Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

But you have to have freedom of speech to do the test of what’s funny. Comedians road test their stuff. We as a culture develop theough trial an error a lot. 

Just establishing some jokes do offend, it’s just what to do about it. 

There is freedom of speech in most western countries. I don't know what you are complaining about? Are you upset because you don't want to face the consequences of messing up with the race of someone else? 

Please name the subjects that you think you are not allowed to joke about anymore and why.

1 hour ago, wasted said:

We are intolerate of murder. Sometimes fat shaming helps me lose weight. Intolerance isn’t always negative.

Oh, ffs! When they fat shame you they are not looking forward to your health or anything. They are just enjoying the pleasure of putting you down. Once you lose all the weight you need to lose 'in their eyes' (I'm warning you it is never enough), they will move onto telling you that you need plastic surgery because all that extra skin is disgusting. And once you got rid of all the extra skin, they will start joking about how you are getting bald.

Intolerance is always negative. If you get a kick from it, that's just you being weak before your master. When you realize you can lose weight because of your own motivation to feel better, healthier, etc. you will stop being addicted to the humiliation that you believe fuels your desire to lose weight.

1 hour ago, wasted said:

What I was saying was only 1% of white men were responsible for slavery. To dump all of that on a comedian who used the N word at a show is too much. Like Roseanne isn’t even racist but she pays for slavery. This to me a political thing. 

I don’t think it’s always equal. Roseanne made a mistake and offended someone. They were offended. She lost her entire career. 

Using the N word in the 21st century is just being an ignorant asshole who supports the perpetuation of racism. I don't care if it was 1% or 99%. It's fucking old shit, stop with that. How the fuck old are you?

What I said about equality in humor means that I love when the oppressed groups rise up and get enough courage to PVP their oppressors.

Im not much familiar with that Roseanne woman but her tweet was pathetic and if she had the balls to tweet that, then she should have the same balls to face the consequences of it.

Whenever someone goes racist they try to fix later it by saying they didn't mean it or that the other person didn't get it, always throwing the ball and the blame onto the victim. That excuse is so old, no one's buying it anymore. Especially if you decide to open your Twitter to post something like that, what is the mistake? You are consciously tweeting what you are about to publish... I mean, it's not a conversation, you know Twitter is public and that you have thousands of followers... There's no innocence in what Roseanne did. It was deliberately so fuck her, go cry to the cemetery or something...

[wasted]

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

There is freedom of speech in most western countries. I don't know what you are complaining about? Are you upset because you don't want to face the consequences of messing up with the race of someone else? 

Please name the subjects that you think you are not allowed to joke about anymore and why.

Oh, ffs! When they fat shame you they are not looking forward to your health or anything. They are just enjoying the pleasure of putting you down. Once you lose all the weight you need to lose 'in their eyes' (I'm warning you it is never enough), they will move onto telling you that you need plastic surgery because all that extra skin is disgusting. And once you got rid of all the extra skin, they will start joking about how you are getting bald.

Intolerance is always negative. If you get a kick from it, that's just you being weak before your master. When you realize you can lose weight because of your own motivation to feel better, healthier, etc. you will stop being addicted to the humiliation that you believe fuels your desire to lose weight.

Using the N word in the 21st century is just being an ignorant asshole who supports the perpetuation of racism. I don't care if it was 1% or 99%. It's fucking old shit, stop with that. How the fuck old are you?

What I said about equality in humor means that I love when the oppressed groups rise up and get enough courage to PVP their oppressors.

Im not much familiar with that Roseanne woman but her tweet was pathetic and if she had the balls to tweet that, then she should have the same balls to face the consequences of it.

Whenever someone goes racist they try to fix later it by saying they didn't mean it or that the other person didn't get it, always throwing the ball and the blame onto the victim. That excuse is so old, no one's buying it anymore. Especially if you decide to open your Twitter to post something like that, what is the mistake? You are consciously tweeting what you are about to publish... I mean, it's not a conversation, you know Twitter is public and that you have thousands of followers... There's no innocence in what Roseanne did. It was deliberately so fuck her, go cry to the cemetery or something...

I’m talking about the principle of things. We sort of do have freedom of speech but as we are seeing only for opinions we like. 

It’s easy to isolate things and just say that it’s wrong and that is fine. But consequences are another thing. We all decide what we like or not. 

Firstly I would say everyone has or will make a mistake. I don’t think one tweet from Roseanne deserves her to lose her career. I think the reason we think she deserves to lose her career is slavery. One tweet isn’t perpetuating racism to an significant degree, treating people as a protected race is as damaging. Accepting apologises brings people together, to throw someone away only breeds tribalism. And this leads to violence. I guess my liberalism extends to even have stmpathy for bigots and racists. I want to understand what or why they think these things. 

