Normally I’m a spelling pedant, but on twitter I make some exceptions because autocorrect often changes corretly-typed words into their incorrect alternative spellings cause there’s no contextual understanding. On the web console with a proper keyboard you have no excuse, but on the app it frequently borks the spelling.
3 Likes
bloody splitters…
This is comedy genius. PCness is not law, it’s manners. Thankfully there’s no law against being a rude asshole. People can treat you badly for the shithouse opinions you hold but no one can tell another not to hold an opinion or express it. When people get upset over a comedian’s joke I hope they realise they’ve fallen for the trap. “Oh you’re offended? Well, welcome to the world… did you think I wrote that joke to be inoffensive?” is pretty much how it goes.
I don’t think anyone should be discriminated against because of difference, but jokes are merely stories and difference is very frequently the basis of humour in any story. Whether it be differences in people, their customs, their mannerisms, their culture or a difference in reality compared to perception, difference in integral to jokes. To tell a comedian that something is off-limits is to wave a red flag in front of a bull.
So, by all means continue on a crusade to politically correct(ify?) the world because you’re under a foolish perception that a comedian’s words equal endorsement of an idea, but realise that the person whom you perceive as the problem (the person holding these opinions and the mic) is absolutely thrilled you hate the joke that is being made and they are being fuelled by your frustration.
3 Likes
SJM, SJW - do you think these phrases are designed to be constructive? The people who talk about the subject in these words are using them for a very specific reason.
1 Like
This. Tosh is a fucking nobody who is not funny. A useless shitstain made popular by idiots who are unable to find good youtube vids by themselves.
If your googlge-fu/social media use is THAT poor that you cant find lulz by yourself then you’re the kind of person who can suck a tailpipe and do us all a favour.
If you find Tosh funny I guarantee that your IQ is less than 100.
4 Likes
With regard to Noah, I propose a new rule for the digital age: The older something is, and the deeper you have to dig, the less relevant it is. I personally disavow just about everything I did from before the age of 25.
More generally, and not necessarily with regard to Noah and this controversy:
It’s one thing if someone is being an asshole and you’re establishing a long track record. It’s another thing entirely if it’s not immediately apparent that someone is an asshole unless you go on a digging expedition to round out up everything problematic, line it up as a de-contexualized gallery of damnation, and pretend that there exists some magical unicorn gold standard of a person who is not problematic in one way or another.
Everyone gets problematic at some point. I actually think this sort of response harms social progress because it allows people to pretend that there are bad people in this world, rather than focusing on how entrenched our prejudices lie. I keep hearing that it’s okay to dissect and critique comedy and other creative work, and I agree that it’s perfectly fine and a worthwhile endeavor. Where I get kind of stuck, is when this becomes conflated with activism. Criticism-as-activism is not a new concept, nor is it inherently bad form. It will always have a place in our world. Unfortunately, it’s losing its effectiveness precisely because it’s being overused. When everything that can be criticized becomes a call to action, then everything people do has the potential to become a call to action. People become inured to it.
If one of the real lessons social justice movements are trying to teach, moving into the 21st century is, “we are all hopelessly steeped in the hierarchical cultures that produced us,” surely we weaken our own philosophy by making it about people’s particular fitness as moral totems. I’m not saying that criticism isn’t warranted, using the word both in the sense of objection and analysis, but when it comes to activism, proportionality should be the watchword.
Part of the problem with protesting a bunch of weak-sauce tweets so vociferously is that it only calls to attention (to my attention, at least) how Stewart and Colbert have long gotten away with being transphobic and have not received nearly the same level of response. Trans people are a much weaker population in this country than either Jews or women. I’m not trying to turn this into a contest about who is more oppressed. Instead I’m trying to illustrate that this form of activism–let’s call it reactivism, since it primarily manifests as a function of visibility in controversy–is inherently predisposed to ignoring assaults on weaker and more marginalized populations. In other words, it suffers from the central problem I keep returning to, namely that these issues are systemic and not, in fact, centered around specific people.
The solution is never silence, but neither is it to object to everyone who has ever done or said something problematic, since that’s everyone. The solution is to use it as datum, as evidence, of what we are all entrenched in, and when someone crosses the line from having an issue now and again, as we all do, to becoming an agent of hatred or violence, then we start yelling. Anything before that, though, and we’re just hypocrites.
I also think we need to start accepting people’s apologies based on the totality of their being and work. As it stands, apologies go largely ignored, or are seen as merely self-serving. If we take people’s offhand remarks at face value as representative of who they are, then we should also take into account their carefully considered apologies. Again, totality of the circumstances matter. If the leader of a “Pray Away the Gay” camp apologizes for a homophobic remark, we shouldn’t take it seriously unless there’s more apologizing to come. If someone who has always supported gay people in one form or another accidentally let the word “fag” slip in a casual way, an apology should just be accepted. Not because they never hurt anyone, but precisely because apologies exist for when we have caused harm.
