Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gender and Humor
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 269 (558434)
05-01-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dronestar
04-28-2010 9:29 AM


And yet, the most famous examples of humor are from women:
Fanny Brice from the Follies
Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby
Carol Burnett and Lucille Ball from television
George Burns didn't become funny until he and Gracie Allen flipped the act so that she was delivering the punch lines.
The idea that women aren't funny simply doesn't withstand analysis.
9 to 5
Bringing Up Baby
What's Up, Doc?

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 1 by dronestar, posted 04-28-2010 9:29 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by dronestar, posted 05-04-2010 9:41 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 269 (558439)
05-01-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
05-01-2010 9:15 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Be it chess, math, mechanics, techy, leadership; you name it; by and large (I say by and large) the male predominates.
(*chuckle*)
Not even close.
The most influential rulers from our own heritage?
Elizabeth I
Victoria
Catherine
Columbus managed to get his voyage because of Isabella, not Ferdinand.
The idea that it is men who make the best rulers simply doesn't bear scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 05-01-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 130 of 269 (558851)
05-05-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by onifre
05-04-2010 12:59 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
Improv, sketch and acting, in my opinion, don't require someone to be funny per se, they just have to be able to play characters well and deliver - (case in point, Ben Stiller. Who has said many times that he personally is not funny. So does Mike Myers. Both of them admittedly consider themself not to be funny people.)
To an extent, yes, but where do you think the material came from? Brice, Burnett, Ball, they wrote their own material. Tomlin was performing Wagner's material quite often, but she was originating it, too. Goldberg, DeGeneres, Silverman, Poundstone, Rivers, Diller, Rudner, Garafalo, Boosler, Griffin, Sykes: They're all doing their own material.
As a performer, myself, I do understand that there is a difference between the material and the performance and you need both. A good joke will die from poor delivery and a great performer cannot rescue crap.
So Tomlin is a good example to analyze. To my mind, she's one of the funniest people of all time, but she was doing it with Wagner. Is it Tomlin who's funny or is it Wagner?

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 125 by onifre, posted 05-04-2010 12:59 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by onifre, posted 05-05-2010 10:06 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 162 of 269 (559001)
05-06-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by onifre
05-05-2010 10:06 AM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
And except for Silverman, the rest are NOT funny.
Says you. Their success points to a different conclusion.
Thus, we show that the adage of "there's no accounting for taste" has some merit to it.

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 135 by onifre, posted 05-05-2010 10:06 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 10:07 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 177 of 269 (559251)
05-07-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by onifre
05-05-2010 6:02 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
Here's a video (sorry Drone) of Patrice Oneal breaking down what can be funny.
Well, no, not really. It's a video of him getting upset that a bad joke was called out. The only point he had was that all topics have the potential for humor in them and we cannot declare something incapable of being made fun of. It might be extremely difficult to do so, but that's different from being absolute about it.
Everything else was him being a sexist prick.
quote:
Btw, I hate this lady.
Indeed, she didn't have much to contribute, either, but her attempted point is closer to reality: If you cross the line far enough and often enough, then whining that you were "only making a joke" doesn't fly. Actions have consequences. That you thought you were being funny and that some people may have laughed doesn't change the fact that sometimes, you're just being a jerk.
This is hardly a free speech issue. Your right to tell a joke does not come with a right to an audience and someone else's nickel to promote it.

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 160 by onifre, posted 05-05-2010 6:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by onifre, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 178 of 269 (559252)
05-07-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by onifre
05-05-2010 4:53 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
Fine then, name 10 more female STAND UP comics that didn't make the list...
Here's a baker's dozen, just off the top of my head:
Rita Rudner
Cathy Ladman
Liz Winstead
Caroline Rhea
Suzanne Westenhoefer
Rosie O'Donnell
Margaret Cho
Janeane Garafalo
Susie Essman
Lea Delaria
Kathy Griffin
Mo'Nique
Lily Tomlin
And you brought up Judy Gold, who slipped my mind.

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 157 by onifre, posted 05-05-2010 4:53 PM onifre has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 180 of 269 (559284)
05-08-2010 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by onifre
05-07-2010 10:31 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Well, no, you're clearly listening with a bias if that's what you're opinion is.
Ooh! We get to play armchair psychologist! Neato! Let's see what I can do:
Well, no, you're clearly too close to the subject matter and are taking it personally, revealing your own misogyny.
Now that you've had your chance to wave your dick at me....
quote:
All he is saying is that her opinion of what "funny" is is irrelevant because she has nothing to do with the business of being funny.
Which is a bullshit argument. As the audience, she has everything to do with the business of being funny. All performance is a connection with the audience and if the response is that you've laid a turd, then that's what you've done no matter how much you may believe in your work.
That he has such disrespect for the audience is indicative of him being a poor performer. At no time during his rant did he defend the actual joke. As I said, his only point was that being absolute about a topic being "not funny" is wrong. But at no point could he describe why this particular instance wasn't an example of the misogyny that it was being accused of. His only defense was, "It's a joke!" as if that makes a difference.
quote:
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.
And the response to that is to show the specifics of why she got it wrong, not to throw a hissy fit and claim that she has no sense of humor. Look, I'm very sorry about his penis but until he can show why the joke isn't part of the problem, he's only showing that he's just as much of a sexist prick.
quote:
He IS a sexist prick, watch his stand up.
Which means he has nothing to do with the business of being funny. He wants to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses his mind without there being any consequences to what he's saying. That isn't comedy. That's sociopathy.
This isn't about being "safe" or "edgy" or "having the courage to go there." And I'm not even going to try and say that comedy is a "search for truth" (though that is a very good source of comedic material). This is about someone pretending that an act of cruelty is something other than that and accusing the object of that cruelty of "lacking a sense of humor."
I'm reminded of DeGeneres' bit about kidding:
quote:
They asked HIM to be on the show not the other way around. They knew who they were bringing on to deal with that twat.
Indeed. They asked a sexist prick to deal with an offended person. There wasn't going to be anything of substance said anywhere. This was nothing more than a media stunt by Fox News (no, really...Fox? Fox descended to being a whore for controversy?) They were both on the defensive and the host was doing everything he could to keep the discussion away from anything of value and on emotional outbursts as if that could help us understand what was going on. If they wanted to live up to their slogan of "We distort, you comply"...er..."We report, you decide," they would have actually talked about the specifics of the case, the context in which the joke was made, social ramifications, etc.
Instead, they got an antagonizer and the victim. Yeah, that'll be fruitful. Clearly, she wasn't up to this discussion either. She didn't want to discuss the specifics but simply wanted to wag fingers with a holier-than-thou attitude. She did her side no service with her behaviour. She was out of her league and got walked all over.
But that doesn't mean her failure was his win.
quote:
Cross the line? What line?
The line of legitimizing bigotry.
quote:
Who declared there was a line?
The audience. They're the final authority, after all.
quote:
What if our lines differ, who's line do we go by?
That would have been an interesting conversation to have. Too bad Fox decided that it would be better to join in the misogyny rather than discuss the question.
quote:
If you don't like what O & A say on THEIR show then change the station - especially on satellite.