If it was part of a personal campaign or trend then it needs to be addressed. And again she was trying to make a joke about someone she thought was white. There’s very little tolerance going on. Comedians can’t riff on twitter. Freedom of speech is very important to comedians I think, to speak truth to power. But there is a nit picky word thing going on. You can’t say a word but you can bomb the hell out of the middle east. What kills more people? 

We are talking about a specific world of celebrity twitter politics. None of this applies in everyday life. It’s just rhetoric, almost like a game. Actual racism is much more matter of fact and just a mild disapproval. Like a lot of chinese people just don’t like japanese people. It’s an inpersonal racism really. 

Like my relatives won’t tolerate shoes to be worn in the house. It’s better not to track dog shit stains into the house. Intolerance of shoes in the house is a good thing. 

So many paradoxes, you seem intolerant of racists. I just can’t blame individuals for history. Basically I could track dog shit into the house, I don’t think I should be executed for it. 

Same with fat shaming, they would just move onto not tolerating a different dog shit. If you think about it people are very judgmental all the time, almost unconsciously. It’s a fear thing I think, to nip things in the bud is less scary than looking at it in a broader context. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by wasted

[Angelica]

FFS, what a bunch of crap. Tolerating racism = offering tacit approval of it. And we do, as a society, still tolerate it.  If we didn’t, institutional racism wouldn’t still be such a devestating reality.

And that’s basically exactly why most people are sensitive to racist discourse, however harmless it may seem to you. Because institutional racism still exists, not ‘because of slavery’ (seriously, Jesus Christ). 

Roseanne lost her career because she posted some dumb racist shit and ABC decided she was too much of a risk (and it’s by no means the first incendiary thing she’s tweeted). 

As to comedians, humor and where lines should or shouldn’t get drawn, it’s all context and intent. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Angelica

[wasted]

1 hour ago, Angelica said:

FFS, what a bunch of crap. Tolerating racism = offering tacit approval of it. And we do, as a society, still tolerate it.  If we didn’t, institutional racism wouldn’t still be such a devestating reality.

And that’s basically exactly why most people are sensitive to racist discourse, however harmless it may seem to you. Because institutional racism still exists, not ‘because of slavery’ (seriously, Jesus Christ). 

Roseanne lost her career because she posted some dumb racist shit and ABC decided she was too much of a risk (and it’s by no means the first incendiary thing she’s tweeted). 

As to comedians, humor and where lines should or shouldn’t get drawn, it’s all context and intent. 

 

Racism and freedom of speech are two different things. I don’t endorse racism at all, but I think freedom of speech is more important. Once you start limiting speech you can control political discourses. 

It’s okay until they come for you. 

Using Roseanne to illustrate how that could happen doesn’t really mean you tolerate racism. It’s just there’s a strong enough case that what she said was used to silence her politically. 

You are who you are, not what you say. 

I think heavy handed treatment of her just enraged Trump supporters fueling more tribalism. 

Although I think ABC within their rights I think it could have been handled differently. I think they turned a teachable moment into becoming what you hate. Unmerciful dictators. 

Of course if you have an unapologetic racist using ABC as a platform then that’s different.  

If you can’t speak openly it eventually ends in violence. Most disasters of the 20th century started with limiting free speech. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by wasted

[Lio]

2 hours ago, wasted said:

Firstly I would say everyone has or will make a mistake. I don’t think one tweet from Roseanne deserves her to lose her career. I think the reason we think she deserves to lose her career is slavery. One tweet isn’t perpetuating racism to an significant degree, treating people as a protected race is as damaging. Accepting apologises brings people together, to throw someone away only breeds tribalism. And this leads to violence. I guess my liberalism extends to even have stmpathy for bigots and racists. I want to understand what or why they think these things.

100% agreed. If more people were less quick to judge and more trying to listen to and understand each other, or where they were coming from, the world would be a better place. Yelling racism or sexism whenever someone makes one remark (or even more) will never help racism or sexism out of this world. Instead it polarizes and makes it even worse. I think it's easier for people to just think some people are 'bad' and others 'good'. But it's a shame, because yelling abuse or plain ostracizing people has never helped changing minds.

[wasted]

5 minutes ago, Lio said:

100% agreed. If more people were less quick to judge and more trying to listen to and understand each other, or where they were coming from, the world would be a better place. Yelling racism or sexism whenever someone makes one remark (or even more) will never help racism or sexism out of this world. Instead it polarizes and makes it even worse. I think it's easier for people to just think some people are 'bad' and others 'good'. But it's a shame, because yelling abuse or plain ostracizing people has never helped changing minds.

