Well, I thought I was deciding what I was allowed to give a shit about. But you’re right, I SHOULD be required to become outraged over every slight. And since you compared me to a monkey I demand a sincere apology from you.
1 Like
It’s not about a government conspiracy. I love a good conspiracy, but everything I’m talking about is happening in the open. we’re so offended by every little statement that it makes no room for legitimate grievances.
We become so inured to being outraged at every little thing, that we pave the way to pass laws to protect classes against speech like this. not happening now, but if we stay on the path, sure it could. we see this in france and other countries where we have ‘hate speech laws,’ where some of these tweets may fall under. it’s dangerous.
“But if these exchanges ended up on Twitter, the internet would burn all of our houses down.” Exactly. we’re not longer satisfied with ignoring speech we don’t like. we have to destroy anyone and anything who is not in lock step with our thoughts. its incredibly depressing.
Sorry I was a jerk and called you a clever chimp. I figured with your bellicose language that you’d handle it well, but I must’ve hit a sore spot. I neglected the old grade school heuristic of those who dish it out being least capable of taking it, and often struggling with their own shit and lashing out not because it makes sense, but because they’re hurting from something else. So I was a jerk, and that’s not useful for actually having a dialogue.
And since my comment hit a sore spot for you, I can only hope that you might understand how the people whose sore spots were hit by Noah’s maladroit twitter posts felt, in some small way relating your pain to theirs – while not equivalent, they are kindred.
And if that’s the case, then we can join each other in saying “Patotn Oswalt was a jerk when he mocked those who were hurt in some small way by Noah’s comedy.”
And then I’d further propose: If Oswalt wanted to defend his fellow comedian from the kind of public shaming that Ronson talks about in his book, he probably should’ve focused on how absurd it is that we’re trawling through ancient twitter posts looking for excuses to be offended, rather than on the emotions of those who felt those jokes were in bad taste.
And if you’re being insincere, that’s fine, too - I’m not.
3 Likes
The point is sort of granted, but not your snark. Because the best person you could have to direct a stable of sophisticated and witty writers is a guy whose go-to jokes are based on tired stereotypes.
Yeah, IF Noah is as clownish as his tweets appear, and IF his stable of writers can overcome that, the show may still be good. However, wouldn’t it be best if the wit and wisdom began at the top?
Tine Fey: "A pedophile and young child are walking through woods at night. The kid looks at the pedo and says “Boy, it sure is scary out here.” The pedophile looks at the child and says “how do you think i feel, i have to walk out of here alone.”
1 Like
Bad marcnofler, bad! No biscuit! You can get tummy rubs in ten, well six minutes!
#FTFY
(here’s a citation, there are others)
You mean with the producers? Who started the show, hired the writers, and hired Jon Stewart, who wasn’t even the original host of the show?
Except in rare (or ghost) cases, a single author writes a book. Neither movies nor TV work that way. They are collaborations of a large number of people. The Cults of Personality should rest of with Chairmans Mao and O’Reilly.
The most salient point is Jon Stewart was neither funny nor topical before the Daily Show. So I have high hopes for Noah, even though he probably tweeted some inappropriate things after a martini or doob.
(Gah, glass houses and all that)
1 Like
Let’s be honest here. Jon Stewart takes on the rich and the powerful…as long as they are conservative, share his world view, or are targets who won’t fight back. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the power elite in his admin are strictly off-limits and have been for six long years.
The hypocrisy of the OP, is that she is willing to let Noah’s offensive tweets slide because she simply assumes he probably agrees with her world view. Nothing more, nothing less. If say, Comedy Central had gone way outside their tight little box and hired Greg Gutfield of Fox to replace Stewart, she would have slammed him like a little boy with a Tonka Toy for those same tweets.
Thank you, and rest assured that I accept the apology in all of the sincerity with which it was offered. And although I know that my suffering has been wholly different than that of the victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, I can at least rest comfortably knowing that it will be judged as no greater or lesser than theirs. I hope we can put this ugli– er, unpleasantness behind us and move forward.