There we go again with the idea that people should be free from consequences for their actions.
quote:
But more important, who the (curse word*) are you to say there is a line to be crossed?
Because I'm the audience. That's my job. And the fact that you don't understand that shows that you really don't understand what the job of a performer is. You have to take the audience into account. It's one of the big differences between recorded and live performances.
quote:
That's why jokes are considered "wrong to say," because people think their feelings mean something to the rest of us.
And that you don't think they do shows you're not a comic.
You're a narcissist. You want to be able to insult and denigrate people without any blowback. And if you truly didn't care what other people thought, then you wouldn't complain about their reaction. The fact that you're whining shows that you're not exactly being truthful.
quote:
This is a free speech issue within the context of O & A's show and them being free to do and say whatever they feel is funny on THEIR show over satellite radio.
You mean they own Sirius/XM? Strange, I thought they were employees of the company. As such, they are subject to the regulations of their employer.
The right to free speech does not come with the right to an audience and it certainly doesn't come with a right to someone else's money for your soapbox. If their actions on their show cause a problem for the company, the company has every right to respond, including firing them.
This is the same pathetic whine Laura Schlessinger had when she was trying to get a television show: How dare the audience go to the sponsors to inform them of what she was saying! How dare the audience respond to what the performer says! How dare anybody point out that actions have consequences!
You want the right to be a prick without facing the consequences of being one.
Get used to disappointment.
quote:
Her taste in humor, or anyone elses, shouldn't interfere with that.
On the contrary: The audience has everything to do with it and will always interfere because that is the entire point behind performance:
To connect to the audience.

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 179 by onifre, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by onifre, posted 05-08-2010 12:17 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 1:21 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-08-2010 1:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 188 of 269 (559490)
05-09-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by onifre
05-08-2010 12:17 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again.....
Which only goes to prove my point: You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying. If you didn't want people to respond, perhaps you should have kept your thoughts to yourself. Nobody is forcing you to reply.
quote:
The point is that no one "laid a turd,"
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong.
quote:
Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police.
Ah, yes...the common refrain of the bigot: Deny any responsibility and try to shift the attention to the person pointing out the problem. How dare someone actually pay attention. How dare someone respond to speech with more speech. It's all find and dandy when you pick on others but heaven help us if they have the temerity to return the favor.
quote:
It wasn't his joke to defend
Then what was he doing on a television show defending it? So now we've gone from you saying that he's perfectly free to find it funny to you saying it isn't for him to say why. Can we backpedal some more?
Let me give you an example: Dana Stevens is a movie critic for Slate. Her review of My Super Ex-Girlfriend pretty much panned it as a piece of misogynistic trash. How dare a movie portray a woman as petty, jealous, and nuts! I pointed out that she was completely missing the point: It was making fun of the trope of the perpetually self-sacrificing superhero, not women. While superheroes in the comics are often damaged people, they all understand the "greater good" concept. No matter how bad their personal lives get, they still sacrifice it in order to save the world. "With great power comes great responsibility," and all that.
Well, what if the super powers landed on someone who didn't have that schtick? What if they were bestowed upon someone who was petty and jealous and too self-absorbed to handle it? What if the only person who could save the world was too pissed off at an intimate friend that saving the world just isn't on the radar?
And this is where sexual politics does have its role. If it were a male superhero going nutso on his girlfriend, well, we call those men "stalkers" and it isn't funny. Given the sociological climate in which we live, a male who, say, uses his X-ray vision to spy on his girlfriend is just a half step away from making the audience think he's going to rape her and that simply isn't funny. They tried it in Superman Returns and they managed to stop it right at the line where it was turning creepy.
So in order to make it funny, the super has to be a woman and the guy has to be nebbish.
See how easy that is? You just go through the material, point out the context, connect to the social climate in which the material is being performed, and show how the analysis by the reviewer was very much off base. She couldn't get past the image of a super-ditz being female to see the underlying trope being subverted.
I don't have to be the author or the performer to get that. I just have to pay attention and treat the subject matter seriously rather than getting defensive.
quote:
and all he said was, they have the right to try and be as funny as they want to be.
And if that was all he said, then you might have a point. The thing is, he kept talking, denigrating the other person. That he couldn't keep to that point means that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
quote:
If it misses then it misses. All jokes have the potential to fail.
At which point the response is, "Oops. I'm sorry," not, "You stupid bitch. Can't you take a joke?"
quote:
I don't even know what you mean by this
(*chuckle*)
Here we go again with the armchair psycho-analysis. In a moment, you're going to insinuate that I'm gay, aren't you:
quote:
but it's the second dick reference you've made in this post so I'm assuming you have cock on your mind
Bingo!
You seem to care an awful lot about my sex-life, onifre. Are you trying to ask me out? I've told you multiple times that I'm not going to sleep with you, so please stop asking.
quote:
The joke isn't part of what problem?
Let's not play dumb. The problem of misogyny. The problem of sexism. The problem of the denigration of women. Again, I'm hardly saying that certain subjects can never be funny, but you have to explain why it is funny and not disparaging.
quote:
Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station?
Because actions have consequences. You get enough people saying something and you wind up with people introducing legislation to revoke the citizenship of natural-born Americans for the mere suspicion of being "terrorists." Yeah, you changed the station, but you aren't the end-all/be-all of society.
quote:
stop being a fag about it.
Stop shoving your ass on my cock and I will. Why is it you are so intent upon knowing where my sperm goes? C'mon, onifre, just come out and say it. You'll feel so much better when you come out of the closet and stop hiding your true feelings. Every time you try to deflect it by calling other people "fag," you only show just how deep your self-hatred goes.
quote:
but no one gives a shit what you like.
Clearly, you do or you wouldn't be so quick to respond. No matter how much you try to have it both ways, it won't work: If you truly don't care, then don't respond.
Of course, given your obsession with my penis, I'm not surprised.
quote:
There are no consequences in this case
Huh? You mean the way women are treated in this world is not connected to our sense of humor surrounding women? That trivializing rape is of no concern?
See, you have to start analyzing the joke. You have to start explaining how it wasn't that in order for your argument to have any merit. And if you're not going to do so, if you're going to run away with whines of, "But it isn't my joke to defend!" then you don't have anything to say at all. You're just trying to legitimize the position that you should be free from the consequences of your actions.
If you don't want people to respond, then you shouldn't open your yap.
quote:
After watching it, I'm reminded why she's not funny.
She's got a better gig than you.
Oh, but I forget: The audience doesn't mean shit. I get it, I get it...you don't like her. But surely someone who understands comedy like you do can understand why she has an audience. One doesn't have to like something in order to understand it.
Of course, that would require you responding with something other than a conniption fit that someone dared to contradict you and provide details to back it up.
quote:
What is she a victim of dude?