Tribalism is used to control us. 

[Angelica]

25 minutes ago, wasted said:

Racism and freedom of speech are two different things. I don’t endorse racism at all, but I think freedom of speech is more important. Once you start limiting speech you can control political discourses. 

It’s okay until they come for you. 

Using Roseanne to illustrate how that could happen doesn’t really mean you tolerate racism. It’s just there’s a strong enough case that what she said was used to silence her politically. 

You are who you are, not what you say. 

I think heavy handed treatment of her just enraged Trump supporters fueling more tribalism. 

Although I think ABC within their rights I think it could have been handled differently. I think they turned a teachable moment into becoming what you hate. Unmerciful dictators. 

Of course if you have an unapologetic racist using ABC as a platform then that’s different.  

If you can’t speak openly it eventually ends in violence. Most disasters of the 20th century started with limiting free speech. 

 

You’re not advocating for freedom of speech, you’re advocating for speech free of consequence.

Again, Roseanne spent years spewing all kinds of vile stuff on Twitter before rehabilitating her image for a comeback. And she still got her comeback. I don’t get the tears for her, sorry. 

 

[soon]

Canada produces an abundance of incredible comedians so its only proper that I step into this conversation. We're literally the best at funny as proven by science.

I'm in to the conversations around comedy happening lately. Mainly the "funny only" vs " Use Your Platform (social contribution) and Funny." I mostly fall on the side of "funny only" but to me its a flawed debate because comedy is a social contribution and has always contributed to public discourse and change while "only" being funny.

I went to see a left of centre comedian and he spent the last half of his stage time talking about the disgusting treatment of irregular arrivals in Australia. Really sad and important issue. But there were no jokes or comedic tones to it at all. I am so opposed to this - mainly thats not what I signed up for and paid good money for. But also: no one going to see a lefty comedian is unaware of these issues. So live inside them and add to the culture of resistance with your stand up set. Thats my opinion at least.

On August 15, 2018 at 5:11 AM, DirtyDeeds said:

What many bemoan as political correctness is often times just civility. I can somewhat agree on the humor front, with caveats. I do believe pretty much any subject can be joked about, but context matters, who the joke is on matters, and skill in telling the joke matters. The last two are often forgot. People tell jokes poorly and then are angry when people aren’t laughing or are upset. Joke about anything, but when it’s about an injustice, don’t make the victim the butt of the joke. That’s not about being politically correct or overly sensitive, that’s a basic tenet of comedy. Comedy has historically been an equalizer; it lampoons the powerful and corrupt and exposes their hypocrisy. To use it to strengthen the power they already have is an abuse of comedy. 

Spot on! 

On August 15, 2018 at 5:20 AM, wasted said:

The point about comedy made by Patrice was that all comedy comes from the same place, trying to be funny. So that was the intent, and comedians need that space to mess up. Like Roseanne was trying to be funny. Sometimes she gets it right, other times...but if all comedians are walking on egg shells then comedy is going to go down the toilet. 

Also if you can’t talk things out you end up getting physical. The silenced side will resort to violence. 

The other thing is limiting speech always seems to be what dictators do. I’m not completely against state power it has it’s upsides. But people start talking about freedom and being PC at the same time. Physical violence is the thing to stop. People being offended is a non starter. In a way protecting people from words is kind of weakening them. You’re basically saying you’re so weak you can’t take being called a name. It breeds victimhood which is a worse fate than being fat. I’m fat but I’m fat because I ate more donuts than everyone else combined. I won fat before I got fat. 

I really dont understand how you can claim to know a persons motive? Like you dont really know if someone is limiting there speech because of some fuzzy, opaque concept like "PC." They just might not think in ways that would harm people and have better comedic choices in the arsenal.

Id give my money for people with deep wells of funny that dont need to essentially throw things around and see what sticks. And If I did get to see a comedian workshopping a new act and therefore improving Id pay to see one that has a substance and character that wouldnt think to harm people.

On August 15, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Len Cnut said:

Its these sort of dictates that muddy the waters though.  First of all, everybody isn't on the same level of sophistication in terms of interpretation of humour.  And telling a joke poorly is a lesser sin than getting upset at a joke, any joke, because it is in fact a joke and therefore not to be taken seriously.  Call it a crap joke all you like but getting upset about it is a bit...I dunno.

