Jonathan Haidt has an interesting background. I hadn’t yet heard of Greg Lukianoff, though.
Also:
1 Like
Thanks Phren for giving a textbook example of my point!
Here you can see The Subject reacting to the trigger of the phrase “PC”, perceiving it as a form of micro-aggression, then demonstrating a fight or flight response, treating those with whom The Subject disagrees as The Enemy and attacking them, in this case using a variation of Ad Hominem attacks to demonize those whom The Subjects disagrees, classifying their comments as “racist/sexist/otherwise hateful shit” (here, not only generalizing about The Enemy, but creating “facts” out of thin air, as The Subject provides absolutely no examples of “racist/sexist/otherwise hateful shit” actually communicated by The Enemy), and at the same time assuming that The Enemy breaks down along generational lines (curiously, implying that The Subject assumes that no “Millenial” could possibly hold the views of The Enemy). With that assumption the subject then furthers his demonizing of The Enemy, using Ageism to dismiss their arguments.
Notice that at no point does the The Subject actually engage with the ideas presented, neither addressing the assumptions nor arguments of The Enemy. The entire interaction here is The Subject reacting to a single phrase, ignoring all actual content and then using Ad Hominem attacks in attempt to discredit the arguments. At no point does does The Subject exhibit any self-awareness of being engaged in the very behavior The Subject decries in others.
In doing this The Subject provides a perfect, real-time example of the mindset and behavior being described.
5 Likes
Because “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” is posed as some sort of actual bogeyman that exists versus a straw position to attack. If you want to be taken seriously, don’t start from a false, value-laden premise.
Attacking “outrage culture” from your particular calcified position in outrage culture isn’t particularly effective.
3 Likes
Yeah, comprehension of the context is nearly non existent and as a result the dogmatic internet clicks cannibalize their own.
It’s also funny how the immediate criticism of using crude humor is “they’re not funny”, as if your personal preference somehow invalidates everything that some comedian like Patton Oswalt ever said.
Maybe it’s the fact that liberalism is the new norm and the ass holes that would have been bible thumping Bush voters 10 years ago are now going around raging at comedians for using naughty words.
Comedy is a process. That process must be allowed to be played out to its conclusion to achieve the desired effects. It’s great at getting us to examine our views and it helps us think about ideas in a fresh way, because it is capable of bypassing ideological defenses. This article doesn’t seem to be making the same tired old ‘free speech is an excuse for anything’ argument that some people here are suggesting it does.
Rather it seems to be arguing that the imposition of a rigid code of acceptable speech makes it much harder for comedy to use shock and offense as a means to provoke people into thought. There are hacks who fall back on lame stereotypes and colleges have every right not to book them.
But there are also excellent comics who brilliantly subvert and show-up the hollowness of such caricatures within their acts. In their desire to ensure all comedy is offense free the entertainment officers are denying the process of comedy the ability to challenge, the means to provoke audience members into self-reflection and the tools to better further empathy and human understanding. I would argue that far from ignoring basic human decency, the comedy of offense (as opposed to offensive comedy) embodies all that is human and decent in our desire to build bridges of understanding between people.
If one actually reads the article It shows how such rules actually limit what minorities can talk about within their acts. It denies them a means of sharing their experience and breaking down the cultural barriers that exist between people. Under the current climate if a truth is ugly or inconvenient it is verboten to them. These are not trivial things that can be discarded without having an adverse effect on our cultural discourse.
Perhaps the greatest working stand-up today, Stewart Lee was asked his opinion on whether there should effectively be a ban on rape Jokes. His credentials as a leftist-liberal are pretty impeccable. His response:
He wouldn’t be comfortable with an outright ban because it would remove a means of discussing an important topic and would perpetuate an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ culture about an important subject that we need to be talking about.
When people start acting as arbiters for taste and decency we can’t help but end up with comedy that is reductive and less capable of furthering understanding between human beings.
Tldr: There is no hope for you
4 Likes
I like Jezebel’s idea about making an acceptable rape joke:
Easy shortcut: DO NOT MAKE RAPE VICTIMS THE BUTT OF THE JOKE.
7 Likes
Agreed, this sounds like a good guideline.
1 Like
Could start by rewording that easy shortcut…
1 Like
What? The word “butt?”
First, that’s a direct quote from the article I linked. Personally, I’d’ve used the word “subject,” but that’s not the word the authour used, and I’m not going to misquote someone when their meaning is already clear.
Second, the meaning, in this circumstance, is clear. From the Idioms section of The Free Dictionary:
Butt of a joke: the reason for or aim of a joke, especially when it is a person.
“Butt” in this context doesn’t refer to anatomy in this context, any more than the ass does in “where ox and ass are feeding” does in “What Child is This.”
Or is your objection to something other than that word?
1 Like
I read this at first as “Medieval administration grows and grows.”
In turn, given the idiocies of middle management, “to get midlevel on your ass” sounds quite scary.
2 Likes
Yeah, but snide accusations of drunkenness are one of the persistent attributes of the Buddha.
1 Like
Touché. Or should that be touchy?
Buddha was actually well known for his good natured humor. Chances are, if he saw you twisting someone’s words he might very well imply that you were somewhat drunk. This is perhaps gentler on you and less embarrassing than the thought that you had done so while sober.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