Misogyny. Sexism. Are you seriously saying that actions don't have far-reaching effects? That unless something happens immediately upon the completion of an act, it doesn't actually have any effect? You seriously think that the way we joke about women doesn't have any effect in how we treat women?
quote:
She's a person with no life
Right...and you know this because of what, precisely? Oh, that's right. Because she won't sleep with you. Clearly the problem is her. Once again, we see the human tendency to take things as all-or-nothing. If someone antagonizes you one way, then they must be utterly with no redeeming qualities at all.
quote:
who pretends to care about what the public should be listening to
Right, that's why she's talking about it. She's in it for the money. Because we all know how much money there is in being called a "cunt."
quote:
she has her own agenda and is clinging to anything she can to make a name for herself.
When cavediver's irony meter explodes upon contact with him, you might want to buy one for yourself to see if you can outdo the crater left behind.
You still haven't defended the joke. And since I started my piece by making note of Patrice's point that everything has the potential to be funny, the only thing left to do is to explain how this particular piece was actually funny rather than degrading. That nobody seems to be able to do so is a pretty strong indicator that it wasn't a work of comedy but was an act of cruelty.
quote:
The audience of the O & A show will decide if they care to listen, not some PC cunt who heard about it second hand and decide she would make an issue of it.
I thought you were a comedian, not a psychic. When you read other people's minds, do you have to concentrate to turn it on or is it a constant stream of background voices that you have to work to isolate the one you are paying attention to? Do you need to have an object the person has touched or can you pull it out of the air?
You know for a fact that she didn't hear it herself? She certainly didn't say so in the interview. After all, she quoted Patrice's routine back to him and he denied that was his joke.
quote:
Words, penis lover, words.
Dude, if you relax, open your throat, and swallow, you'll be able to get it all the way down. Now, make sure you get enough of your spit on it because otherwise it's gonna hurt when when coin flips to tails and he gives you what you're begging for.
Even Patrice agreed with her point. At 5:12 in the clip:
You can say anything you want. It might not be funny. You might get in trouble for it.
So if he agrees that there are consequences to actions, what on earth is he complaining about? If he knows that a comedian "might get in trouble" for a joke that was made, why the complaint when a comedian actually got in trouble?
Oh, that's right...he wants to be able to pretend that he understands that actions have consequences, but he doesn't want to have to live up to that principle. He's a pussy. He doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
quote:
First, do you listen to O & A?
How does your point depend upon my answer? Do you have an actual argument of substance or is it only going to devolve to ad hominem commentary?
quote:
You're probably into gay porn
Once again, you seem to be obsessed with my cock. Look, you're never going to get it. The sooner you realize that there are plenty of men who will be willing to give you what you need, the sooner you'll be happier with yourself.
Look, I understand what you're trying to do. You think that by goading me often enough, I'll take pity on you and treat you like the submissive piece of shit you have objectified yourself as. Now, there are plenty of dominants who will do that for you. You might even be able to find one who will respond to your attempts. But there's a difference between being a "pushy bottom" and a pathetic asshole. The ones who will snap and respond the way you want them to will not have your interests at heart and you'll only get hurt. A good dominant knows that even when a bottom says he has no limits, there are always limits and will not cross them no matter how much the bottom begs.
A good top will never break his toys, though they may need some maintenance when he's through.
So no, onifre, I'm not going to sleep with you. First, get your headspace adjusted so that you have come to terms with the reality of your need to be humiliated.
But even then, I'm not going to sleep with you.
quote:
But I would never think of telling you you can't lube up and watch two men go at it. That's your choice. My choice is not to watch it. Everyone is happy.
Right, because people who want to have sex having sex is exactly the same as rape.
quote:
I do what I think is funny and genuine.
But it won't be funny if it's only genuine to you. Otherwise, you become not a comedian but a performance artist where the point certainly makes sense to you but is incomprehensible to others. If you cannot connect to the audience, then all you're doing is vocalizing your internal monologue.
Which isn't funny.
quote:
If its funny, then the audience will be there to listen, if it is not funny, then no one will be there.
But apparently, you're upset that someone might manage to point out that they don't want to be there.
As you said, nobody was arrested, nobody was put in jail, no fines. Your right to speech does not come with the right to an audience and it certainly doesn't come with a right to someone else's nickel to promote it. As employees of Sirius/XM, they are subject to the opinions of management and if management finds that O&A cause a problem for the bottom line, then they'll quickly find themselves looking for another promoter.
Or do you think that when a comedian "gets in trouble," there shouldn't be any consequences?
quote:
Who are you to tell them they can't enjoy it?
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Do you really think that the way we joke about women has no connection to how we treat women?
quote:
You should get to know a few stand up comics, we openly admit narcissism.
Thus proving that you missed the point completely. In case you have forgotten, I am a performer, too. I understand all too well the amount of personal self-worth you have to have to be able to stand in front of someone else and perform.
But that isn't narcissism. There is a difference between accepting the fact that you can't please everybody and going out there anyway and understanding that their opinion does, indeed, matter. You have to figure out why they have the opinion that they have. That doesn't necessarily mean you change anything in your performance. But their reaction informs your performance and allows you to understand what you're doing that much better.
A few years ago, I was doing The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged). That's where the avatar comes from: The "What a piece of work is man?" speech from Hamlet. The local theatre consortium had sent their judges to attend so that they could make up the local awards list. Afterwards, I got to see their responses (being good friends with the director) and one of them had said that they didn't appreciate all of the ad libbing. We should have just stuck to the script.
As I am so fond of saying, (*blink!*) You did not just say that did you? Um, we were following the script. All that stuff that we did? That was in the script.
So, in this case, the person didn't like it, but I can understand why: The show is done as if it were improvisational. That this person thought we were making a lot of it up as we went along only shows how well we were doing in our performance. The show had closed but if we knew about this during the run, we wouldn't have changed a thing. That presentation was precisely what we were going for.
This compared to another judge who had some comments about timing and topical references. Those make more sense. Not everybody will get the Star Wars references and that is something to consider: Who is going to come to see the show and perhaps we should rethink what we're doing so that it's more accessible.
That isn't narcissism. That's paying attention and understanding that sometimes, people's responses are wrong.
But you have to have a reason that they're wrong. "But it's a joke!" isn't a reason.
quote:
everyone else who doesn't listen to them should shut the fuck up about it.
Who are you to tell them to shut up? When your actions affect their lives, they should simply suck it up? Oh, that's right, you don't want to have any consequences to your actions. Oh, you say you do but when it finally comes around to you being the one who's getting blowback (or in this case, someone you identify with), you're suddenly screaming bloody murder.
If you "get in trouble," as Patrice said, shouldn't there be some sort of consequence?
quote:
I think the only disappointed one's here are the PC fags
Dude, just got to rentboy.com and get yourself a hooker, for crying out loud. The more you protest about it, the more desperate you sound.
Hell, I'm sure you can do what Rekers did and convince yourself that it isn't really sex to have your hands on another man's dick, but it's the first step to realizing what you're secretly craving.
quote:
But don't tell others what they should and shouldn't find funny or listen to.
Oh, I see...you should be able to say anything you want.
But nobody else should be able to say anything they want. After all, it might shut you down and we can't have that. If you truly didn't care about what she thought, if you truly had the courage of your convictions, you wouldn't be doing everything you could to besmirch this woman. Instead, you'd say, "Eh...she's entitled to her opinion. If she's right, people will listen to her. If not, her comments won't get any traction."