And its not a basic tenet of comedy to not make the victim the butt of a joke, not at all.  In fact, one could conclusively argue that laughter in and of itself is something pretty harsh.  Its related to the way pack animals tend to seperate a weak on from the bunch so as not to weaken the pack.  I'm not arguing for that as the heart and soul of comedy but it has been argued before now.  Look at things like slapstick, in slapstick you laugh directly at the victim.  Why is Fat Lady Falls Down A Hole so funny to so many, whoose being laughed at there if not the victim? 

If I understood Deeds, he points out how central "context" is. So the slapstick is in a context that reinterprets and repositions the victim. The comic takes on a role of victim. I dont think this disagrees with what he wrote?

5 hours ago, Angelica said:

FFS, what a bunch of crap. Tolerating racism = offering tacit approval of it. And we do, as a society, still tolerate it.  If we didn’t, institutional racism wouldn’t still be such a devestating reality.

And that’s basically exactly why most people are sensitive to racist discourse, however harmless it may seem to you. Because institutional racism still exists, not ‘because of slavery’ (seriously, Jesus Christ). 

Roseanne lost her career because she posted some dumb racist shit and ABC decided she was too much of a risk (and it’s by no means the first incendiary thing she’s tweeted). 

As to comedians, humor and where lines should or shouldn’t get drawn, it’s all context and intent. 

 

Yes! This!

[killuridols]

7 hours ago, wasted said:

Firstly I would say everyone has or will make a mistake. I don’t think one tweet from Roseanne deserves her to lose her career. I think the reason we think she deserves to lose her career is slavery. One tweet isn’t perpetuating racism to an significant degree, treating people as a protected race is as damaging. Accepting apologises brings people together, to throw someone away only breeds tribalism. And this leads to violence. I guess my liberalism extends to even have stmpathy for bigots and racists. I want to understand what or why they think these things. 

How in the hell did she lose her "entire career"?  she just got ONE fucking show cancelled and this is not a woman in her 20s with a damaged future. This is an old millionaire woman who remains in television just for the sake of keeping dinosaurs roaring conservative shit alive.

Kudos to ABC and I'm sure in a few months some other bigoted channel will give her a new chance. Either way, she should retire the fuck off.

"Treating people as a protected race"? What the hell are you saying?!! Do YOU REALLY THINK the black race is protected??  

Yes, sir, one tweet is not "a comment passing by". It is a written testament of your ideology and if something like that will stay in the annals of the Internet and can be found by others, then those words are helping to perpetuate racism because that woman has million of followers. She's got an audience who follows her, she is a communicator and she should be held responsible for the things she tweets and the things she says in the public arena of media.

7 hours ago, wasted said:

And again she was trying to make a joke about someone she thought was white. There’s very little tolerance going on. Comedians can’t riff on twitter. Freedom of speech is very important to comedians I think, to speak truth to power. But there is a nit picky word thing going on.

Why are you justifying this idiot? You like being racist, right?

Explain how a joke about someone's appearance can derive from not knowing what the person looked like?  It makes no fucking sense, does it make sense to you?

It is obviously bullshit and what you say is bullshit as well. "Freedom of speech is important to speak truth to power"... oh really? Then why attack an oppressed group?? So ridiculous!

What does Jarrett appearance have to do with her performance as a woman in politics? Absolutely nothing. Criticizing her looks is taking things back to high school, with the difference that Roseanne is not 8 years old but 60+, which makes the whole thing even more pathetic and even more racist than it looks like.

[Len Cnut]

Personally I'm all for people saying racist shit.  Hey, why not, if its how you're feeling and there's a forum for it get it out there in the open.  It won't ever happen because corporate interests won't allow it but...I feel like if people got shit on their mind lets have it.  I grew up with Bernard Manning and Chubby Brown in the culture, I ain't afraid of that shit.  As for Roseanne Barr I couldn't give a flying shit about her fat arse or her bullshit TV show but hey, if she feels some kinda way about something and wants to say it on twitter why not? 

If people are racists you can't shout them down out of it, we live in the Alt-Right era, the Trump era, the Tommy Robinson and Lauren Southern era, there is clearly a lot of steam behind this shit and nothing gets fixed by a clampdown.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Personally I'm all for people saying racist shit.  Hey, why not, if its how you're feeling and there's a forum for it get it out there in the open.  It won't ever happen because corporate interests won't allow it but...I feel like if people got shit on their mind lets have it.  I grew up with Bernard Manning and Chubby Brown in the culture, I ain't afraid of that shit.  As for Roseanne Barr I couldn't give a flying shit about her fat arse or her bullshit TV show but hey, if she feels some kinda way about something and wants to say it on twitter why not? 

