in a fictional context; in addition to the large number of cards that are just plain surreal/weird/silly. Further, and this is the most important point, CAH isnât like politicians or highly public figures promoting hate speech, itâs played between friends who know each other; who know how they feel about these issues and play the game as an opportunity to be ridiculous/make light of shitty situations etc.
A game of CAH isnât a public forum where youâre subjecting 3rd parties to hateful speech, all participants consent willingly. You are going to get nasty types playing the game as an excuse to be racist or drag in people who donât want to play, but that doesnât fundamentally make the game an excuse for racism any more than nasty types on the Internet means we should demonise and shut down the Internet.
Exactly. Humans need to release the id now and thenâŚused to be well understood in most cultures. Still is, by ordinary people.
CAH is only funny because we DO find these things awful. Please research âjuxtaposition and humor.â
The really irritating aspect of this image is that it leaves out the part where many groups wouldnât vote for that combo because it isnât funny. Just because some people select pointlessly offensive combos doesnât mean everyone will, and the combos that come out reflect the group playing. Literally any discussion Iâve heard about CAH aside from âYou can make racist combos and use the game as an excuse!â talks about the absurd and ridiculous; sometimes itâs also offensive, but some people take joy in that because of how absurd or excessive it makes bigotry look, rather than the bigotry itself.
Real O.G. Pimp
Kind of says it all really, doesnât it?
If youâre finding that you have to self-censor all the time it says far more about you than it does about any standards âimposedâ upon you.
Well for one I donât agree with the writer implying that the jokes or the humor is derived from inappropriate jokes/commentary that I wouldnât make otherwise. I make fairly inappropriate jokes with my friends, nothing wrong with dark humor as long as youâre not being biased. And I rather like the cards game, itâs more of an excuse to bounce crazy nonsense off each other than to say taboo subjects.