The fact that you decided to throw a tantrum and lash out in every way you possibly could in a childish attempt to get a rise out of people so that you could have some company in your outburst only shows that you don't really believe your own hype.
Can you actually respond without taking it so personally?

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 181 by onifre, posted 05-08-2010 12:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2010 11:21 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 192 by onifre, posted 05-10-2010 2:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 189 of 269 (559495)
05-10-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
05-08-2010 1:33 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
Some people find it amusing and others find it derogatory.
I see...you've fallen for the deconstructionist, post-modern claptrap that all interpretations are valid.
Well, no. Some interpretations are full of shit. And you need to be able to analyze the actual substance in order to weed out the odd-yet-still-justified from the bloody stupid.
I suppose if everybody's a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, that makes it OK, right?
quote:
This ultimately boils down to a difference of opinion, so live and let live.
Opinion about what? So far, nobody who has come to the defense of O&A has bothered to defend the actual joke. They're simply crying that somebody didn't find it funny and decided to say so out loud.
Strange...their defense is that they have freedom of speech and their response is that the other person needs to shut up.
They're wusses who can't take the heat.
quote:
Then we have quite the dilemma as it sets a precedence of legitimizing censorship.
What "censorship"? Nobody's throwing them in jail. Nobody's been arrested. No fines. Your right to speak your mind does not mean you don't get to face the blowback. You do not have a right to an audience and you do not have the right to somebody else's money to promote yourself.
The fact that nobody can explain how the joke isn't what it's being accused of is pretty damning evidence that it is precisely that.
quote:
Your sole opinion doesn't encapsulate the entirety of "the audience."
I never said it was. But onifre is complaining that somebody decided to respond to speech with more speech. He then whines that this is somehow abridging his freedom of speech, telling the other person to be quiet.
You will note, I haven't said what my opinion is about the joke. All I've said is that Patrice and onifre are cowards. Give them the tiniest amount of pushback and they start pissing their pants.
quote:
Whatever backlash the comic receives for a shitty skit will be on his/her head.
Indeed, but Patrice and onifre have both said that there shouldn't be any backlash. You've come along and said that this backlash somehow will lead to "censorship" as if anybody was threatened with any sort of legal response.
Someone told a joke and someone else said, "That's not funny." Somehow, this is a threat? Oh, I get it: It's OK for a comedian to try and convince other people that a particular joke is funny, but it isn't OK for someone else to convince other people that it isn't.
Free speech for everybody except those who disagree with you. I get it.
quote:
But that is for him to decide based on their reactions, not up to some hysterical finger wagging woman.
Ah, here we have it. It can't possibly be that she has any evidence to back it up. It has to be because she's "hysterical." Never mind the fact that she was perfectly calm through the entire interview while Patrice was the one having an anyeurism.
And you show yourself to be part of the problem. You want to be able to say any vile thought that goes through your head without there being any consequences for your actions.
O&A get to convince other people that they're funny but she isn't allowed to convince other people that they're not. Free speech for everybody except those who disagree with you.
What are you so scared of? If your material really is that good, it will survive.
quote:
Who made you the arbiter?
My status as an artist. And as the audience, that's my job.
quote:
That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.
Same advice: Just go find yourself an escort and get that deep dicking you've been craving ever since you discovered the funny feeling you get when you touch your pee-pee. Be sure to clean out first, though.
Is there a reason that you're obsessed with my dick? What are you trying to tell us?
quote:
Says the narcissist.
(*chuckle*)
Yeah, right. I'm the one asking for us to analyze the particular joke in question to see if there is anything legitimate in the claim being made against it, and I'm the one who's taking it personally, not the ones wallowing in their diarrhea from having someone contradict them.
If that's what you need to believe, then you keep right at it.
Interesting that you keep responding to me, though.
quote:
But woe to those who sacrifice lambs on the alter of political correctness.
Read, "I don't actually have an argument, so I'll toss around a moronic epithet in hopes that it will derail the thread and throw the other side off point."
Do you have an explanation as to why this joke wasn't misogynistic? Do you have any argument at all that isn't based upon jingoistic sloganeering substituting for thought?
quote:
The audience is allowed to be offended, and the comic is allowed to tell what is a shitty stand-up bit to some and hilarious to others.
And the audience is allowed to look at the owner of the stage and ask, "You want this fool on your stage?"
And the owner of the stage is allowed to say, "Get off my stage."
Your right to speak your mind doesn't come with a right to use somebody else's soapbox.

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 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-08-2010 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-10-2010 9:32 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 269 (560283)
05-14-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Hyroglyphx
05-10-2010 9:32 AM


Hyroglyphx responds to me:
quote:
One would have to ask if that comedian actually ascribes to it in real life.
Huh? I'm talking about society, not the comedian. If everybody's a prick, that makes jokes whose humor depends upon you having the values of a prick defensible, right?
quote:
Satire is just that.... Satirical.
Indeed, but you're having an Alanis Morissette moment: What we're talking about isn't satire. Satire is the criticism of faults by showing the ridiculousness of it. The point of satire is that you don't really mean it, not even a little.
quote:
That would be like saying there should be some moral imperative about violence attached to the Three Stooges.
Um, there should be. Context is always key. Slapstick humor is never intended to be legitimate in the sense that nobody is intending in the slightest for anybody to actually get hurt. And part of the humor is the unusualness of the method of attack. That is, it isn't punching someone in the face. Instead, it's slapping, poking, hitting with a wooden board, pie-in-the-face, banana peels, whitewash, etc. No actual harm is done other than a blow to pride and a mess to clean up.
quote:
If you recognize that kind of comedy, then why the double standard?
What double standard? My entire point has been that context determines if something is an act of comedy or an act of cruelty. And so far, nobody has bothered to defend the context. All they've done is your feeble response of:
quote:
I'm not defending the joke, I'm defending a person's right to say it.
And I have never questioned that. What I am defending is someone else's right to point out that it is more than "just a joke" and that there are consequences to actions.
quote:
I'm protesting the woman who wants to muzzle people.
By muzzling her. How amazingly hypocritical of you.
Which means your defense has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" but is actually a cry to be able to avoid any blowback for your actions. If you were truly concerned about "speech," then you would be defending her right to respond to his joke and point out that the better idea will eventually win out. But instead, your response is simply that she should shut up.
So much for your "protest" about people being "muzzled."
quote:
She has every right to say what she wants, but has no right to stop people from saying what they want to say just because it offends her delicate sensibilities.
And how, precisely, is she doing that?
Be specific.
Are you saying that if her response is respected enough that there shouldn't be any consequences for the comedian? He should be able to continue to spread his material without any cost? There should never be any blowback of any kind to anybody's speech anywhere?
You don't care about speech. You care about being taken to task for what you said.
quote:
People like that are too weak to live with freedom.
Says the person who wants to muzzle someone because his delicate sensibilities were offended.
You've said it yourself: You are too weak to live with freedom. You're simply a coward who runs screaming the moment there's any resistance.
quote:
The whole point of that clip was stopping people from saying what they want. THAT censorship...