If people are racists you can't shout them down out of it, we live in the Alt-Right era, the Trump era, the Tommy Robinson and Lauren Southern era, there is clearly a lot of steam behind this shit and nothing gets fixed by a clampdown.

I sort of agree with the idea that if people are racist, they might as well express it. At least it gets out in the open and we can confront it. But one problem of racism is how it hurts people, and racists going round saying hurtful words certainly won't help that. It's like arguing that violent people might as well hit people, to get it out there. Racist comments is a problem in itself because of the effect they have on people, not just a mildly annoying symptom of a much more serious disease. I have no idea how that related to Len's post, nor what I really advocates 

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I sort of agree with the idea that if people are racist, they might as well express it. At least it gets out in the open and we can confront it. But one problem of racism is how it hurts people, and racists going round saying hurtful words certainly won't help that. It's like arguing that violent people might as well hit people, to get it out there. Racist comments is a problem in itself because of the effect they have on people, not just a mildly annoying symptom of a much more serious disease. I have no idea how that related to Len's post, nor what I really advocates 

What effect do you feel it has?

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

What effect do you feel it has?

 

I am privileged in the sense that I can't ever remember having been discriminated against, but I suppose victims of racial slurs and attacks feel hurt, sorrow, exasperation and anger. 

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am privileged in the sense that I can't ever remember having been discriminated against, but I suppose victims of racial slurs and attacks feel hurt, sorrow, exasperation and anger. 

So then how far do we take this principle?  Why limit it to racism as a form of prejudice?  Fat people, people with big noses, people with small dicks, people with hairy backs, do we then shut down negative comment about all of these, whether in the form of jest or whatever form it might take because people might feel hurt or sorrowful or angered or exasperated?

[DieselDaisy]

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It's like arguing that violent people might as well hit people, to get it out there

Stokes never tried that one at court!

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So then how far do we take this principle?  Why limit it to racism as a form of prejudice?  Fat people, people with big noses, people with small dicks, people with hairy backs, do we then shut down negative comment about all of these, whether in the form of jest or whatever form it might take because people might feel hurt or sorrowful or angered or exasperated?

As a guiding principle, I think we should always try to refrain from hurting others. It is not always possible though, but at least we should always consider what effect our words may have on others. But there is a huge difference between a stand up comedian being edgy and a white supremacist shouting racist slurs at passer-bys. The former do it for comedy to an audience who wants to hear it, the latter to intimidate innocents. What I absolutely disagrees with is the notion that everything is okay as long as one is funny, or attempts to be, as if the comedic gratification of those that express something is more important than the effect it has on those who hear it. That is callous, cold and selfish. 

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As a guiding principle, I think we should always try to refrain from hurting others. It is not always possible though, but at least we should always consider what effect our words may have on others. But there is a huge difference between a stand up comedian being edgy and a white supremacist shouting racist slurs at passer-bys. The former do it for comedy to an audience who wants to hear it, the latter to intimidate innocents. What I absolutely disagrees with is the notion that everything is okay as long as one is funny, or attempts to be, as if the comedic gratification of those that express something is more important than the effect it has on those who hear it. That is callous, cold and selfish. 

How do you, in real terms, legislate for such degrees?

[wasted]

3 hours ago, soon said:

Canada produces an abundance of incredible comedians so its only proper that I step into this conversation. We're literally the best at funny as proven by science.

I'm in to the conversations around comedy happening lately. Mainly the "funny only" vs " Use Your Platform (social contribution) and Funny." I mostly fall on the side of "funny only" but to me its a flawed debate because comedy is a social contribution and has always contributed to public discourse and change while "only" being funny.

I went to see a left of centre comedian and he spent the last half of his stage time talking about the disgusting treatment of irregular arrivals in Australia. Really sad and important issue. But there were no jokes or comedic tones to it at all. I am so opposed to this - mainly thats not what I signed up for and paid good money for. But also: no one going to see a lefty comedian is unaware of these issues. So live inside them and add to the culture of resistance with your stand up set. Thats my opinion at least.

Spot on! 

I really dont understand how you can claim to know a persons motive? Like you dont really know if someone is limiting there speech because of some fuzzy, opaque concept like "PC." They just might not think in ways that would harm people and have better comedic choices in the arsenal.

Id give my money for people with deep wells of funny that dont need to essentially throw things around and see what sticks. And If I did get to see a comedian workshopping a new act and therefore improving Id pay to see one that has a substance and character that wouldnt think to harm people.

If I understood Deeds, he points out how central "context" is. So the slapstick is in a context that reinterprets and repositions the victim. The comic takes on a role of victim. I dont think this disagrees with what he wrote?

Yes! This!