7 Likes
I really like it. I don’t know who came up with it, but it’s an excellent descriptor. I used to say feminism, but that is inherently limiting. Not that I mind being considered a feminist, but I feel like this term is an excellent “big umbrella” to stand under. Especially because a lot of liberals now call themselves “progressive” while espousing fairly regressive attitudes. Without the phrase, SJW, I find myself a man without a country, so to speak. So I’m happy to take up the mantle.
Especially because it has a rebuttal built in: Why are you against justice?
8 Likes
Yeah, when I use these terms, I’m not using them to be complimentary. I’m using them to make fun of the offended-at-everything-all-the-time scolds whose very existence centers on spittle-flecked outrage at everyone who doesn’t agree fully with what they are upset about. It’s way easier to type SJW.
And although I laugh at the uncertainty the author displays at not being able to decide whether Oswald goes in the “Saintly ally” box or the “Hated demon” box (there are only two boxes, apparently), I wouldn’t call her a SJW…she’s too thoughtful. A person who instantly went off on him without consideration would get the tag.
1 Like
Why don’t you watch the actual bit and make a judgement instead of assuming?
http://www.videobash.com/video_show/imo-the-greatest-story-ever-told-jim-jefferies-ms-and-the-whore-house-655511
His lifelong friend asked him in his dying days of muscular dystrophy (not MS) to take him to a brothel, which he did under the condition that he’d pay for everything if he could tell the story. If you listen to the bit he actually defends the disabled in several parts by ridiculing people in his story for being grossly misinformed about disability.
2 Likes
Could not care less about people being offended. All humor offends someone. Rape jokes can be funny.
Two words: The Aristocrats. Doesn’t make you laugh? Move on. Makes me laugh, and I’m a kind, moral person accepting of all.
In the immortal words of Stephen Fry:
“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what."
12 Likes
You guys are completely missing the point. Noah can make whatever jokes he likes, and either people will pay to come see his shows or they won’t, and that’s his business. But when Comedy Central puts him in the chair hosting TDS, a show with some standing (not to mention makes the network a lot of money from advertisers) then if he’s a jerk or not becomes an issue.
1 Like
Not against using phrases. But I don’t think the “own the pejorative” movement has not come to this phrase.
I spend so much time apologizing while I feel like crap. Why are you infighting?
Patton Oswalt’s core argument: “Brevity is the soul of wit and the enemy of nuance.”
3 Likes
The next bit is just my opinion and should therefore be considered a pile of inconsequential horse manure that it is.
A comedian’s job is to try and amuse people.
Not “all the people”, because that’s impossible, and just “try”. They might strike out ten times out of ten, but that just makes them a bad comedian. In that attempt they have a right and a duty to say whatever it is that they think will make at least one person amused. That’s his part of the comedian-audience -deal.
The audiences job is to try and remember that the motherf***** on stage might* be joking and might not think of his or her own words as the gospel. Billy Connolly said years ago that comedians are liars for a living.
The question should not be “When is it safe to make jokes about 9/11?”, the question should be “When is it safe for me to hear jokes about 9/11?”
… Until you would.
He’s a jerk because he said a couple off-color/insensitive things years ago?
Your standards are impossibly high. So high in fact that I’d bet (edit: typo ‘be’) dollars to donuts that even your saintly “non-asshole” self couldn’t hurdle them.
I’m sure when you apply for a job you give them a list of every joke/reference you’ve ever made so they can vet your entire past right? That would only be fair.
So, people will either tune in or they won’t. I remember when Kilborn left the Daily Show and suddenly there was this short dude with a completely different style. Stewart can thank Indecision 2000 and the Gore v Bush for giving his show a real identity and purpose that made it transcend regular late night variety shows. Otherwise, it was on track to be a sort of rehash of the previous Jon Stewart Show. I say give Noah a clean slate and let him make the show his own. If it ends up being a bunch of cheap, off-color jokes that are really offensive, I am sure that Andrew Dice Clay and the four other people who tune in will be disappointed when Comedy Central kills it. Otherwise, give the guy a chance and the room to find his own style and voice for the show.
1 Like
Oh and now the social justice warriors who can’t understand context and nuance are totally confused because Patton Oswalds stance on the issue is complex, nuanced, and requires you to think about context. “But, but, but I thought he was on our side because he wrote that essay about rape jokes last year.”
The most telling part of this little spiel to me “Jokes we can probably all agree aren’t worth defending.”
No I can’t agree with that and that’s the very heart of the issue. Stop thinking we all agree with you about anything, stop thinking we all have the same views and experiences. Stop thinking we need to cater everything to some whitewashed monoculture.
This type of constant outrage even at your own allies is part of what ripped the gay rights movement to shreds in the 70’s.
5 Likes
If we can’t even give somebody a chance who tweeted some jokes that may be in poor taste (or just poor context online), then how do we expect people to ever get a second chance at anything. If a person does 15 years for armed robbery, do you prevent them from ever having a legit job? Is this entire debate just another example of our culture’s inability to recognize that people can make mistakes and change? Do we need a “moveon.org” just for Noah?
NB: Not sure that his tweets even fall into mistake territory, but some folks clearly do and think they should keep him out of the daily show chair.
2 Likes
I wasn’t aware he’d bothered to apologize.