Indeed. The comedian was doing everything he could to stop her from saying what she wanted.
How nice of you to recognize the censorship. So where is your denigration of him as "too weak to live with freedom"? You don't give a flying fuck about "censorship." You want the ability to be a sexist bigot without any response.
quote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, protesting is fine.
Unless it's against you. Then, you piddle your pants and throw a hissy fit that you're being "censored." You're simply too weak to live with freedom. You can't handle the thought that somebody gets to speak against you and have their idea win out over yours. You want to act without consequence.
quote:
My point is that this ultimately comes down to mere opinion, right?
No. This ultimately comes down to accepting the consequences for one's actions. One of the consequences of speaking is that other people get to speak back and their conclusion may be that your idea isn't valuable.
quote:
So why are you speaking for everybody?
I'm not. You will note that I still haven't said one word about my opinion of the joke. I am simply pointing out that she has just as much right to try and convince the world that his idea is inappropriate and unacceptable as he does in trying to convince the world that it is funny and doesn't have the effect it is being accused of having. But the only way to resolve the issue is to defend the joke, which nobody seems to be willing to do. Instead, y'all want to whine that somebody had the temerity to push back against you. You want rights without responsibility.
quote:
I said that people should be allowed the choice to say whatever they want and that they have to deal with the consequences. Why don't you back up and read it again.
(*chuckle*)
You do realize that your words are still here to be read again, yes? Since apparently you can't remember the arguments that have been made here, let's go through them, shall we?
From this post:
I'm not defending the joke, I'm defending a person's right to say it.
And what is the point of his "right to say it" if there aren't any consequences for him saying it? One of the consequences might be that people laugh and think it funny. Another consequence might be that people recoil and think it vile. What you're defending is that the former is the only acceptable response and that any attempt to have the latter consequence come into play needs to be shut down.
For all your complaints about "censorship," you're doing everything you can to "muzzle" people.
Thus, you're too weak to live with freedom, by your own admission.
But let's go through your other posts:
Message 20
Nobody fucking cares what your politics are. Just make me laugh, bitch, that's your job. If I wanted political commentary I'd watch C-SPAN, thanks.
Oh, so your response to this comedian is more legitimate than her response to the other comedian. I get it. Your opinion that a piece of comedy is inappropriate is real while anybody who disagrees with you gets to be muzzled.
You're simply a coward who is too weak to live with freedom.
Message 166
This lady is apparently too weak to live with the freedom of speech. She reduced herself to a child.
I see...she is "too weak" because she can't handle what he said, but apparently he gets to be let off the hook for being unable to handle what she said. For all your insistence that you respect "that they have to deal with the consequences," you seem to be awfully upset over the idea that the comedian is the one being affected.
Now, in Message 183, you started off well:
the audience will decide if his jokes are amusing or if they're misogynist.
...
Even if he was, he's the one that has to deal with it.
But you then immediately leapt off the rails showing that you really didn't mean what you said. Oh, it was all well and good for you to say that you were willing to accept the consequences for one's actions, but you immediately indicated that you didn't really mean it:
Then we have quite the dilemma as it sets a precedence of legitimizing censorship.
What censorship? Nobody's being put in jail. Nobody's books are being burned. Instead, all that is happening is that the people who control the money are being asked to think about where their money is going. Your right to speak your mind does not give you the right to someone else's nickel to pay for it.
You then continue with the same doublethink:
We all are the audience. Your sole opinion doesn't encapsulate the entirety of "the audience." Whatever backlash the comic receives for a shitty skit will be on his/her head. They will have to come to the inescapable conclusion that the audience either does or does not find it amusing. But that is for him to decide based on their reactions, not up to some hysterical finger wagging woman.
The first sentence is a direct contradiction of the last. That "hysterical finger wagging woman" (what a telling statement about what your true argument is) is part of the audience.
And the entire thing points out that you really don't believe there should be any consequences for his actions. "For him to decide"? No, the consequences are not for him to decide. They're for the audience to decide. That's their job. If their response is that the comedians are sexist bigots, if the the producers decide they don't want to pay for that material anymore, then the only thing he gets to decide is whether or not to change his material, try to find another way to promote it, or abandon the enterprise.
Instead, you want to muzzle certain types of speech because it offends you. Thus, you're simply a coward who is too weak to live with freedom, by your own admission.
In your second post, you pointed out the downfall of your own argument (Message 57):
One thing I've noticed with comics in general (not always the case) is that they are people driven by the approval of others.
And in this case, we have a comedian decidedly not getting the approval of others and you're defending the idea that they should never be faced with that response. That the only response they should ever get is laughter or silence, never a negative response. You want rights without responsiblity.
You're a coward who's too weak to live with freedom.
quote:
What status might that be?
Don't play dumb.
quote:
I'd LOVE to see your work.
It's been posted here. You've made fun of it. In this thread. Let's not play dumb.
quote:
Um, I never once mentioned your dick, whatsoever. Please show me where I did.
Let's not play dumb. Just because the word "dick" did not escape your lips doesn't mean you were not making reference to my sexuality.
Once again, you display that you are nothing but a coward who cannot live with freedom. The moment you get pushback, you wet yourself and cry.
quote:
From where I'm sitting you're the one who seems obsessed with that deep dicking.
The more you continue it, the more you show that you can't think of anything else other than sex when you consider me. What I said was, "wave your dick," a common expression denoting one-upsmanship. There is no connection to actual sex but is simply another way of saying, "thumping one's chest." Instead, onifre immediately jumps to actual sex and you follow along with your own comments. It's the same problem NJ has when dealing with homosexuality: Despite the fact that nobody brought it up, you immediately jump to a vision of having sex which you then have to immediately quash with insults and denigrations.
See, the thing is that I know that you and he and many others here are absolutely incapable of responding to an actual point when presented with the opportunity to engage in a bit of homophobia. I could have said, "chest thumping," or perhaps, "saber rattling," or even, "bared your teeth," or, "strutted," but I knew that if I chose a phrase that referenced a penis, you'd immediately accuse me of being gay. For someone who claims to not care, you seem to spend an awful lot of time obsessing about what I do with my dick.
And I know that when I point that out, you'll get all defensive rather than simply recognize that once again, you've been played. And the more defensive you get, the more it shows that you cannot explain why it is that you're so desperate to express your opinion about my sex life. You just can't seem to help it. Since you seem to be unable to think of me without thinking of sex, I have to wonder just what it is you're trying to tell us.
Prove me wrong: Show that you can respond to me without bringing up sexuality.
quote:
You've managed to burn every bridge you've walked across because you're perpetually pissed off at everything anyone ever says.
(*chuckle*)
If that's what you need to believe.
I notice you're still responding to me. If you really think my posts aren't that valuable, why is it you always rise to them?
quote:
The only real question then is whether the person telling the jokes actually ascribes to misogyny or whether they weren't just, you know, telling a fucking joke!
Then let's discuss that. Because so far, all you've done is complain that while I agree they have a right to say it, I also insist they need to be willing to accept the consequences of saying it such as having their employer decide that they don't want to pay for them to say it anymore. You want them to be able to say whatever they want without any consequences for doing so.