I think that’s a utopia though, or like watching the world cup. You need all the lower leagues to get the players developed. Same with the arts. People go to small exhibitions and say that’s not art, it’s not as fully realised as Picasso. But if you want the cream you gotta milk a cow or two. 

I’m just lost in the rhetoric and intrepreting celebrity sackings as they come. Nobody is PC though, Seinfeld was dating a 17 year old jewish school girl at the peak of his fame. 

What I see is ABC and the like making decisions for the audience way before ratings dropped or there was any kind of dialogue. It’s just one thing in a sea of unknowns. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

How do you, in real terms, legislate for such degrees?

You mean with laws? That's hard and I think the most common approach has been to make, say, racial expressions illegal, make slander and libel illegal, make discrimination illegal, and so on. The laws are typically rather fuzzy in wording, or fuzzy to execute, so that it really becomes up to the police and judges or whatever to interpret and decide whether the law is broken in each case. I mean, the problem is not putting it down in legislature, but actually enforcing it in a fair and consistent way, so you don't end up treating the beforementioned stand-up comedian the same way as the white supremacist. And it will always come down to whatever the police and judges think is too much. But I haven't been talking about laws around this in this thread, just about the morality of it, the way I see it.

And again, I am not advocating for a society where we are too afraid to hurt someone's feelings that we don't dare to discuss controversial topics. We have to discuss things, also those things that may hurt people, but the purpose is a sharing of minds, to think things through, to maybe learn something, and it is between consensual adults -- and it is never to hurt anyone. If that happens it should be unfortunate collateral damage. I can be pretty abrasive at times and often confrontational and, uhm, heavy-handed in discussions. But again, these are discussions that people seek out. I don't stand on the village corner screaming out how ridiculous it is to be against GMO to random guys that pass by. I don't willingly seek out people who are not interested in discussing with me to confront them with something I find silly. It's a time and place for everything, especially these things. But then there are situations where insulting people are unavoidable, and you have to consider the benefits vs the damage. Like abortion laws. Some people get offended simply by discussions on abortion in the newspaper, or by abortion laws that are passed. That's too bad, but again, you can't put a damper on progress (or whatever it is) because someone might object to it and feel personally hurt. You have to look at the benefits that are reached and consider whether it is worth it. And I not advocating anything here, other than the idea that occasionally we have to accept that some people will be offended. We can't become a society of delicate flowers where we never express anything controversial out of fear of hurting someone, that will incapacitate us entirely. But this last argument again doesn't invalidate the guiding principle of always trying to refrain from hurting others. If there are no other benefit from insulting someone than the questionable benefit of having a laugh or feeling better in a heated argument, then I don't think that is good enough. It all comes down to common decency, I suppose. It really isn't that complicated. Don't be a cunt. Always consider the feelings of others.

[soon]

12 minutes ago, wasted said:

I think that’s a utopia though, or like watching the world cup. You need all the lower leagues to get the players developed. Same with the arts. People go to small exhibitions and say that’s not art, it’s not as fully realised as Picasso. But if you want the cream you gotta milk a cow or two. 

I’m just lost in the rhetoric and intrepreting celebrity sackings as they come. Nobody is PC though, Seinfeld was dating a 17 year old jewish school girl at the peak of his fame. 

What I see is ABC and the like making decisions for the audience way before ratings dropped or there was any kind of dialogue. It’s just one thing in a sea of unknowns. 

Im not sure if Im following you properly - Patrice (RIP) and Roseanne are development league players who need space to perfect their craft?

I actually forgot that you were speaking to the issue of Roseanne so maybe I've just confused matters. Sorry if thats the case. 

But on that subject if I had an employee who is publicly associated with my company act that way I would not want to be associated with them. I wouldn't wait for ratings either. And thats not to mention that whats really playing out is powerful corporations are wielding the power they have to counter the power of Trump White House which was designed in no small part by the white supremacist Steve Bannon. To overlook that and instead point to some sorta FB-era PC backlash is, imo, not going to produce an accurate understanding of the situation. 

[wasted]

3 hours ago, killuridols said:

How in the hell did she lose her "entire career"?  she just got ONE fucking show cancelled and this is not a woman in her 20s with a damaged future. This is an old millionaire woman who remains in television just for the sake of keeping dinosaurs roaring conservative shit alive.

Kudos to ABC and I'm sure in a few months some other bigoted channel will give her a new chance. Either way, she should retire the fuck off.

"Treating people as a protected race"? What the hell are you saying?!! Do YOU REALLY THINK the black race is protected??  

