Escaping the Echo Chamber

[elengil]

You're assuming an awful lot there. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, not a weapon. I'm not in the camp that says nothing is inappropriate, but I do think that we risk swinging too far the other way, and if everything is offensive, then nothing is.

Things that were offensive were 'okay' for so long, that I can in a way understand why it feels 'everything' is offensive now, but it isn't. Things that are offensive are just being labeled as such. Yes, some individuals take it too far, but on the whole it's labeling things that are wrong as wrong instead of okay.

I am always amused by those who say "everything is so offensive now!" when usually they are the ones who would have been so offended by, oh say, a black person drinking from the same water fountain as them, or going to their high school. They were the snowflakes of the previous generations who suddenly think we're all too sensitive now. It's just back then they were the majority and so could impose their delicate sensibilities on everyone else.

Yes, this mostly applies in America. The point still stands. Things have always been seen as offensive, but it just was seen as okay to offend those people. The people it wasn't okay to offend were the ones not offended by those jokes. It's not okay anymore, and it shouldn't be. But simply because a joke you like is no longer okay doesn't mean you're suddenly the one under attack.

[Alatar]

Yes, this mostly applies in America.

That's probably the key thing here. America seems to think its ok to dictate to everyone globally what is and isn't offensive, when frankly, most of us don't have the same baggage, by which I mean, we have the same amount of baggage but our baggage is different.


There's a lot of hand wavy stuff about how things were "wrong" before but now we're being told what's "right" and its just as myopic. Someone in America doesn't get to tell me what is and isn't offensive, just because its offensive to THEM any more than I get to tell them its NOT cause its isn't to ME. But in a thread called "Escaping the Echo Chamber" we're meant to actually think about it, not kneejerk about how everyone is so much more woke now.

[yovargas]

I'm not in the camp that says nothing is inappropriate

I would be very genuinely interested in hearing more about what you do think is inappropriate.

For the record, while I didn't hear the full LCK bit, what I read did not strike me as problematic.

[Alatar]

Honestly, I'm not sure Yov. Something funny said by one person could be extremely offensive said by someone else. I'm reminded of the (pretty bad) movie where Chris Rock gets bodyswapped with an old White guy and tries doing his old material. The "Black Malls" routine doesn't work when its an old White guy making the jokes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[For the record, while I didn't hear the full LCK bit, what I read did not strike me as problematic.

I thought his 'jokes' mocking the Parkland shooting survivors were both not funny and borderline inappropriate, particularly the "You didn’t get shot. You pushed some fat kid in the way, and now I’ve got to listen to you talking?"

[elengil]

Yes, this mostly applies in America.

That's probably the key thing here. America seems to think its ok to dictate to everyone globally what is and isn't offensive, when frankly, most of us don't have the same baggage, by which I mean, we have the same amount of baggage but our baggage is different.


There's a lot of hand wavy stuff about how things were "wrong" before but now we're being told what's "right" and its just as myopic. Someone in America doesn't get to tell me what is and isn't offensive, just because its offensive to THEM any more than I get to tell them its NOT cause its isn't to ME. But in a thread called "Escaping the Echo Chamber" we're meant to actually think about it, not kneejerk about how everyone is so much more woke now.

I think most of the world has it's fair share of baggage, even if it takes different specific forms. I'm sure Europe is only too happy to try to forget they were the ones who introduced slavery to the New World, not the Americans. But that doesn't absolve America of its baggage, either. Pointing fingers is not the point. You can bitch about Americans trying to tell you what is or isn't funny, and Americans will bitch about you telling them that a drink called the Irish Car Bomb is or isn't meant to be a joke, and both sides will miss the ultimate point.

Why is it so hard to say let's stop being dicks to one another, especially by trying to co-opt humor to do so? Just joking is not a good enough excuse to be a dick. I am not being knee-jerky, I'm replying to the rant you posted which seemed to think that the cover of comedy or "it's just a joke" justifies any matter of horrible things said.

I am saying if comedy is merely taking something offensive and using it to bludgeon someone already being hurt by it just to get a laugh out of those not affected, that is not comedy or funny in the least. Comedy should be about taking something and making us see it in a new light or turning the expected on its head. It's using humor to find common ground or make a broader point more palatable because we're laughing while we're being asked to see the world through another person's eyes.

As I said before, a joke which necessarily must denigrate a person or group which is already hurt is a bad joke. Not every joke will resonate with all people, regardless, but I think jokes which don't harm others by the telling are the ones that will last the test of time.

Or to put it another way:

Klinger : I'm writing my Uncle Abdul about what it's like over here-doctors, nurses, saving lives. Well, I got a commanding officer who dresses me up in his clothes and sits me on a horse named Sophie so he can paint his own picture. There's a priest writing war ditties. And a snooty major who pays me twenty bucks to go out into the woods with him and watch him blow up a pigeon with a land mine. And if that doesn't beat all, I got a head nurse who shoots unarmed luggage. All you guys do is tell jokes. What the hell's so funny about that?

Everything has a context, no?

[Alatar]

Yes, but again you're defending the extreme, rather than the middle ground. For instance, what did you think of the Tommy Tiernan clip above? Offensive?

[elengil]

Yes, but again you're defending the extreme, rather than the middle ground. For instance, what did you think of the Tommy Tiernan clip above? Offensive?