You talk a good game about being against censorship but then immediately say that the person speaking against the comedian needs to be silent.
quote:
You do understand the difference between comedy and real life, don't you?
Of course. What does that have to do with anything, though? A person doesn't have to actually engage in an activity to support it. But to go there, we'd have to actually discuss the joke, which nobody here seems to be willing to do, not even you. After all, if they're not the misogynistic jerks, then one would expect that if they were faced with evidence that they were behaving as such, the reponse would be, "Oops. You know, I thought that was funny at the time but now that you point out A, B, and C, I can see how what I said can be taken that way."
Instead, the response has been to spout nothing but ad hominems against the person daring to think the joke wasn't funny but rather cruel. It's been attempts to silence critics all the while whining about "censorship!" It's been avoiding the issue by routine expressions of homophobia. You're doing everything you possibly can to avoid having to justify your argument.
quote:
And even then a person has the right to be misogynistic pricks if they want to.
Of course. And the responsibility that comes along with it is that other people get to point that out and have consequences for being so.
quote:
They'll just have to suffer the consequences. So let them. That's my point.
No, it isn't. Your own words show that it isn't:
This lady is apparently too weak to live with the freedom of speech. She reduced herself to a child.
Apparently, the only consequences that are acceptable to you are no consequences at all.

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 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-10-2010 9:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 11:29 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 198 of 269 (560298)
05-14-2010 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Modulous
05-10-2010 11:21 AM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
You concluded that from him commenting in a light hearted fashion that your post was rather long?
No, I concluded that from his offense that somebody took his comments seriously and that his first reaction was not to engage but rather to get defensive. I concluded that because despite the fact that I have said from the very beginning that O&A have every right to say whatever they wish, they just need to accept the fact that everybody else gets to respond, including their employers, he seems to be incapable of getting beyond the fact that there was pushback.
quote:
Your powers of interpretation are superhuman.
It's called "literacy." I know...it came to me when I was a young 'un. Three years old. I have to work at it, though. It requires being thorough, reading for context, applying past statements to current comments, and synthesizing what you've analyzed. It's so much more effort than simply flying off the handle, but with great power comes great responsibility.
quote:
I'd be keen to see this proof. How does a group of people talking about something, some of who may have disliked the skit, prove that someone 'laid a turd'.
If there were nobody who felt the joke was bad, there wouldn't have been a televised discussion with someone saying it was bad, now would there? I had thought that proof by inspection would have been obvious, but I have those superhuman powers you mentioned. Forgive me for forgetting that you're merely mortal. Let me know how long your attention span is and I'll try to take that into account.
Is there a reason you're playing dumb?
quote:
I have a feeling it all comes down to what is meant by 'laying a turd'.
What a wonderful discussion to have! Oh, but that would require actually analyzing the joke, something onifre has directly stated that he will not do. "It wasn't his joke to defend." If we're going to determine whether or not it is comedy or cruelty, we're going to have to talk about it and somebody is going to have to defend the joke.
Instead, onifre wants to hide behind whines of censorship as if accepting consequences for one's statements is beyond the pale.
quote:
But that's all onifre is doing! He's responding to her speech with more speech - by pointing out her concerns can be ameliorated while the concerns of those that enjoy the performers are likewise taken into account...merely through a minor act of will on her behalf. Why the smear?
Because his reaction is not to engage her speech but to shut it down. And in return to my response to his speech was met with not only a refusal to engage but also an active denial of any responsibility to do so. He doesn't want there to be any consequences.
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.
...
If you don't like what O & A say on THEIR show then change the station - especially on satellite.
But more important, who the (curse word*) are you to say there is a line to be crossed? That's why jokes are considered "wrong to say," because people think their feelings mean something to the rest of us.
...
But when the market speaks, as in the case with Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony, and people say they like the show and listen, then who are you or anyone else to think your opinion or taste in humor matters?
This is a free speech issue within the context of O & A's show and them being free to do and say whatever they feel is funny on THEIR show over satellite radio. Her taste in humor, or anyone elses, shouldn't interfere with that.
Message 181
Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police.
...
Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station?
...
There are no consequences in this case, 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. That's not a consequence to what Patrice or O & A said, it's an annoyance.
...
She heard something, probably second hand because I'M SURE she's not listening to O & A on a regular basis, then SHE decide to make 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.
...
The audience of the O & A show will decide if they care to listen, not some PC cunt who heard about it second hand and decide she would make an issue of it.
...
People are getting outraged over WORDS. Its weak and pathetic. Change the station and get on with your pathetic life.
...
So your opinion doesn't matter.
...
You are just someone who heard what he said and got offended, so fine, sorry your feelings go hurt but heres what you do, don't watch Patrice or listen to O & A. Problem solved.
But I like them, I also like Patrice. Who are you to tell me different?
...
Who are you to tell them they can't enjoy it?
...
And if there is an audience of people that love to watch you perform, then no one elses opinion matters.
...
everyone else who doesn't listen to them should shut the fuck up about it.
...
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.
...
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.
...
But don't tell others what they should and shouldn't find funny or listen to.
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke. So much for that "responding to speech with more speech" claim of yours. Or is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting?
Oh, but there I go again with those superhuman powers of literacy and having an attention span longer than the current news cycle.
quote:
The humour seems to derive from his sense of sexual entitlement and the misogyny that stems from the improbable union described.
And her point was that this misogyny has real effects upon real women. But rather than actually discuss that, rather than go into the details of the joke and determine if there really is any misogyny there, Patrice and onifre simply want to claim the woman to be a "cunt" for having the temerity to take O&A to task for what they said.
quote:
It could have been done with women comedians commenting about how Gordon Brown needs a 'fuckin' blow job' and a 'good fisting'.
Huh? Are you saying that consensual sex is equivalent to rape? There is a difference between saying that someone needs a pleasurable act and saying that somebody needs to be violently victimized.
For example, in my response to onifre's continued fascination with my sex life (which is really getting kinda creepy, I must say), I suggested that he go out and find someone to engage in rough sex with him. But here's the thing: I was basing my comments on the premise that he wanted to engage in it; that his comments indicated a deep-seated desire on his part that he was too ashamed to admit. I didn't suggest that somebody should attack him without his consent. Do you see the difference?
quote:
Something like this?
Indeed.
So why are Patrice and onifre saying something different? I realize that this requires some of that superhuman literacy power that I have, but you are aware that we are dealing with more than just one person in this discussion, yes? O&A made a joke and then apologized for it. While there might be a discussion about the sincerity of their apology, what we're now dealing with is Patrice's claim that the blowback regarding their bit was completely inappropriate and onifre's claim that the person who spoke out is a "cunt."
quote:
What are the consequences you think might follow from this?
That raping and beating a woman will be considered "funny" rather than despicable, leading to women being actually raped and beaten and having their attackers treated as something less than the monsters they are. Now, do I think that this is the sole source of this attitude of sexism that pervades our culture? Of course not. Let's not play dumb. There are much more significant sources, but that hardly lets people off the hook for what they have control over. O&A can't stop the child from watching Daddy beat up Mommy and making him think that women are objects to be abused at will, but they can certainly prevent those who are spouting that viewpoint from having a nationwide audience and then laughing along and taking it even further.
quote:
You make it sound like 'funny' and 'disparaging' are always mutually exclusive.