Yes, sir, one tweet is not "a comment passing by". It is a written testament of your ideology and if something like that will stay in the annals of the Internet and can be found by others, then those words are helping to perpetuate racism because that woman has million of followers. She's got an audience who follows her, she is a communicator and she should be held responsible for the things she tweets and the things she says in the public arena of media.

Why are you justifying this idiot? You like being racist, right?

Explain how a joke about someone's appearance can derive from not knowing what the person looked like?  It makes no fucking sense, does it make sense to you?

It is obviously bullshit and what you say is bullshit as well. "Freedom of speech is important to speak truth to power"... oh really? Then why attack an oppressed group?? So ridiculous!

What does Jarrett appearance have to do with her performance as a woman in politics? Absolutely nothing. Criticizing her looks is taking things back to high school, with the difference that Roseanne is not 8 years old but 60+, which makes the whole thing even more pathetic and even more racist than it looks like.

It’s really about consistency. You either have freedom of speech or not. This is the toughest one. 

Yeah I think she’s pretty done. And her show was basically a liberal show. 

I think you’re misunderstanding me, I said I think there’s a danger to protecting groups in this heavy handed way. Not that racism isn’t bad or we shouldn’t do anything about it. Like I said the ABC way leads to tribalism. I would suggest a less dictatorial style and probably let the market decide Roseanne’s fate. Along the way maybe real change will happen. But this way keeps the cycle of abuse going. If you want tolerance you have be tolerant yourself. 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You mean with laws? That's hard and I think the most common approach has been to make, say, racial expressions illegal, make slander and libel illegal, make discrimination illegal, and so on. The laws are typically rather fuzzy in wording, or fuzzy to execute, so that it really becomes up to the police and judges or whatever to interpret and decide whether the law is broken in each case. I mean, the problem is not putting it down in legislature, but actually enforcing it in a fair and consistent way, so you don't end up treating the beforementioned stand-up comedian the same way as the white supremacist. And it will always come down to whatever the police and judges think is too much. But I haven't been talking about laws around this in this thread, just about the morality of it, the way I see it.

And again, I am not advocating for a society where we are too afraid to hurt someone's feelings that we don't dare to discuss controversial topics. We have to discuss things, also those things that may hurt people, but the purpose is a sharing of minds, to think things through, to maybe learn something, and it is between consensual adults -- and it is never to hurt anyone. If that happens it should be unfortunate collateral damage. I can be pretty abrasive at times and often confrontational and, uhm, heavy-handed in discussions. But again, these are discussions that people seek out. I don't stand on the village corner screaming out how ridiculous it is to be against GMO to random guys that pass by. I don't willingly seek out people who are not interested in discussing with me to confront them with something I find silly. It's a time and place for everything, especially these things. But then there are situations where insulting people are unavoidable, and you have to consider the benefits vs the damage. Like abortion laws. Some people get offended simply by discussions on abortion in the newspaper, or by abortion laws that are passed. That's too bad, but again, you can't put a damper on progress (or whatever it is) because someone might object to it and feel personally hurt. You have to look at the benefits that are reached and consider whether it is worth it. And I not advocating anything here, other than the idea that occasionally we have to accept that some people will be offended. We can't become a society of delicate flowers where we never express anything controversial out of fear of hurting someone, that will incapacitate us entirely. But this last argument again doesn't invalidate the guiding principle of always trying to refrain from hurting others. If there are no other benefit from insulting someone than the questionable benefit of having a laugh or feeling better in a heated argument, then I don't think that is good enough. It all comes down to common decency, I suppose. It really isn't that complicated. Don't be a cunt. Always consider the feelings of others.

The problem is a lot of the stuff you're chattin' about is like, common decency stuff.  And if they had any of that they wouldn't be racist cunts in the first place.  So it comes back to my point, how does a society handle this stuff?  You can't effectively legislate for it...so what, just carry on like, I dunno, firing people from jobs, ostracising them from society etc etc?  I mean I understand an employer not wanting David Duke working behind their checkouts or whatever but...I dunno, I don't think thats a solution.  The beauty of freedom of speech is that its ultimately always productive because it promotes discourse etc.  Shutting people down, throwing words into prison doesn't help.  Especialy when, apparently, there are a great deal of it about, way too much to simply like, compartmentalise them and brush em under the carpet and pretend like it ain't happening.

So what then?  And thats why my response is as it is, fuck it, let em speak, get it out there.  But what I do think though, is that if you do say some shit like that and someone kicks your head in don't complain.  Like Angelica was saying earlier about freedom of speech without consequence.  I'm not saying its right but thats reality, if you play around you might lay around.

[wasted]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

Im not sure if Im following you properly - Patrice (RIP) and Roseanne are development league players who need space to perfect their craft?

