edit - in my haste to make a snarky point, I see that you did provide a citation. Cheers. I would beg to differ with it though - a), it’s the Daily Mail, and b), I feel that its figures are faulty.
More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.
Rape is massively under-reported, meaning that the comparison is effectively meaningless, not to mention their use of “sexual abuse” - which could mean anything.
Anyway, that’s aside from the point of this thread, so I’ll stop the derailing now.
So provide a citation, but any citation you provide is worthless because I already know the numbers are meaningless. But now that you’ve responded to my request, it’s off topic, so I’ve agreed that we should end it now. Nice.
It wasn’t intended as a “haha, made my point now running away!” thing, just as an aside & trying not to clutter an overlong thread.
But to that point, there are some things which aren’t good to use as sources - Daily Mail being one of them, along with Breitbart, Huffpo and any other ideological/tabloid kinda sites. And I mean, yeah. I presume you had a look at the linked article - what do you think about it?
I hear what you are saying and don’t disagree with in theory. I’m a meritocrat in theory, too, but at the apex things are weird and other forces are involved. Have you seen the declared/presumptive candidates for 2016? Entertainment should be different than politics, but in political entertainment…
Jon Stewart makes fun of the looks of people whose politics he deplores. It’s kinda low, but not as low as just making fun of some random person you don’t know for their looks.
You reckon? I’d say it’s on exactly the same level.
[quote=“ActionAbe, post:92, topic:54740”]…I feel like this term is an excellent “big umbrella” to stand under.
…
Especially because it has a rebuttal built in: Why are you against justice?
[/quote]
And that was dumb, because that’s not actually what’s going on there. Noah told some fucking tasteless jokes. Oswalt focused on mocking the people who were offended rather than on mocking the fact that we obsessively trawl twitter for dirt on people. That’s dumb, because it misses the thing people actually did that was idiotic. It’s not idiotic to be offended. It’s idiotic to dig through records looking for cause to be offended
While I think it’s stupid to assume that Noah didn’t really mean those sophomoric jokes, I think it’s offensive for the author to imply that Oswalt didn’t really mean this longform essay that he obviously took time to craft. Oswalt has not become known as a person who prevaricates relentlessly; as such, I think we should assume that, yeah, Oswalt probably meant it. We owe an honest person that much, no? It’s no longer just media professionals who create a public record about themselves, but here are two professionals who have–Noah and Oswalt. It seems duplicitous to call out the one for his record, while saying that the other’s should be ignored, because he’s clearly not REALLY on our side.
Further, and beyond the idea that people are allowed to hold complicated or even on-the-face-of-it contradictory ideas, the whole assumption of how Oswalt needs to be on one team or the other is also offensive to me. If you’re going to be a good writer, artist, comedian, a good start is by being a little outside the box, where you question the received assumptions of each of these teams. In other words, Oswalt is probably very cool with your disagreeing with him. He may even PREFER it. So good for him.
Lastly, and by far the most importantly: the reason Noah’s tweets are worrisome is NOT that his jokes targeted Jews or fat women (full disclosure: I am Jewish and love a fat woman), it’s that they were stupid! They were sophomoric and juvenile, and Stewart has produced over the last 15 years a body of work that is sophisticated and clever… Looking at these tweets, Noah’s public record simply suggests to me that he may have some difficulty creating further material for the show that rises to Stewart’s lofty standards. It’s not about PC standards, it’s about quality work.
It’s not the meat of the controversy, but it is certainly partly what is happening. So really, your problem is that Oswalt wasn’t addressing whatever it is you wanted to argue about, which apparently is how dumb he is. For not addressing what you wanted to argue about.
No, Noah told six fucking tasteless (by some estimations) jokes badly (by some estimations). Several years ago. Most of which were offensive because he was deemed insufficiently Jewish to rely on some old stereotypes (which is okay if you’re the current host of TDS [ha-ha, Jewish mothers are overbearing, Stewart you genius!!]), and the rest mocking fat people (which again, is acceptable if you’re the current host of TDS and the fat person is deemed Someone We Don’t Like [goddam look at Chris Christie, mother of God is he fat, h-ha, Stewart you’re a genius!]).
DAMMITT OSWALT ARGUE ABOUT MY STALKING HORSE!
Again, let’s address what Oswalt is arguing about. Sadly for you, it’s not that “the fact that we obsessively trawl twitter for dirt on people”. It’s that what has been found and publicized IS NOT DIRT, it’s some shit hack jokes. But instead of that being the end of it, we get dragged through the usual bullshit by the usual suspects. THIS is what Oswalt is complaining about: about how easily and predictably these stories go.
As a practical example, I could quite easily have taken offense at you calling me a “chimp”, since you have no idea if I am among an ethnic group historically compared to monkeys. Well guess what, I am, and I am closely related to another. What, too inadvertent? Well, you called me a “dink” which, since it is a common slang term for “penis”, is genderist. (Would it be okay to call someone a “pussy”, you sexist piece of trash?)
But since I am a grown-up human being and not a Card-Carrying Member Of The Rage-Industrial Complex, I can still master the useful talent of NOT GIVING A SHIT. I pity those that can’t. And I am infuriated by those who mine the depths to find a way to wave the Bloody Shirt Of Offenditude. THESE are the people that Oswalt’s series of tweets is about. And that’s why I like them.
Rather than dive down another conversational rabbit hole, I will defer to one of my betters in wordsmithery, Stephen Fry:
Yes. The point Oswalt was dumb on was mocking the feeling, not the scavenger hunt.
You aren’t the give-a-shit police, you don’t get to tell other people what to give a shit about, and other people don’t have to run their feelings past you for your critique for them to be valid.
THAT’s the shit that Oswlat stepped in, and why he was a bumblefuck for the rant.
So maybe if you want people to stop talking about why you’re offensive, don’t be so offensive. And if you don’t care, then stop crying about how easily offended people are. Because if you’re crying about how offended people are then you DO care, you just don’t want to be held responsible in public for your assclowning.
