Somebody just doesn't get white-male privilege? Or is there a stronger point: one should not be harsh to anyone, not even whites, men, nor even Christians or libertarians?
I don't mind if the 'social justice warriors' manage to carve out some safe places, in which everyone must be on their absolutely best behavior, where never a suggestively ill word is said against anybody else, but I sure do hope we maintain a strong 'free speech' rule overall in this country. I like having forums where we can be a little raw.
As do I. But those sorts of closed-down forums are where I've seen this posted before. It's a criticism of the culture (or, as put in the OP, ignoring the concept of "white privilege") by people who have made a hobby of shouting down those who hold incorrect viewpoints about issues of race and gender relations.
My way of thinking is that it's okay to be politically incorrect at home with your family and friends; but out in public you have to be politically correct.
There's being respectful around your intended (and unintended) audience, and then there's the bullying callout culture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-bullying-ugly-sport-liberal-commenters) that tries to police that respectful appropriateness. This comic is more about the latter than the former.
I hear you. People like that are the very reason why I was either kicked out or voluntarily left several different feminist communities online. In one such comm, I was actually called racist for saying that it was okay to be politically incorrect at home with your family and friends.
I think even just around family and friends there's a line that should never be crossed.
For instance, if a white person was to say a racist joke around other white people and they all laughed, it would be seen as okay. But if that joke made one of them uncomfortable, then a fight could ensue.
Now, as a pagan black female, I've had some really good laughs at racist, sexist, and religious jokes. But that still doesn't make them okay; especially when the people around you could be unprepared for it.
Well, yes, that's true, too. I suppose I should have added "as long as you are 100% sure that everyone present is comfortable with your un-PC jokes." For instance, I have no tolerance for the R-word, the N-word, the C-word, or any jokes about rape, the Holocaust, eugenics, or female genital mutilation; even if it's "just kidding" and "just at home with family and friends." However, my family and friends and I often will say and do things in the privacy of home that could be percieved as politically incorrect if they were done in public- for instance, jokingly faking a foreign accent. That doesn't make us racist.
Telling racist jokes also risks reinforcing other people's prejudices, so that they may feel more comfortable being racist because they can see their peers seeming to be racist.
it's okay to be politically incorrect at home with your family and friends
Shouldn't we have greater leeway than that, such as comedy night clubs, for instance? Do we really want our movies and books to be scrubbed for only the most sensitive expressions? Surely, some of the Internet should be free-speech fire zones. Though, I appreciate that, on the Internet, we have enough forums that go way over any generally accepted lines - the true hate stuff. But, in priniciple.
The Oscars, though, are such a universal event that I can see that being made airtight, as much as I might start watching the Oscars again if it could be more raucous. I tend to avoid network TV altogether, because it is so antiseptic.
Eh, the Oscars is a very different venue than a late night comedy show. I'd put the Oscars in the category of "places where you have to be politically correct" and late night comedy shows in "places where it's okay to be politically incorrect."
Eddie Murphy was once asked about something similar to this by Barbara Walters, and told her, "You know when it's in bad taste? When it's not funny."
As I have for the past 15 or so years found the ongoing oeuvre of Seth MacFarlane to be approximately as "funny" and entertaining as watching somebody's disabled grandmother get kicked down a flight of stairs, I'd say Eddie couldn't have summed it up any better than he did.
The thing is, no one's really saying comedians don't have the right to make jokes; but we all have the right to judge them as horrible human beings based on what they say. Applying a label of "comedy" or "satire" doesn't make something terrible suddenly and magically "ok".
Thing is, it's not about sanitizing or censoring or scrubbing everything. It's about pointing out "Hey, making a pretty obviously racist generalization ISN'T funny, and your being a comedian doesn't excuse you from that." That doesn't mean race (or other sensitive subjects) can't be the subject of comedy. But a good guide is to go by that old saying "punch up, not down." Take shots at the status quo, at established power structures. Don't take shots at the marginalized. So, for example, yea, make fun of society, its gender roles, even the way we deal with sexual assault. Don't, like Daniel Tosh, make jokes about rape and respond to someone getting offended by saying that the offendee deserves to be raped. That's not comedy, it's not funny, and while it may well be his right to "free speech", it's MY right to free speech to call him a piece of shit.
One thing that seems to always be forgotten is that criticizing someone's speech is ITSELF free speech. The folks who so loudly complain when others criticize something hateful they said seem to forget that complaining isn't the same thing as censoring. And while I agree with you about the "principle" you're espousing, far too often I see this demand for free speech used by folks who are angry that they just can't say the hateful things they used to without someone calling them out on it. I'm not accusing YOU of this, but for a lot of folks, there's a little bit of dishonesty at play here: it's not really an issue of "sanitizing" culture; it's that their old privilege of getting to say every lizard-brained urge that popped into their head without regard to who it affected has been taken away, so now they feel "oppressed", as if taking a moment to have a bit of consideration for other folks before opening one's mouth is just so terribly inconvenient. I don't like censorship, but I don't buy these folks' objections. They're free to say whatever the hell they want: the rest of us are free to dismiss them as soon as they demonstrate exactly how little, beyond hate, they have to offer.