I actually forgot that you were speaking to the issue of Roseanne so maybe I've just confused matters. Sorry if thats the case. 

But on that subject if I had an employee who is publicly associated with my company act that way I would not want to be associated with them. I wouldn't wait for ratings either. And thats not to mention that whats really playing out is powerful corporations are wielding the power they have to counter the power of Trump White House which was designed in no small part by the white supremacist Steve Bannon. To overlook that and instead point to some sorta FB-era PC backlash is, imo, not going to produce an accurate understanding of the situation. 

There might be something to that. That’s how I see it, politically motivated. 

No I just using Roseanne as a known example. But the extension of freedom of speech is Roseanne needed it to develop to who she is, and the whole of comedy needs it. If they start getting shut down because they support Trump the world is doomed. Comics need space to fuck up. The race thing is low hanging fruit to go after people for. But when you want to give little kids growth hormones to change sex, the celebrity who says something might also get ruined. It’s where it’s going more than where it’s at. It’s all nice playing in the 60s idealism area. I just see trouble up ahead. 

I woukd suggest breaking the tribalism cycle. But that doesn’t get you elected. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

The problem is a lot of the stuff you're chattin' about is like, common decency stuff.  And if they had any of that they wouldn't be racist cunts in the first place.  So it comes back to my point, how does a society handle this stuff?  You can't effectively legislate for it...so what, just carry on like, I dunno, firing people from jobs, ostracising them from society etc etc?  I mean I understand an employer not wanting David Duke working behind their checkouts or whatever but...I dunno, I don't think thats a solution.  The beauty of freedom of speech is that its ultimately always productive because it promotes discourse etc.  Shutting people down, throwing words into prison doesn't help.  Especialy when, apparently, there are a great deal of it about, way too much to simply like, compartmentalise them and brush em under the carpet and pretend like it ain't happening.

So what then?  And thats why my response is as it is, fuck it, let em speak, get it out there.  But what I do think though, is that if you do say some shit like that and someone kicks your head in don't complain.  Like Angelica was saying earlier about freedom of speech without consequence.  I'm not saying its right but thats reality, if you play around you might lay around.

I think we need to engage racists in discussions, not shut them out. I never think it is a good strategy to shut someone out, that just creates more polarization. It is disrespectful. And separately from this we need to try to do something with what causes people to become racists, the underlying mechanisms that make people think some people have less worth and should be discriminated against purely based on their ethnicity; basically treat the underlying problem, not just attacks racist people for their opinions. So we need to look at parenting, how our schools work, how race is portrayed in media, look at the connection between poverty and lack of education and racism, spread knowledge about the genetic basis of racism, and strengthen humanism as a guiding principle for everybody, etc etc. I have probably forgotten many obvious things. But there are no quick fix here, obviously, we need to work at it continuously, and since it is a part of our nature we will never eradicate it entirely. But I am sure we can do a lot more than we are doing today, and I think that general attempts at reducing inequality, eradicate poverty, and improve our educational systems, will greatly reduce racism.

[wasted]

18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The problem is a lot of the stuff you're chattin' about is like, common decency stuff.  And if they had any of that they wouldn't be racist cunts in the first place.  So it comes back to my point, how does a society handle this stuff?  You can't effectively legislate for it...so what, just carry on like, I dunno, firing people from jobs, ostracising them from society etc etc?  I mean I understand an employer not wanting David Duke working behind their checkouts or whatever but...I dunno, I don't think thats a solution.  The beauty of freedom of speech is that its ultimately always productive because it promotes discourse etc.  Shutting people down, throwing words into prison doesn't help.  Especialy when, apparently, there are a great deal of it about, way too much to simply like, compartmentalise them and brush em under the carpet and pretend like it ain't happening.

So what then?  And thats why my response is as it is, fuck it, let em speak, get it out there.  But what I do think though, is that if you do say some shit like that and someone kicks your head in don't complain.  Like Angelica was saying earlier about freedom of speech without consequence.  I'm not saying its right but thats reality, if you play around you might lay around.

I just don’t see a lot of outright racism going on. Those kind of people come over as mentally ill. They don’t apologize. They just keep saying stuff. 

It’s like everyone is nazi now, but really if you are you don’t get very far do you. It’s all hyped by the media. There’s 200 of these guys at rallies. 

But it’s prob not the answer to start belting nazis. Then you become what you hate. I think you need to undeestand how they got to that place. In a place like America full of opportunity why become a nazi? Why not get some weed and go watch The Last Jedi. There’s a wafflehouse stays open all night. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by wasted