EvC Forum: Gender and Humor

...

Author

Topic: Gender and Humor

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

onifre Posts Only

Message 211 of 269 (561619)
05-21-2010 10:32 PM

Reply to: Message 208 by cavediver
05-21-2010 6:33 PM

To you and Straggler

1) Not funny (IMO)
2) Vaguely funny (IMO)
3) Still can't stop laughing, and I read it five minutes ago

I agree with both you and Straggler that the poltergeist is ridiculously hilarious...and that's why I gave all 3 of those, because I wanted to see what the reactions were.

Curiously both the angry pirate (which I find hilarious) and the poltergeist (which is my favorite one) are the ones Patrice himself wrote.

The gorilla mask and donkey punch he does to fill space, but they are commonly used by lots of people and just saying donkey punch gets a laugh because most everyone in the US knows what it means. It's like a Dirty Sanchez; people just know what that means.

Forward the video to 3:18min and he gets into all of the sex move names. He starts by just mentioning 'Donkey Punch' and you can see the reaction from the crowd before he even explains what it means. And I'm curious if you or Straggler have a different opinion after he physically performs the joke.

By the way, this was in Canada at the Montreal Festival's Nasty Show. Which just further proves that anyone walking into a nasty show better be ready for NASTY.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 208 by cavediver, posted 05-21-2010 6:33 PM		cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 213 by Straggler, posted 05-23-2010 6:04 PM		onifre has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

onifre Posts Only

Message 212 of 269 (561624)
05-21-2010 11:25 PM

Reply to: Message 210 by Straggler
05-21-2010 7:32 PM

Re: Reluctant Involvement - But Compelled to Join In

This to me is the clinching point.

I almost just replied with that, because to me it summed up the entire discussion. The other stuff is a lot of he-said-she-said crap that is a bit pointless to continue...but I'll be damned if I'll EVER let Rrhain get the last word.

And you and Rrhain have obviously got some past chemistry going on which adds extra spice to the whole affair.

Truth be told, I actually like his arrogance and find it fun to debate him. In this thread he seemed to take it a bit personal. Don't know why, he and I have tangled before, and although it gets heated, it's never been like in this thread.

My opinion (for what it is worth) is that whilst the woman in the vid has every right to complain if she feels offended her basic premise that she is somehow speaking for "the nation" or "the people" is ridiculous.

I agree. Speak up, be heard, but don't take your opinion too serious. You don't speak for a nation you're just speaking for yourself.

But IMHO he was kinda a dick about it and he never made the most salient point that you now have.

Without a doubt he was a complete dick, but he was that type of person to her condescending attitude. She was not there to have a discussion, no one who's sincere about a cause starts off with those PC talking point like "the nation has spoke."

FoxNews pinned two people with opposing personalities because they knew what it would develop into.

- Oni

This message is a reply to:
	Message 210 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 7:32 PM		Straggler has not replied

Straggler

Member

Posts: 10333

From: London England

Joined: 09-30-2006

Straggler Posts Only

Message 213 of 269 (561817)
05-23-2010 6:04 PM

Reply to: Message 211 by onifre
05-21-2010 10:32 PM

Re: To you and Straggler

And I'm curious if you or Straggler have a different opinion after he physically performs the joke.

I never really had a problem with the whole "donkey punch" thing. In the right context I reckon it could be hilarious. As it happens I loosely know a gay guy who comes out with shit like that all the time and who has made a variant of that joke in a situation where it got a very mixed reaction. At the time I was of the "Ahhhhhhhh dude that is too harsssshhhhhh. You cannot say that" camp whilst at the same time laughing my arse off at what he had said (his joke actually involved plunging a screwdriver into the temple of what he called his "man shaped receptacle" at the appropriate point). Sick - Yeah. But this guy has a way with words that makes being lobotomised sound like fun.

Forward the video to 3:18min and he gets into all of the sex move names

The spider-man and the poltergeist are my favourites. The poltergeist still has me chuckling slightly even as I write now.

FoxNews pinned two people with opposing personalities because they knew what it would develop into.

Yep. And they both played their parts almost to the point that we could have scripted their responses for them so predictable were they. Patrice coulda and shoulda done better.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 211 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 10:32 PM		onifre has not replied

Rrhain

Member

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Rrhain Posts Only

Message 214 of 269 (562419)
05-28-2010 3:50 PM

Reply to: Message 199 by onifre
05-14-2010 12:14 PM

onifre responds to me:

quote:
Since you're gonna keep acting like a fag (and I don't mean that in the sexual sense

(*chuckle*) You're trying to pull the "no homo" schtick. Of course, the fact that you even have to say it means that you really do mean it.

Are you incapable of going two minutes without having to check yourself for possible deviation from the facade you've so carefully constructed?

quote:
Playing arm-chair psychologist and then accuse me of doing it first?

(*chuckle*) You really don't know what that means, do you? I am not ascribing motives to your defensiveness. To be honest, I don't really care. I'm simply pointing it out

and noting the specific sequence of events.

quote:
I don't care that there was push back.

Then what are you complaining about? Everybody agrees with the idea that comedians try to be funny and sometimes fail.

So now what?

quote:
This all started because YOU said Patrice was there to defend a joke, when he was not there for that reason because THE JOKE WASN'T HIS TO DEFEND.

Incorrect. That was precisely what he was there for. The host directly asked him to defend the joke: "Here's my question: How can you justify a bad joke, a joke that isn't

funny, doesn't get any laughs, and is about raping the first black woman to ever become the Secretary of State of the United States?"

Didn't you listen to your own source before you posted?

quote:
He gave his opinion, the joke was not offensive.

No, he didn't. He didn't say one thing about the joke. Did you even bother to listen to your own source? He danced around it and refused to say either way. I certainly

get the feeling that he thought it was funny, but he didn't say one way or the other.

quote:
My point is, why listen to ONLY her?