Not at all. As is a common refrain, the line between comedy and tragedy is mighty fine indeed. "Tragedy" is when it happens to me. "Comedy" is when it happens to you. It is hard to find examples of humor that aren't dependent upon somebody being put down. But the difference between them has to do with context and intent. Disparaging can be funny if there is an agreed-upon convention that the concept being disparaged is worthy of it.
Take the famous scene for Cyrano de Bergerac. Valvert tries to make fun of the size of Cyrano's nose and he responds by going much further than that. Thus, we see that it isn't simply the words being said or even the derogation that is the problem. It's the intent. Thus, Valvert comes off like a jerk and Cyrano comes off like a hero, even though he's going on and on putting himself down in the process.
It's the old observation that people on the inside can make jokes that people on the outside can't. When black comedians toss about "nigger," it is received much differently than when white comedians do it. Why? Because of the intent of the joke, or at least the trust regarding the intent of the joke.
Which takes me back to my original point: It isn't the subject matter in and of itself that is the problem. It's the context and presentation that let us know if it is meant as humor or something else. Slapstick is all about violence, but there is no intent that somebody is actually hurt. The Stooges aren't actually trying to blind each other when they poke each other in the eye. You aren't supposed to get brain damage when you get hit by the lumber. Flying through the plate glass window isn't supposed to result in being cut to ribbons.
quote:
And what about satire?
What about it? Again, satire works because you don't really mean what you're saying in the slightest. Instead, it is being used as a metaphor for something else. The denigration is not to the surface but rather to an underlying idea.
quote:
I find your casual homophobia offensive. Time and again you project some kind of homosexual intent on your debate opponents as if it were some kind of retort to suggest they might be gay for you.
OK, let's discuss this. What is your evidence that I am engaging in "homophobia"? After all, I am not the one who continually asks about other people's sex lives and then denigrates them for their desires.
I made a comment about onifre "waving his dick" at me. This is a common phrase that refers not to sex but rather to one-upsmanship. There are plenty of phrases I could have used, but I decided to use the one that included a penis because I knew that onifre would be unable to resist the urge to express his own homophobia. And in this context, it is especially relevant since it's an example of speech being responded to with more speech and detailing the difference between comments used for cruelty and comments used for another purpose.
After all, his comments are rooted in the idea that being gay is something to be ashamed of. He's trying to get a rise out of me, put me on the defensive, and shift the focus onto my sexuality as if I'm supposed to get so upset at being accused of being gay that I forget everything else.
My comments, on the other hand, turn it around onto him. If he truly doesn't think that being gay is something to be ashamed of, then he should have no problem with those comments being directed at him. And as I directly said, there is no shame in desiring things that most others don't. My comments were rooted in the idea that it is OK to be gay and that the problem is denying it, is self-loathing, is engaging in behaviours that will only lead to sorrow because one is not being honest.
Remember, I'm not the one that brought up sex. I never am. It is always he and Hyroglyphx who seem to be incapable of interacting with me without expressing their opinions about how I enjoy having my orgasms. You're trying to pull the same defense of them that you tried with NJ and his inability to discuss being gay without bringing rape, incest, bestiality, drugs, murder, etc. into it. Nobody else ever makes that connection because there is no logical way to get from one to the other. But somehow, that's always the first thing in his mind. To then claim that there isn't a comparison being made is disingenuous: If there were no comparison to be made, why bring it up?
Same thing: If they weren't trying to claim that being gay was something bad, why bring it up? I know I didn't.
Homophobia requires there to be something wrong with being gay. My comments say nothing of the kind. My comments do not disparage those who are gay.
Instead, they disparage those who would use being gay as a weapon, as something to be ashamed of.
There's a simple way to prove me wrong: All they have to do is refrain from making comments about my sex life and we'll see how long I can last in returning the favor.
quote:
Oh, I'm sure you'll reply about how you were just having fun
No. There is a very serious point in why I respond the way I do.
quote:
just bantering with someone who can 'take it',
Not at all. I don't think onifre can take it in the slightest. That's why he always returns to it as his primary attack against me. Whenver he paints himself into a corner, he tries to rescue himself by accusing me of being gay.
He's nothing but a coward.
quote:
it's just a game of wits.
Oh, there's a wonderful cliche in there about "unarmed opponents," but I'll stick with this.
It isn't a game. He wants to be able to spout his homophobia without any consequences to his actions. And given your own personal history regarding the treatment of gay people on this board (*Dan Carroll*cough!*cough!*), you're not exactly helping. You, too, seem to want there to be no consequences.
quote:
Yeah yeah i's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Do you really think that the way we joke about homosexuality has no connection to how we treat homosexuals?
Indeed, I do. That's why I responded the way I did. His attempts to use being gay as an insult, his expectation that I am going to throw a fit at the idea of being accused of being gay, all of that is part and parcel of the pervasive homophobia in society. But rather than respond the way he expected, I took his homophobia and turned it around on him. The only reason that could possibly be considered bad is if the original exhortation was problematic in the first place. We've been down this road before, Modulous. Did you learn nothing from the mass bannings of 2007?
Again, there's a very simple way to prove me wrong: All onifre needs to do is stop making comments about my sex life and we'll see how long I can go before I make a comment about his.

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 191 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2010 11:21 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by onifre, posted 05-14-2010 12:14 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 200 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2010 1:44 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 202 of 269 (561522)
05-21-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by onifre
05-10-2010 2:21 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Well when you stop being condescending in your replies then I'll adjust the way I respond.
The moment you stop playing dumb, I'll stop treating you as dumb. You seem to have forgotten (yet again) that I agreed with his initial point: There is no such thing as a taboo subject, only poor execution of an attempt to be funny. But if you screw it up, you have to take the blowback.
quote:
If you listen to the beginning of the video, it explains it.
Then what was the point of everything else he said. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it? Message 177:
The only point he had was that all topics have the potential for humor in them and we cannot declare something incapable of being made fun of. It might be extremely difficult to do so, but that's different from being absolute about it.
But it seems you're more concerned about the consequences of being a sexist prick as if him being a comedian somehow lets him off the hook. He kept on saying that he was there as an "expert" on comedy and yet refused to discuss the actual joke to explain why it was comedic rather than cruel. And when she tried to discuss actual jokes, he deflected, evaded, and avoided. For someone who was supposed to be an "expert" on comedy, he had absolutely nothing to say about it.
quote:
He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said.
Then what on earth was he doing there? The entire point of the segment was to discuss the joke, to either defend it or deny it. That he was incapable of it and did everything he could to avoid doing so only showed that he was absolutely worthless at best. He was hardly there "representing comedy." He was there representing a scared little man who couldn't take the heat.
quote:
quote:
And if that was all he said, then you might have a point. The thing is, he kept talking, denigrating the other person. That he couldn't keep to that point means that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
His only point was that O&A were free to try and be as funny as they wanted
And the response is still the same: If that was all he said, then you might have a point. The thing is, he kept talking, denigrating the other person. That he couldn't keep to that point means that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
If all you're going to do is repeat yourself, then all you're going to get is a repeat of the refutation. You need to come up with something new. If you don't like being treated as if you are dumb, then you need to stop playing dumb.
quote:
When she instigated him by bringing up his performance that she once saw (even though that had nothing to do with why either of them was on the show) yes, he got defensive.