But that's two different views of what constitutes an extreme vs. a middle ground. What makes my stance objectively extreme instead of solidly middle?

I haven't watched the clip yet, and can't at the moment. I will watch tonight.

[Túrin Turambar]

I think it’s important to recognise both the free speech of the person making the joke and the free speech of the person responding to it. I support the right of comedians to make whatever joke they want. I also support the right of anyone else to criticise them if they don’t like the joke, don’t find it funny, or find it offensive. I also support the right of others to criticise that criticism. I think we genuinely have become over-sensitive regarding speech, but I also think some people have been too quick to plead ‘free speech’ in response to criticism when they haven’t actually been silenced or censored in any way.

This obviously gets complicated if someone gets shut out of the media, and you want to continue to watch them. But with the proliferation of media outlets today, including online ones, I’m not sure how much of a problem this is. And I also support the right of private media networks to choose what they show. I might have said this already, but I’m pretty close to an absolutist on free speech.

I also don’t think that the mainstreaming of American values is down to America somehow imposing its values on others. The overwhelming majority of native English speakers are American and most of the world’s largest media companies are based there, so American sensibilities tend to dominate the world’s English-language media. And then there’s globalisation – media markets are much less discrete than they used to be.

[elengil]

I think we genuinely have become over-sensitive regarding speech, but I also think some people have been too quick to plead ‘free speech’ in response to criticism when they haven’t actually been silenced or censored in any way.

Absolutely agree with this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[yovargas]

While it's true that no one's "rights" are being violated because they get criticized, or because criticisms sometimes lead to people getting fired, it's still good to have the discussion about whether or not those consequences are fair or just. There is a certain attitude in the air that reminds me sometimes of the McCarthy era witch hunts, where some hint of something that sounds like Communism could ruin someone's career. McCarthyism was bad even though Communism was a genuine threat (Russians had nukes; comedians do not).

It's good that we are examining the impact of things that have too long been thought of as harmless, but there is also the danger of knee-jerk, reactionary, zealotry. We can criticize bad behavior without setting the Spanish Inquisition on every person who dares commit a sin against liberalism.

[Primula Baggins]

The problem is that when a group of people who have been the victims of such jokes for years exercise their right to object at last, this is often seen as "knee-jerk, reactionary zealotry," as if nobody ever found it necessary to object before and so why should they suddenly do so now? When the fact is that the joke has always been offensive to that group, but the group was not free to speak up. In some cases they would be risking their lives if they spoke up. In other cases it would just be a risk of major social disapproval, which can be enough. I'm glad people feel free to speak up now; I wish I'd spoken up more when I was young.

[yovargas]

Yup. That is also a problem. It's a very difficult issue that requires a subtle, nuanced approach. But modern internet-fueled times don't do subtlety or nuance very well.

[Primula Baggins]

No. But my principle is to grant the benefit of the doubt to the side that’s been at a social disadvantage in the past.

[Alatar]

Does that only apply if the side that's being lampooned is at a social disadvantage? IS it ok to make sweeping generalisations and "inappropriate" jokes about the wealthy, or the successful?

For example: Trump has complained that the SNL skits are essentially anti republican propaganda and purposefully offensive to him. Does he deserve protection, or is that only for the disadvantaged? And who decides where the line is drawn? I'm a middle class middle aged Irishman. Do I get protected because I'm from a country that was oppressed for 800 years, or do I not, cause I'm white and comfortably off?

[Lalaith]

Yes, but again you're defending the extreme, rather than the middle ground. For instance, what did you think of the Tommy Tiernan clip above? Offensive?

No, I didn't find it offensive. He wasn't being mean about people with Down's Syndrome. If anything, he was opening people's eyes to the fact that they're not that different from any of us.

[Primula Baggins]

I would ask whether the “humor” was being used to keep people marginalized—or having the effect of doing so—as “ethnic jokes” and jokes demeaning women’s intelligence were when I was young.

[Alatar]

Its had for me to judge. My daughter just spent a term in University in England and found her fellow students to be very entitled, arrogant and dismissive of Irish people and Eastern Europeans. I haven't heard Irish jokes in years, so I doubt they are the reason for the mindset, but I'm sure the mindset was the original reason for the jokes. Which makes me wonder whether tackling the humour is counter productive. You need to change the mindset, and the humour will follow. Berating people that their sense of humour isn't funny, or is inappropriate, will just drive the problem underground. I think this is part of the reason Brexit passed, and Trump got elected. Because people who have different opinions on immigration and border security get branded Racists, everyone is afraid to hold the opinion, but it shows up in the polls. Liberalism is in some ways becoming its own worst enemy.

[yovargas]

I would ask whether the “humor” was being used to keep people marginalized—or having the effect of doing so—as “ethnic jokes” and jokes demeaning women’s intelligence were when I was young.

I agree with this. It's another way of saying what I had argued for previously - that our primary concern shouldn't be to prevent people from being "offended", but to prevent people from being harmed. Words can do harm even when there is no intention of harm, and marginalizing minorities is one common form of unintentional harm often done by the non-marginalized.

And yes, we should avoid harming people even if they are members of "privileged" groups - whites, men, straights, whatever.

I agree with Lali about the Down Syndrome routine - I'm sure some people were "offended" by it, but I think his words were doing the opposite of marginalizing people with DS. I'd say he was humanizing them.