Huh? Who said I'm only listening to her? First thing out of my mouth was reiteration of his point.

But then he kept on talking. He tossed off the universally agreed upon comment that comedians make jokes and sometimes they fall flat. He then spent the rest of his time

claiming she was a humorless bitch and when asked directly by the host to defend the joke, he ducked. She's the one who tried to point out the specifics of why it wasn't

comedy and the closest he came was a lame attempt to say that a homeless guy was never going to be able to rape the Secretary of State as if that has any bearing on the

matter.

So when the host of the segment directly asks the comedian to justify the joke and he dodges and weaves, of course we're going to turn to the other guest. She may be wrong,

but nothing the "expert on funny" said contradicted any of her points because he was doing everything he could to avoid the issue.

quote:
Who is she to determine what's funny or not funny for other people?

Because actions have consequences and when they affect her, it is hardly beyond the pale to push back. Once again, you show that you want there to be no consequences. Free

speech for everybody except those who disagree with you. For all your ranting and raving about how if the joke fails, the comedian won't do it again, you seem to be awfully

adverse to the idea of somebody convincing others that it isn't funny. If O&A get to go on TV and try to be funny, why doesn't she get to go on TV and try to show that they

aren't?

quote:
If SHE doesn't find it funny then it's not funny TO HER. I personally thought the bit was hilarious. Why does her opinion out weight mine?

Because is there not a social contract that abuse isn't funny? That something that leads to physical violence isn't really something to joke about? That seriously

contemplating attacking someone isn't an act of comedy?

We're back to my starting position: We need to analyze the joke. Why do you think it's funny?

quote:
Analyzing the joke? Why? I found it funny, she didn't. Ok. Who gives a fuck? There, I've analyzed it.

Oh, then we should all understand why it is comedic. Why should all understand why you think it's funny, even if any individual person doesn't find it so.

Oh, that's right. You didn't analyze it. You just said you found it funny. Nobody is arguing with that. No wonder you're dodging and weaving. The question is, why is it

comedy? Why is the broadcast of a homeless person's serious comments about raping someone an act of comedy?

quote:
I mean honestly, where do you get off thinking you can analyze the potential humor of a joke?

Because as a performing artist, I'm trained to do so. It's called "Script Analysis" and while it contains a lot more than just "finding the funny," it is an extremely

important part, especially when doing comedy.

Take farce. A common phrase describing it is "comedy of doors." Most classic farces for the stage have a room with half a dozen doors in them. Why? Because the comedy

comes from the near misses as one character leaves immediately as another one enters. It introduces tension as the audience waits for the moment when the timing finally

fails and the people who have been missing each other finally collide.

Now, you're probably going to whine that I'm talking about theatre and you're talking about stand up. That's irrelevant. The techniques are the same even if the

presentations aren't the same. You build your tension through the narrative where concepts and ideas are passing each other by the narrowest of margins only to have them

finally collide as you hit the punchline. That you do it with words while the actor does it with a body doesn't mean the underlying concept is any different. Take a look at

the work of Bob Newhart and you'll see it in the scenes he does.

quote:
Something completely subjective.

Not at all. Again, while there is no accounting for taste, there are plenty of objective parts to humor and why something is comedic. Things like the Rule of Three: By

establishing a pattern, you achieve comedic effect by breaking it. But, you can't spend too long on the pattern or it becomes monotonous and the joke falls flat. You set up

a concept, repeat it to establish pattern, and then break it. It's how running gags work.

Stan Freberg's The United States of America: The Early Years shows this well. It's a radio play with a running gag. An event happens with a fanfare from the

orchestra. One of the characters says, "What was that?" and the response is, "French horns." A little bit later, it happens again: Fanfare, "What was that?" "French

horns."

But that happens early in the script. Near the end of the production, you've practically forgotten about it, a different fanfare, "What was that?" "English horns."

The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged). Act II, Hamlet. The entire act is filled with just that play and they finally get to the end, everyone is dead.

Thank you! Thank you! And now we shall do it faster! And after watching Hamlet already reduced to 40 minutes from 4 hours, it goes by in 2 minutes. Thank you! Thank

you! And now we shall do it...FASTER! And this time, there's no actual acting, just the three characters scream and immediately die.

That's two...you can see where it's going.

Thank you! Thank you! And now we shall do it...BACKWARDS!

You can get away with it because of the Rule of Three. That is humor. Objective, even mechanistic, and it works.

quote:
Next, lets analyze the emotional meaning of poems or colors... christ you're a douche.

Read: "I don't have a response to your points, so I'll simply lash out."

Funny, the BBC has an entire series about rules of comedy. Some of them are straight out of theatre. For example: Show, don't tell. It's why slapstick works. It's

physical and visceral and thus has more connection to the audience than exposition.

There's the production from the Edinburgh Festival, The Rules of Comedy. They discuss things like near misses, wordplay, and physical comedy. The third act is to

take Hamlet and apply the rules presented from the first two acts to show how it can be made funny.

The French philosopher Henri Bergson wrote about it in Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. It brings up three rules: Inversion, Repetition, and

Reciprocal Interference.

It seems you haven't bothered to actually study your own field. Just because you're lazy doesn't mean everybody else is.

quote:
All I'm saying is - and maybe in this case you can use your superhuman ability to comprehend - the people listening to the O&A show will speak up on the matter.

People like Sonia Ossario.

Oh, but she disagrees with you, therefore we can ignore her and call her...what was the word you used?...oh, that's right: A cunt.

quote:
Do you agree or not?

Of course I agree. The problem is, you don't even believe your own hype. You want to shut her down because she doesn't agree with you. You want to be able to say whatever

you want without there being any consequences.

quote:
Are you saying people can't make misogynistic jokes? Or racist jokes?

I'm saying people should not be surprised to find that they have to suffer the consequences for doing so. You, however, seem to want people who make sexist and racist jokes

to have no blowback of any kind.

quote:
Christ you're a fucking douche...