One thing that seems to always be forgotten is that criticizing someone's speech is ITSELF free speech. The folks who so loudly complain when others criticize something hateful they said seem to forget that complaining isn't the same thing as censoring. EXACTLY.
We have a long tradition in Australia of self deprecating humour. One guy made a living out of "wog" (wop to you Americans) jokes. He could get away with them because his name is Giannopolous. There's been a show with a Greek guy and a Viet Namese guy called "the truth about gooks and wogs", perfectly fine, because they are ripping on their own culture, which is funny for outsiders because it's different (which is where a lot of racist humour draws its power from) but also funny for insiders because they get the joke.
There was also a comedian around in the 90s called Steady Eddie who had Cerebral Palsy. His act was essentially nothing but disabled jokes.
That a huge challenge in othersise nominally "liberal" spheres such as the skeptical community. Look at the huge backlash against the idea of an "atheism +" movement (meaning adding questions of social justice to the mainstream atheist movements, addressing more concerns than just debunking bigfoot and religions), or the hatred in response to even just the basic statement of: "we could do more to address the concerns of, and recruit the interest of, people of color and other minorities."
What Mills is saying is very easy to respond to defensively, and that's almost instinctive for most of us who have been so ingrained with the status-quo, but it's neccesary to surpress that instinct and actually listen, because UNDERSTANDING these things is the way we can then move forward and avoid the pitfalls CAUSED by what he describes.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 05:37 pm (UTC)For instance, if a white person was to say a racist joke around other white people and they all laughed, it would be seen as okay. But if that joke made one of them uncomfortable, then a fight could ensue.
Now, as a pagan black female, I've had some really good laughs at racist, sexist, and religious jokes. But that still doesn't make them okay; especially when the people around you could be unprepared for it.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 06:17 pm (UTC)However, my family and friends and I often will say and do things in the privacy of home that could be percieved as politically incorrect if they were done in public- for instance, jokingly faking a foreign accent. That doesn't make us racist.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:36 pm (UTC)Shouldn't we have greater leeway than that, such as comedy night clubs, for instance? Do we really want our movies and books to be scrubbed for only the most sensitive expressions? Surely, some of the Internet should be free-speech fire zones. Though, I appreciate that, on the Internet, we have enough forums that go way over any generally accepted lines - the true hate stuff. But, in priniciple.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 11:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 12:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 02:57 pm (UTC)As I have for the past 15 or so years found the ongoing oeuvre of Seth MacFarlane to be approximately as "funny" and entertaining as watching somebody's disabled grandmother get kicked down a flight of stairs, I'd say Eddie couldn't have summed it up any better than he did.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 09:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 12:01 am (UTC)Yeah, you're right about that.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 04:26 pm (UTC)Thing is, it's not about sanitizing or censoring or scrubbing everything. It's about pointing out "Hey, making a pretty obviously racist generalization ISN'T funny, and your being a comedian doesn't excuse you from that." That doesn't mean race (or other sensitive subjects) can't be the subject of comedy. But a good guide is to go by that old saying "punch up, not down." Take shots at the status quo, at established power structures. Don't take shots at the marginalized. So, for example, yea, make fun of society, its gender roles, even the way we deal with sexual assault. Don't, like Daniel Tosh, make jokes about rape and respond to someone getting offended by saying that the offendee deserves to be raped. That's not comedy, it's not funny, and while it may well be his right to "free speech", it's MY right to free speech to call him a piece of shit.
One thing that seems to always be forgotten is that criticizing someone's speech is ITSELF free speech. The folks who so loudly complain when others criticize something hateful they said seem to forget that complaining isn't the same thing as censoring. And while I agree with you about the "principle" you're espousing, far too often I see this demand for free speech used by folks who are angry that they just can't say the hateful things they used to without someone calling them out on it. I'm not accusing YOU of this, but for a lot of folks, there's a little bit of dishonesty at play here: it's not really an issue of "sanitizing" culture; it's that their old privilege of getting to say every lizard-brained urge that popped into their head without regard to who it affected has been taken away, so now they feel "oppressed", as if taking a moment to have a bit of consideration for other folks before opening one's mouth is just so terribly inconvenient. I don't like censorship, but I don't buy these folks' objections. They're free to say whatever the hell they want: the rest of us are free to dismiss them as soon as they demonstrate exactly how little, beyond hate, they have to offer.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 06:19 pm (UTC)EXACTLY.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 07:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-04-13 02:35 am (UTC)There was also a comedian around in the 90s called Steady Eddie who had Cerebral Palsy. His act was essentially nothing but disabled jokes.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 06:59 pm (UTC)The other important distinction is between 'People shouldn't tell racist jokes' and 'people shouldn't be allowed to tell racist jokes'.
There's a considerable gap between the two; I'll condemn racist humour, but that doesn't mean I want to see it criminalised.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 01:39 am (UTC)Check out this dude destroying classical and contemporary liberalism using his inside voice!
no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-12 04:37 pm (UTC)What Mills is saying is very easy to respond to defensively, and that's almost instinctive for most of us who have been so ingrained with the status-quo, but it's neccesary to surpress that instinct and actually listen, because UNDERSTANDING these things is the way we can then move forward and avoid the pitfalls CAUSED by what he describes.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-13 02:28 am (UTC)