However, I could not help but notice some problematic language in your apology…
- The use of the word “jerk” conjures up a male-centered sexual connotation, needlessly being both sexist and offensive to those who consider self-pleasure to be sinful. You should strive to avoid such vocabulary.
- As you know doubt know, “bellicose” derives from the word for “war”, which could trigger traumatic memories for any readers who have been through such horrors.
- “old grade school”? This almost seems deliberately ageist. I would like to think that no offense was meant by this. I would really like to.
- “heuristic”, like “history”, starts aggressively with a masculine pronoun. Could be construed as sexist.
- Oh my, “jerk” makes a reappearance. You seem to be fixated on this word.
- The word “maladroit” is incredibly ableist, especially against those who suffer from BPPV or have required surgery after a fall. I belong to both of these groups, but since it is not common knowledge I shall take no direct offense. I cannot tell others how to feel about it, of course.
- And now “jerk” appears for the third time. For reasons outlined above I cannot join you in uttering that word. I am also now vaguely worried about your possible subconscious obsession with masturbation.
- “ancient twitter posts” and here you go again with the gratuitous ageism. So disappointing.
I would suggest that you emend this apology posthaste and with far much care than you exercised in its original drafting. Otherwise someone my find this six years later and assume you are an ableist, ageist, sexist with insufficient sympathy to veterans and a borderline-disturbing fixation on self-abuse.
I’d be happy to talk about these off-thread. This convo is about Patton Oswalt, not about idealized grammar, and while grammar is an intrinsically interesting topic (especially as it relates to personal identity and freedom of expression), I’d hate to distract from the point of Caroline’s article, or my commentary on it.
…trying not to derail… 
Jerk and heuristic have absolutely zero gender assigned to them. Jerk is absolutely a negative word, and is used to cause discomfort or anger. But carries zero gender in at least modern NW american usage.
Heuristic is a (generally) evidence based method of decision making. It is in the same class of words as hypothesis, theory, law, model, function, or process.
Actually I think the convo about idealized grammar is 100% germane to Patton Oswalt’s tweets, and thus this is precisely where it belongs – since it is, in fact, MY commentary on Oswalt’s point.
The name “Fishkill” is mean and threatening to and towards aquatic Americans.
No one is asking Oswalt or Noah to have idealized grammar.
1 Like
Really? No one?
7 billion people on the planet? No one?
NO ONE?
Based on those tweets Patton Oswalt sure seems to think so. Do you doubt him? Are you reading his mail? Are you a mindreader?
But OK, let’s assume that NOT ONE PERSON is asking this of him in this instance. Maybe this incident has triggered him because of some past incident (I KNOW I KNOW like this has ever happened to a comedian, but bear with me). And this is how he has opted to respond. Why are you so intent on invalidating his feelings and experiences?
Again, I apologize about making this all about the tweets that the article is about.
No one in this conversation. And most relevantly, not the person you’ve been replying to: me.
Oswalt hasn’t mentioned idealized grammar in any of those tweets, so your characterization simply isn’t accurate. He has mentioned what he perceives to be over-sensitivity, and my assertion that he has missed the point is based on this apparent perception.
I’m not talking to him, so I don’t know how I could be doing that.
2 Likes
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I’d rather not cringe because I’m laughing at someone else’s expense. That’s definitely not the “best” comedy in my book.
4 Likes
You didn’t say “no one in this conversation”, you said “no one”. And if you really meant “no one in this conversation”, then you missed the fact that he isn’t here, and thus his experience in this matter is not restricted to it.
Also, given that his series actually begins with an example of what you label “idealized grammar” by apologizing for using the gender-specific “man”, maybe it’s time for you to go refresh your memory of them.
And lastly, since you have no reason to believe that he will never see your comments, your dismissal of his screed certainly has the potential of invalidating his feelings and experiences. You should be more careful.
This back and forth is likely better suited for higher order protocols than standard day to day English. The words we are using are mutable, overloadable, imprecise, and often written in haste.
I’d love to see this branch into another thread though, rhetoric keeps the mind sharp.
1 Like