Read: "I don't have a response to your points, so I'll simply lash out."

Let's try it again: Are you saying that consensual sex is equivalent to rape?

See, this is that analysis of the humor of a joke comes in, which you seem to think is impossible. As I stated before, and many a comic has pointed out, comedy and tragedy

are not that different from each other. When it happens to me, it's tragedy. When it happens to you, it's comedy. A particular act can go from humorous to offensive simply

by changing the context in which it happens.

quote:
Sorry dude, I have enough trouble keeping up with mine.

The fact that you cannot help but to speculate about mine indicates otherwise. You're always the one projecting your fantasy life onto me.

quote:
I made two comments about the fact that you mentioned dick twice.

Neither one of which had anything to do with sex. The fact that you immediately jumped to a fantasy of sex associated with me upon hearing the word "dick" is quite telling.

quote:
You're stupid little jokes about people having a fascination with your sex life, if I recall, was something you and CS would banter on about. Not you and I.

You seem to have taken up the mantle for you have engaged in the same problem he had: Jumping to an absurd conclusion when nobody has made any mention of such in

conversation.

You, however, have somehow become incapable of thinking about a penis without immediately having fantasies of sexual activity involving me. Nobody ever mentioned such, but

somehow you've connected "penis" to my sex life. You've never bothered to explain why, you've simply assumed it to be equivalent.

[Hint to Modulous: See, I'm turning his own "joke" back on him. If it's inappropriate when I do it to him, then it is inappropriate when he does it to me and it will be

inappropriate for you to single me out. Three wrongs don't make a right.]

quote:
Honestly, I personally thought you were gay. Not joking. You're a theater guy, you make a lot of gay jokes when you talk to CS so, I just kinda figured. But I wasn't

insulting your sexuality (or what I thought was your sexuality), seriously.

Clearly not or you wouldn't be so insistent about it. I know it's frustrating that I never follow along in your attempts to suss me out. But when you make jokes about my

avatar, constantly indicate your fascination with where I put my penis, then there's something more going on. Your claim that you "weren't insulting my sexuality" is

disingenuous at best.

Let's not play dumb.

quote:
And believe me, if I was gay I'd be proud as fuck about it. I'd be the best ass fucker out there. I'd brag about all the ass I pounded over the weekend, etc. I have no

issue with sexuality. But I'm not, which is a shame cos I'd really make a lot of men happy.

Oh, silly boy. What makes you think you're a top?

quote:
Rape being funny in one particular joke will lead to rape?

Right, because without any consequences to their actions, it isn't like they'd ever repeat the process. You're having a black-or-white moment, thinking that so long as it's

only a little bad, then it doesn't actually have any effect. As I asked so many posts ago, don't you think that the way we joke about women might have some effect upon how

we treat them? The very fact that they thought this was funny, was something to be presented to a national audience, and that they extended the comments to include violent

assault are very much part and parcel of why women are assaulted and raped.

As I said previously, I'm hardly saying that this is the lynchpin, that this one event is the direct cause of a rape that happened twenty minutes later. Again, they can't

control Junior seeing Daddy beat up Mommy. But what they can do is control their own show to ensure that serious statements about raping a woman don't get broadcast and they

don't get expanded into punching women in the face.

quote:
Be honest, you're gay, right?

And here we go again. Why are you so keen to know? Look, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm not going to have sex with you before you let it go? You claim you

don't care, but you can't go five minutes without asking about it.

quote:
Dude, relax, some of my best friends have sex with gay people.

Yes, but they're only throwing you pity fucks. Apparently they think you'll get over it they've had you, but I know you never will.

quote:
In fact, I specifically ignored all that rethoric in your post cos it was getting stupid.

See, that's the funny thing about the Internet: Your words tend to stick around. The eighth sentence you uttered was to fall for the trap:

I don't even know what you mean by this, but it's the second dick reference you've made in this post so I'm assuming you have cock on your mind...so I'll just ignore this

one.

Your claim that you "ignored" it is trivially proven false by your own words. You specifically and deliberately responded to it. Just like I knew you would.

quote:
Both you and I are not homophobic

Your words betray you. Now, I'm hardly saying you go around lying in wait outside of gay bars waiting to commit murder. However, your continued obsession with my sex life

couched in derogatory statements about me having sex with other men belies your claim that you're not homophobic. The fact that you saw the word "dick" and immediately

responded with "I'm assuming you have cock on your mind" shows that you truly are. Let's not play dumb and have a "doesn't kick puppies" moment.

quote:
its clear that we are both in a business where we almost couldn't be.

Huh? I realize that it's a cliche that men in the the performing arts are gay, but they're not. Though it is fun to see the scared, straight boys suddenly realize that

they're sharing a dressing room with a gay man. Doing shows for years and suddenly they get so self-conscious. You'd think they'd have learned by now that there is no such

thing as "privacy" in the theatre.

I recall doing The Rocky Horror Show, playing Brad. The space was unusual in that there was no way I could get backstage to change into my Floor Show costume, so I

had to do it behind the audience. And not just a simple costume change, oh no. I had to strip completely naked. I had a dresser to help get the fishnets, panties, and

shoes on while I concentrated on the bustier and makeup change. Of course, this meant she got to kneel down in front of me with my cock and balls directly in her face while

a couple other actors had to squeeze their way past us to make their entrances. A beautiful scene looking exactly like I'm getting a blowjob under the stands.

And of course, we all laughed about it, but nobody paid it no nevermind because that's just what has to be done. It would never have occurred to any of us to actually try to

do something. Your mind simply doesn't go there.

But oh, those boys who are insecure about their sexuality sure do get nervous around someone who isn't doing anything.

quote:
No one mentioned anything about a penis till you brought it up.

Indeed, but here's where those super-literacy powers need to activate:

Does the use of the word "penis" in "I'm sorry about his penis" mean that I'm referring to his literal sex life or perhaps it is just a rhetorical phrase that is referring to

his sense of identity as a male?

Indeed, there is an air of sexual politics going on, but it isn't about actual sex but rather about the societal constructs of masculinity and femininity and what it means to

be male and female in this world.

Does the word "metaphor" mean anything to you?

quote:
In other words, you feel Patrice has a small dick

Who said anything about the size of his dick? I know I didn't. Again, does the word "metaphor" mean anything to you?

quote:
which is the reason for his issue with this lady, right?

No, the reason for his issue with this lady is because he's a sexist prick. To pretend that it has something to do with the hydraulic functioning of his corpus cavernosum is

disingenuous at best.

Let us not play dumb.

quote:
Sorry, I'm just asking because I'm not the one here with the superhuman ability to comprehend.

The stupid...it burns! Well, let me hold back on that a second. See, if you're actually being honest here, then it would fit in with my previous comments: You really are

obsessed with other men's genitals and you really need to come out of the closet.

But if you're just being facetious, then you're agreeing with my point but are too prideful to admit it. You did understand that I wasn't talking about his sexual activity

but rather his sexist attitude and your entire response was nothing more than an attempt to avoid the subject.

So which is it? Are you a closet case or fool? Note, there is no restriction of either/or.

quote:
Same post had the "Wave your dick at me" comment, but we'll let that one slide.

Here we go again. No, I'm not going to have sex with you.

quote:
But as you can see, you instigated it.

Incorrect. I instigated no such thing. I used a common term to refer to a cliched male feeling of inadequacy and powerlessness, especially with regard to women, and you

responded with sex. I didn't say anything about sex.

That you responded with the idea of sex means you either really think about men's cocks all the time or you were trying to avoid responding to the point.

Which is it?

quote:
You picked it up and ran with it and tried to make me sound homophobic

No, you did that all on your own. I just repeated your comments and pointed out the homophobia.

quote:
and claim that I wanted to fuck you.

No, I claimed that you wanted me to fuck you. Silly boy...what makes you think you're a top?

quote:
Excuse me asshole, but I NEVER bullshit with you like that.

That's the sad thing about the Internet: Your words get stored forever:

Message 62

Only when they're dressed like Peter Pan.

Message 10

Fuck, he is Peter Pan

See, unlike your claim, it is clear to all but the most casual observer that the only way you ever deal with me is by making disparaging comments about gay people. You can't

seem to help yourself.

Look, you even do it later on in this very post:

you can tell me that to my face, Peter Pan.

What is this obsession you have with my sex life?

quote:
I challenge you to show me when the fuck in past posts I ever attacked you like that.

I've just shown you three. One of them was only 14 sentences after this claim of yours that you don't do it. Do you really want me to go through the rest of them?

quote:
When I use the word 'fag' I don't say it to mean homosexual. Don't act stupid!

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that's just precious. That's just so darling. "Fag" doesn't mean "homosexual." Keep painting...maybe a door will appear behind you.

quote:
You know there are two meanings, one playful, one derogatory.

Hmmm..."Since you're gonna keep acting like a fag"...what's "playful" about that? I guess you don't know how to be "playful" because we should both be laughing. Well, we

both are. But don't worry...I'm not laughing "at" you...I'm laughing "next to" you.

quote:
People use the phrase, "that's gay" all the time. They don't mean, that's something homosexual's like

The stupid! It burns!

Oh, yes, they do. That's the entire reason that the term exists. Being gay is considered something bad and thus, to call something "gay" is to equate it with being bad.

What was it you said? Oh, yeah...that's right..."Don't act stupid."

quote:
Why do you pretend to be a tough guy on an internet forum?

Who's pretending? You are a coward.

quote:
But I tell you what, I'll let you know when I'm in LA again and you can tell me that to my face

(*chuckle*) There you go waving your dick at me again. (Hint: That isn't a comment about your sex life. Consider the possibility that it's a metaphor regarding your sense

of self and ego.)

quote:
you can stop if you're being serious cos its getting stupid.

When you stop being a homophobic prick, I'll stop calling you out on it.

quote:
Dude, I honestly thought you were gay. Sorry. I didn't mean it as an insult.

See, that's the thing about the Internet. Your words are stored forever. You have never said it except as an insult.

quote:
But that's cos you're a fag about everything (not in the homosexual context), I just mean like, a fag.

There's that "no homo" attempt again. There is no other context. The entire reason you are using the word is because it connects back to gay people. Gay people are bad.

Therefore, to call someone a "fag" is to inherit that sense of badness that is part and parcel of your conception of being gay.

quote:
First, as you can see above, you brought penis' up first.

Indeed, but what does that have to do with sex? You'll notice that we both used the word "prick" without you wandering off into sexual fantasy-land, so clearly you

understand the concept that a reference to the penis is not inherently a reference to sexual activity. I certainly haven't made any comments about your fascination with my

prick simply because you used the word "prick." No, it's only when you make statements about my sex life that I respond with wondering about why you are so obsessed with it.

So let's stop playing dumb.

quote:
He'll make a gay reference and you automatically make it seem like he wants to fuck you.

Silly boy...what makes you think CS is a top? I ceratinly don't make it seem like he wants to fuck me.

quote:
Mod even caught that you were doing it too and you respond by claiming HE is homophobic.

Passing by the concept of "internalized homophobia," since I don't know him from Adam, I do nothing of the kind.

What I respond is to claim that he's a crappy admin. In a thread that was derailed by a poster, Modulous responded by banning the person who pointed out the derailment and

identified the person who was causing trouble. The reason for the derailment is completely irrelevant. It could have been a discussion about the difference between pie and

cobbler; it makes no difference. You may recall my comment to Modulous in this post about three wrongs not making a right. That's the point that I was making back in 2007:

Banning the people who are pointing out the failures of the administration is not an example of good administration.

quote:
Is your entire argument, I know you are but what am I?

(*chuckle*) You keep thinking that.

When you get tired of it, perhaps you should consider examining your reflection. If it's inappropriate when it happens to you, then it is also inappropriate when you do it

to others.

Now, can we get to the work of discussing the joke in order to determine if it was an act of comedy or cruelty?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 199 by onifre, posted 05-14-2010 12:14 PM		onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 215 by onifre, posted 05-28-2010 5:24 PM		Rrhain has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

onifre Posts Only

(1)

Message 215 of 269 (562425)
05-28-2010 5:24 PM

Reply to: Message 214 by Rrhain
05-28-2010 3:50 PM

Now, can we get to the work of discussing the joke in order to determine if it was an act of comedy or cruelty?

Probably not cos you're gonna keep acting like a fag. No, homo...?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2010 3:50 PM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 220 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:36 AM		onifre has replied

Shield

Member (Idle past 2884 days)

Posts: 482

Joined: 01-29-2008

Shield Posts Only

(1)

Message 216 of 269 (562431)
05-28-2010 6:10 PM

Well then Rrhain, so you dont care for freedom of speech and you think there's specific rules regarding whats funny and whats not.

You are the biggest douchebag i have ever encountered on the internet, Rrhain.

You are so delusional, even more so than your average YEC.
That is all.

ps. Rrhain, Whats the great thing about fucking twentythree year olds?

THERE'S TWENTY OF THEM!

Oh and, Rrhain, there was a rumor going around town, that my dad was fucking my 5 year old sister, But thats so not true, her pussy dosent taste like my dads dick at all!

Replies to this message:
	Message 221 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:46 AM		Shield has not replied

Rrhain

Member

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Rrhain Posts Only

Message 217 of 269 (563475)
06-05-2010 4:18 AM

Reply to: Message 204 by dronestar
05-21-2010 12:16 PM

dronester responds to me:

quote:
It seems strange we are having so many posts, that are so lengthy, without citing/discussing the actual joke in question.

Well, I've touched on it, but the reason I haven't been specific about it is because there is a fundamental disagreement that needs to be resolved first. Onifre is of the opinion that it isn't his responsibility to justify the comedic nature of what happened on O&A. He is simply assuming that it is.

I, on the other hand, am saying that we cannot make that assumption, that we must analyze the specifics about the incident, so that we can determine if this was an instance of comedy falling flat or something else entirely. I can't get into that aspect while onifre is cowering in fear of the prospect of having to think.

You will note, I haven't offered my opinion about whether or not it was funny. I'm waiting for onifre, who thinks something bad happened, to explain the specifics of why it was bad beyond calling Ms. Ossorio a "cunt." He's the one who brought it up as a point, therefore he needs to start.

quote:
And since no one was arrested for telling this joke, can we conclude the joke is less caustic, less inciteful, than an ACTUAL hate crime?

No. It isn't a crime to be a sexist prick in and of itself. And while incitement is a crime, there is a difference between contributing to a pervasive attitude that leads to crime such as rape and violent assault and actually encouraging somebody to do it.

Again, Opie and Anthony can't control a kid seeing Daddy beat Mommy and living a life where women are treated like dirt. But they can control their own show with regard to imagery that finds such actions funny.

quote:
It seems you are arguing from a slippery-slope POV.

Not at all. I'm arguing from a reality POV. Going on a national broadcast means that you are flinging your speech far and wide and you should not be surprised to find that you're going to have to explain yourself every now and again. This is hardly a "chilling effect" upon free speech. If you can't defend what you're going to say, why on earth are you saying it? And if you refuse to defend what you say, how can you possibly complain when there are consequences for you having said it?

quote:
But in a world filled with such real dire problems

Huh? Rape isn't a real, dire problem?

Oh, I see...you're complaining that because it isn't a big, sweeping action, then it isn't important as if the little things we do every day have no effect.

Bullshit. We have long known that one of the best ways to overcome prejudice and bigotry is to personalize it. F'rinstance, anti-gay attitudes are much lower in those who know somebody who is gay. Why? Because it hits home.

Speaking of comedy, Hal Sparks just hit on that comment in his recent special. I'm gonna have to go back and find the specifics, if you're interested, but the basic point is that he was pointing out the inappropriateness of something by saying he'd do it to "your mom." Suddenly, it's not funny anymore. Why? Because it's personal.

quote:
Do you agree?

No. While one person cannot fight all the battles, all the battles can be fought. By your logic, we shouldn't fix problem X because you're more concerned about problem Y. Well, since we're never gonna truly fix problem Y, that means we're never gonna even start on X, now are we?

quote:
Oni has expressed, if a comic is successful, that CONCLUSIVELY means his jokes ARE funny

So bigots get to define bigotry? You're confusing two things: That something is "funny" and that something is "comedy." The two are not the same thing. As I've stated, I am the king of the inappropriate laugh. I'm one of those annoying folks at the movies who is sniggering at the most inopportune times and ruining it for the rest of the crowd.

Sometimes, it works out for the best...I've had people come up to me more than once after a showing to thank me for letting them know they weren't the only one finding the story ridiculous. But just as often, I get the glares to shut up.

And they're right. Just because I find something funny doesn't mean it was comedic. And I've been on the flip side, too. During American Beauty when Ricky is showing Jane his videos and he comes to the one of the plastic bag caught in the dust devil and says it's the most beautiful thing he's ever seen, there was a small crowd who immediately guffawed. "Oh, shut up!" I'm thinking, as I'm looking at the scene from the viewpoint of the angst-filled teenager and getting it.

Just because you find it funny doesn't mean it's comedy.

quote:
Do you disagree with this specific point?

No. Artistic performances are more complicated than that.

Rrhain

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 204 by dronestar, posted 05-21-2010 12:16 PM		dronestar has not replied

Rrhain

Member

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Rrhain Posts Only

Message 218 of 269 (563477)
06-05-2010 5:31 AM

Reply to: Message 200 by Modulous
05-14-2010 1:44 PM

Modulous responds to me:

quote:
So what was the purpose with preceding with a quote where onifre was not being defensive but light hearted?

(*chuckle*)

"Light hearted." That's rich. See, part of the superpower of literacy is the ability to remember things that have been said before and being able to carry them into current conversations. These posts are not made in a vacuum.

quote:
You attempted to prove that by showing a single example of a person (with an associated special interest group) that was clearly not the audience.

Huh? What is this "not the audience" you speak of? Anybody who listens is the audience.

quote:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?

Oh! You think that bigots get to decide what bigotry is! Now it makes perfect sense. Minstrel shows and blackface aren't racist because black people aren't the "intended audience." Why didn't we think of that before?

Who gets to decide? The audience does. The entire audience, not just the ones who laugh. Or are you saying that there is no such thing as a bigoted joke so long as somebody thinks its funny?

quote:
This would be like someone calling for the banning of playing Mozart on the air because someone complained about how Mozart used an offensively racist portrayal of a Moor through Monostatos.

It's something to be considered. And if there's a good response to the claim, then we have an understanding. Interesting you should point out classical music because that is precisely what goes on in discussions of Wagner. He was horrendously anti-Semitic, publishing a screed about the offensiveness of Jews. When it was republished under his own name, there were protests at the perforamnce of his work.

But in order to answer that question, we have to analyze the music, the man, and how everything fits together. "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke" isn't it.

quote:
I am either dumb, or you shifted the definition of 'laying a turd' between posts.

This from the man who decided that the "audience" was not the group of people who heard the joke but only the people who decided to like it. Or are you saying that there is no such thing as a bigoted joke so long as it's only told to bigots?

quote:
And if the consequences amount to censorship?

Huh? What censorship? Were O&A arrested? Put in jail? Had any charges against them laid? No? Then there was no censorship. Surely you're not implying that blowback from one's employers is "censorship," are you? Your right to free speech does not come with a right to my nickel to broadcast it.

And in case you've forgotten, they weren't fired, they were only suspended. And even then, it wasn't for the joke. Instead, it was for mouthing off about their bosses on the air.

Where is this "censorship" you are so scared of?

See...this is why I keep saying we have to analyze the joke and not just slip into, "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke?"

quote:
Clearly you think the consequences here are just fine, but onifre might argue differently.

Except he isn't arguing. He's calling Ms. Ossorio a "cunt."

quote:
If saying "Jesus was a fraud" could get you burned alive - do you think onifre would be merely whining if he complained about that?

And if anybody were "burned alive" or even remotely close to such a thing, you might have a point. Instead, we have a couple of talking heads on a TV program jawing at each other. Yeah, that's exactly the same.

quote:
What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's complaint about the consequences of having one's throat slit for criticising Islam - are you suggesting she wants to live in a consequence free world?

Huh? What on earth does that have anything to do with what we're talking about? Looks like we've got a variation of Godwin's Law here. You clearly don't understand not only the problem of religious violence but also your own argument if you think what happened to O&A has any similarity to being beheaded.

quote:
So if the consequences for telling a joke that a loud enough minority complain about is losing one's livelihood... that might be something worth commenting on.

Yep. But it requires analyzing the joke in order to determine if that's appropriate.

Points to remember before you respond:

1) Your right to free speech does not come with a right to someone else's nickel to broadcast it.
2) I have not said one word about whether or not O&A's joke was funny. I've simply pointed out that we need to discuss the actual joke in question in order to determine if they were engaging in comedy (even if it fell flat) or cruelty. "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke?" is not discussing the joke.
3) Bigots don't get to define bigotry.

quote:
I think onifre's position is that the context being 'comedy' is sufficiently important.

If that were what he was arguing, then perhaps, but he isn't arguing any such thing. I'm trying to get him to defend the joke as comedy and he's running away screaming that it isn't his burden to do so. The fact that somebody claims "it was just a joke" doesn't mean it was. Sometimes people don't realize just what it is they have said and the consequences of what they have done. But in order to figure out just what was going on, you have to analyze the joke and onifre has steadfastly refused to do so.

quote:
Except he hasn't. At all.

You know the terrible thing about the Internet? People's words get saved:

Message 179

This had to do with that lady thinking she knows what's right and wrong to say on the air because she feels she can speak for the public.

...

Her taste in humor, or anyone elses, shouldn't interfere with that.

Message 181

what there is is bitchy, whinny, PC cops trying to make themselves relevant by grasping to anything anyone says and making an issue of it.

...

She's a person with no life who pretends to care about what the public should be listening to, but she has her own agenda and is clinging to anything she can to make a name for herself.

...

she's just some idiot trying to make a name for herself by going after some one like O & A because they have so much recognition.

The audience of their show loves them, again, by the millions listen to them. If they are ok with it then that is the end of it. And those who don't like it can just not listen to it or watch performances by Patrice.

Its that simple, change the station and get on with your pathetic, uninteresting lives and leave comedy to the comedians.

Message 199

Analyzing the joke? Why? I found it funny, she didn't. Ok. Who gives a fuck? There, I've analyzed it.

...

BUT, if the people listening to the O&A show weren't offended and found the show funny, or the bit funny, this woman's personal opinion should not affect anything. Sure, I'll listen to her, and she'll listen to me. But in the end, neither of our opinons should affect anything.

And those are just the comments specifically about her. He went on and on about how anybody who doesn't like it should just go away. You have to pay attention and read what people write before responding, Modulous. It makes the conversations go that much better when you keep up.

quote:
She thinks the comedians should shut up. Onifre thinks she should shut up. You are condemning onifre for responding to her responding to them. Why?

Because she is referring to something specific while he's just whining. Her position is that things like the stunt O&A pulled have real negative effects on real people. Onifre simply wants to ignore it all.

She's willing to discuss why (though she didn't do a very good job). He wants to shut the conversation down completely.

You do see the difference, yes?

quote:
It is my view that onifre is a 'free market' comedian.

No, he's a protectionist comedian. Those who don't appreciate the joke aren't allowed to talk to anybody else lest they convince others that it wasn't funny. Heaven forbid there should be consequences for failure.

quote:
Why go chicken little when a comic makes a comedic error (if such an error occurred)?

Huh? What "chicken little"? O&A weren't fired. And the trouble they did get into had nothing to do with the joke.

But since you brought it up, don't you think providing a platform for a person who is seriously advocating sexual violence against someone is disconcerting at best? And then to suggest increasing the assault is problematic? If you were the owner of a broadcast network, wouldn't you be concerned when your on-air talent is suggesting that somebody should be raped and beaten? Wouldn't you want to examine the specifics and determine exactly what it is that happened so that you could respond appropriately?

"Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke" is not it.

quote:
If you worked in a grimy basement bar, and a passing tourist came in to see the local 'colour' and then got upset when you greeted them, "Yeah whaddya want?" should you be fired - if your regulars all prefer that to 'What can I serve you today, sir?"

Huh? How on earth does that compare? The actions in the bar don't extend beyond the bar. Advocating the rape and assault of someone does. You do understand the difference, yes?

quote:
I appreciate this is not a direct parallel for a number of reasons

Then why'd you bring it up? It's so flawed as an analogy as to be worthless.

quote:
its purpose is to highlight that just because you might balk at the consequences that actually result from an action - that doesn't mean you believe you should live in a consequence free world. Just a world free of a specific consequence.

Huh? That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

quote:
Onifre seems to be irritated that when she speaks, she does so as if she has the backing of the many

But he doesn't seem to realize that he is engaging in precisely the behaviour that he's condemning. He whines that she's trying to shut O&A down by shutting her down. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And need I remind you, O&A were not fired.

quote:
which in turn leads to consequences which are unfair.

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?

D'oh! There I go again demanding that we analyze the joke when onifre insists that it isn't our job to do so!

quote:
Since this is an internet forum - unless you have video footage you can embed to the contrary - all I see is onifre responding to her speech on their speech with more speech of his own.

But did you actually read what he wrote? It is not sufficient to merely notice that someone has said something. You have to actually read the words they spoke. Now, I know that it is a burden to pay attention (the moderators have repeatedly stated that they don't actually read the threads they're supposed to be monitoring), but it is the only way to have something legitimate to say. What onifre said is that the "cunt" should shut up if she didn't like it.

quote:
The brunt of which is: You are an individual lady, don't think you speak for everyone when you dictate what is or is not funny, what is or is not offensive etc.

To which I responded: What is your justification?

But oh, that requires analyzing the joke in question and onifre has pissed his pants whining that that isn't his job.

quote:
So is there any particular reason you are criticising Onifre for doing what it is your are defending?

Because he isn't. He's trying to shut the discussion down while I'm trying to engage. It is not "discussion" when your entire message is "shut up." You will note, I have not mentioned my personal opinion of the joke. We haven't managed to get that far because onifre is of the opinion that it shouldn't be discussed at all. "If you don't like it, don't listen."

quote:
Because neither onifre nor Patrice did it and so don't feel obliged to apologize for any offense they may have caused in so doing.

They why are they talking at all? If they have nothing to add to the discussion of what happened and whether or not the results were appropriate, what is the reason for the flapping of their gums? We all understand that they don't like what happened. That's good enough for a single line in a single post. Instead, onifre has gone on and on to insult Ms. Ossorio and whine that he isn't going to discuss why what happened was inappropriate.

quote:
They seem more concerned with the general principle of whether a comedian should have licence to offend in pursuit of their art and whether artists should have funding to their work cut off by the active pressure from vocal minorities.

"Minorities"? And how did you manage to come to that conclusion?

And remember, my very first statement (which was also agreed to by Ms. Ossorio...you did listen to the interview, yes?) was that of course people have the right to say what they want. But the question here is whether or not what happened was an act of comedy or an act of cruelty.

quote:
Homeless Charlie didn't actually express a desire to rape anybody.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

He most certainly did. You said it yourself:

He expressed a desire to have sex with several people and a desire to have sex and punch in the face another as a remedy for their image of sexlessness.

That's rape, Modulous.

quote:
But Sheridan Smith is unlikely to consent to getting covered in baby oil and letting me have anal sex with her while badly tattooing my name on her spine...but that doesn't mean expressing my desire to do that is expressing a desire to rape.

The difference is that you don't mean it. Homeless Charlie did.

quote:
They don't listen to what happened

There we go again with the assumption that they didn't actually listen to the segment. Where is your evidence of this? Can you provide any quotation or justification for this assertion of yours?

quote:
take someone they trust's summary of the situation

Huh? Where did this come from? Exactly how do you know who heard what? When you read other people's minds, do you hear a great cacophony and then have to focus in on the one you are trying to hear or do you just immediately latch onto the target?

quote:
and then spin it into a whole new mythos that gets everyone saying they were joking about raping a black woman.

Ah, yes...reality is "spin."

quote:
Unless of course, I've missed a significant part of the bit?

Yes.

quote:
So when a soldier is in a foxhole, and his makeshift shelter is destroyed by shellfire and he later comments to his comrades "Damnit, I just got this place the way I liked it." should a member of the press who overhears this black humour then apply pressure to the Generals to fire the soldier because when soldiers start making jokes about getting shelled they'll think that shelling is funny and potentially start shelling innocent people for fun and the military might treat those people as less than monsters?

Huh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? Is the term "sarcasm" completely lost on you?

quote:
Ho ho - we're all smirking (I doubt laughing) about a serial killer raping someone and a fictional character tearing out the insides of someone's genitals. Clearly we'll now think people that do those things are not monsters.

Huh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? Part of what makes deprecating humor an act of comedy is that you don't actually mean it. Compare this to what happened on O&A's show where the statements were made seriously. And rather than pointing out the ridiculousness of such a statement, they hosts decided to take it further.

quote:
I know you weren't saying these are walls, but small bricks that form walls, but do you have any evidence that humour about a bad situation leads to tolerance towards those bad situations?

Yes. Are you saying you haven't done any investigation into social psychology? We have an entire system of jurisprudence that is based upon the recognition that "jokes" often result in things that are anything but funny.

quote:
But O&A can't stop people from being exposed to a prevalent attitude.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

Their reason for existence is to present people with things. Of course they can stop people from being "exposed to a prevalent attitude." Now, let's not play dumb and claim that I'm somehow trying to say that they are omnipotent and have control over everything, but they have complete control over their own show. Surely you're not implying they were forced to do what they did?

quote:
Their job is to laugh at such attitudes

But that's just it. They didn't laugh "at" such attitudes. They encouraged them. And when they got blowback, they got pissy at their employers for having to respond.

quote:
I don't think they vetted him to make sure he held no opinions that might offend, and I don't think they are obligated to.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? The hosts of a show have no responsibility for what goes out on their show? If they're going to "wing it" and allow any random person to say anything they want, then they're going to have to respond when outrageous things happen. There are plenty of radio commentators who have their "open mike" segments where they don't screen calls and allow the caller to say whatever they wish. And yep, some pretty outrageous things get said when that happens, but the hosts don't then encourage them.

The fact that this guy is physically incapable of carrying out his plan doesn't mean he isn't serious about it.

quote:
But you didn't just say that, otherwise onifre's actual response makes no sense.

That my point. Onifre's response makes no sense. I used a common phrase regarding posturing and he started talking about sex. Ergo, he must be thinking about sex. You will note that he and I were capable of using the word "prick," which is another word for the penis, without him immediately shifting to his fantasies about sex with me. Thus, the problem clearly isn't the use of a word that is connected to the penis but rather his obsession with my sex life. Even when he isn't talking to me but simply about me, he is incapable of saying anything except things about my sex life.

I just called him out on it. He seems to be quite preoccupied about where I put my dick. There's a simple way to change that conclusion: Stop talking about my dick.

quote:
Onifre was suggesting that he was perfectly fine with you being gay, and said nothing disparaging about you.

Which, of course, isn't exactly true, now is it? There are those superpowers of literacy again. The ability to remember other posts he has made, other statements that he has expressed, and combine them with his current statements in order to have a fuller context upon which to understand what someone is saying. I've already posted a few of the times he has used his fantasies about my sex life as slurs against me.

Let's not play dumb.

quote:
Surely you are being homophobic when you suggest he is homosexual for making a joke about you being homosexual?

Huh? This is nothing more than the stupid "refusal to accepty bigotry is bigotry" argument. I took his own statement and used turned it back against him. The only possible way that could be considered problematic is if his comments were problematic to begin with because it is his attitude that is being reflected back upon him.

Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?

quote:
I was only making a tiny point that your comments about onifre being gay as if that was an insulting thing to say to him, could be construed as being offensive even if they are very witty in context.

Showing that you clearly don't understand the context. It can only be "construed as being offensive" if onifre's original comments are also "construed as being offensive" for I only turned his own attitude back on him. If it's unacceptable when I do it to him, then it is just as unacceptable when he does it to me. And your coming down on me only compounds the problem.

Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?

quote:
Onifre has not represented himself in any kind of politically correct context.

What does that have to do with anything? If we know that he's a homophobic prick (see...there's that word referring to a penis again), why does that give him a pass when he expresses that bigotry?

quote:
You even tried to throw a little defensive shit my way referencing an argument we had years ago.

"Defensive"? Nice try, but I'm on the offensive here. I'm the one making the accusations. I'm the one pointing out that once again, you have decided to circle the wagons when faced with criticism of your abilities as a moderator rather than engage and explain yourself. You still haven't learned your lesson. The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically. And now you're throwing another hissy fit.

Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?

quote:
Erm, or we could just discuss things in a grown up fashion using occasional adult humour that we don't take personally?

Indeed. Someday, onifre might be capable of that.

He's going to have to get over his obsession with giving me a hummer first.

Rrhain

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 200 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2010 1:44 PM		Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 222 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 8:53 AM		Rrhain has replied

Rrhain

Member

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Rrhain Posts Only

Message 219 of 269 (563482)
06-05-2010 6:31 AM

Reply to: Message 207 by onifre
05-21-2010 2:09 PM

onifre responds to me:

quote:
He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said.

You do realize that the latter part of your sentence immediately contradicts the former, yes? In order to "represent comedy and comedians," he needs to defend the joke as an act of comedy. That he and you keep running away shows that you aren't "representing comedy."

quote:
And we know that Homeless Charlie is never going to rape, Rice.

You're confusing physical incapacity to carry out an act with psychological incapacity. We know Ralph is never going to do it not because he is physically incapable of getting within five feet of Alice but rather because we know that it simply isn't in him to do it. It's all an act, nothing but bluster. Underneath all the preening and posturing, we know that he loves his wife more than anything and would never do anything to hurt her.

quote:
Sure. The joke she's refering to is The Angry Pirate.

No, it isn't. Didn't you listen to your own source? Patrice assumed that's what she was referring to, but she contradicted and corrected him. Oh, but she's just a "cunt." What on earth does she know about her own argument?

quote:
No. Here's where you continue to get confused. The point of the discussion was whether or not O&A's joke was meant as a joke or was it just plain cruelty.

Huh? You do realize that what makes it an act of cruelty and not comedy is that Homeless Charlie meant it, right?

quote:
I think he was saying exactly what he said, and he never called her a stupid bitch.

Right, because the physical phonemes, "ju stu-pId bItsh, kant ju taik aI dzhok," didn't escape his lips, then there is no possible way that that's what he was saying.

I don't know her, but I'm assuming that she has nothing to do with funny.