Once again, it only proves that he wasn't there to "represent comedy." He was there to represent a coward who couldn't take the heat.
quote:
Because, while she may not have found it funny (his performance that she once saw) it doesn't mean it's not funny.
Indeed. And what a wonderful conversation that would have been to have! Oh, but that would have required him defending the joke which he refused to do and did everything he could to avoid doing. Nobody disagreed with the idea that comedians try to be funny and sometimes fail. The issue, however, is whether or not this particular instance was an example of comedy or cruelty.
Nobody seems to want to consider that. So if we all agree that comedians try to be funny and sometimes screw it up, why are you still pissing your pants?
quote:
He even did the joke in the video and the camera men started laughing, which is when he told them (mockingly) "Don't laugh, it's not funny and she's offended."
Which proves my point: He couldn't defend it. He couldn't explain why it was an example of comedy, not cruelty. When push came to shove, he deflected, avoided, and evaded. He wasn't there to represent comedy. He was there to represent cowardice. He couldn't take the heat and lashed out like a child.
quote:
Which is fucking hilarious! And ALWAYS gets a huge laugh from a mixed-sex crowd.
You seem to be of the opinion that I don't find it funny. Do I need to remind you that I haven't said one word about my opinion of any of the jokes in question? You need to stop reacting to this fantasy you have generated of what you wish I would have said and start paying attention. If you don't like being treated like an idiot, then you need to stop playing dumb.
Can you explain why it's funny? You're a comedian. Surely you have something of value to say as to what comedy is and how something that in one context can be cruel while in another context is funny. Why is it that I've been the only one to even try to examine techniques of comedy and analyze the specifics to distinguish why it falls in the realm of comedy?
Just because somebody doesn't find something funny doesn't mean it still isn't comedic in nature. After all, there's no accounting for taste. But there is a distinction between comedy and cruelty and the fact that people can find cruel things funny doesn't mean it's comedy. I am the king of the inappropriate laugh. I find so many things funny that I shouldn't because my train of thought jumps the tracks at a moment's notice. The fact that I find something funny doesn't mean that what triggered it was comedic in nature.
quote:
Now, is he incouraging people to go out and do it? No!
Oh, really? That is, after all, the point of the discussion. Sometimes, one's words take a life of their own and what you thought was just a statement made in a certain context actually finds itself in a much different arena. But the way you respond to that is not to call people a "cunt" for having the temerity to talk back to you. It's to engage and discuss what was said, the context in which it was said, and how that can inform what it means.
But no, "that's not his job." Huh? A "representative of comedy" is not supposed to explain why something is funny? Nobody disagreed with the idea that comedians try to be funny and sometimes they fail. So if that's all he was there to say, what on earth was the point of the discussion. Everybody's in agreement, so what are you and he so scared of?
quote:
It's just a joke
Oh, really? Clearly not or there wouldn't have been a discussion about it. Remember, everybody agreed that there was no issue with a comedian bombing. The question was whether or not this particular instance was comedy or cruelty. He ran away screaming from the discussion, pretty much literally.
quote:
That was his joke that she didn't like, BUT, it was not what he was on the show to discuss.
Well, first, that wasn't the joke she didn't like. He thought he knew what joke she was talking about (the "Angry Pirate"), but she was referring to a completely different one (the "Donkey Punch"). Once again, he proved himself to be completely incompetent as a "representative of comedy." He didn't even know what the joke was that was causing the problem.
See, this is why you have to discuss the actual joke and not pretend that this is some issue about censorship. Nobody is saying they should be thrown in jail. It's the issue of whether or not something specific actually got away. The entire point of the show was to discuss the joke, but he got so scared that he started literally screaming his way through the segment while both she and the host were incapable of focusing. She because she's a wimp and the host because it's "good television" to see someone screaming.
quote:
He wasn't there to apologize, he was there to discuss the O&A issue.
Except he didn't. He did everything except discuss the O&A issue. Instead, he spent the entire segment screaming about how she was a stupid bitch. At no point did he actually talk about the specific joke in question and why it was comedic. He didn't have to apologize but if he was going to defend the claim that it wasn't a piece of rank misogyny, then he's going to have to defend the joke. We already have consensus that comedians will sometimes fail in their attempts to be funny. The issue is whether or not this was comedy to begin with.
The fact that he and you are so reluctant to actually discuss the joke shows that no, you aren't "representing comedy." Instead, you want to be able to say anything you want without consequences.
quote:
And he never spoke to her like that. Now you're just making shit up.
The funny thing about the internet...things tend to stick around. Let's not play dumb and pretent that you're complaining that the phonetic phrase, "ju stu-pId bItsh. kant ju taik ai dzok," came out of his lips.
I don't know her, but I'm assuming that she has nothing to do with funny.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
How many unfunny rape jokes lead to rape?
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Your world is not funny! Your world is-s-s-s-s-s...
"You stupid ass, can't you take a joke?"
I'm diabetic. I make jokes about that. I'm a victim.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
I'm trying to make fun of anything I think I can make fun of.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
And after she politely let him speak, he interrupts her:
What nation? Is this the nation that's paying you? I'm not the nation. I'm just speaking for me and funny.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
You're speaking for the nation or you're speaking for...?
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Did you think they were trying to be funny?
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Why are you in their business?
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
It was hilarious!
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
That's why she doesn't like me.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
And the lady in her outrage didn't know what it meant.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
You're not living in the context of funny. You're living in the context of firing.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
It's the PC cops run amok.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
She has an entire encycolpedia of her stance on it but there's no passion involved.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
But it's not real. Here's just what she has to say, "We are outraged and fired and fired and fired."
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Why are you laughing? She's outraged!
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
It's called humor that she has no clue what it is!
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
All your information, ma'am, is second hand from someone making you aware that someone may have said something that you should be upset about.
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
So yes, the phrase, "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?" did not pass his lips.
Let us not play dumb and pretend that that wasn't precisely what he was saying. Over half of his sentences were just that.
quote:
He is an aggressive person who speaks in the manner that he does.
Of course. And part of that "aggressiveness" is to be a sexist prick. You've admitted it yourself. And now you're complaining that an admitted sexist prick was caught being a sexist prick?
quote:
But he was invited to be there with full knowledge of how he acts. It would be like bringing Andrew Dice Clay and asking him to be polite. Fuck you, he's not polite. Don't have him on the show if you don't want him to speak freely then. You get what you ask for.
Huh? Who said anything about being polite? I was talking about engaging in an actual discussion of the topic at hand rather than running away in terror like the coward that he is. Again, let us not play dumb. Clearly I don't have a problem with discussions being heated and engaging with others for whom there is no respect. However, there is a difference between not respecting someone making an argument and not respecting the argument. Thinking that your counterpart is a blithering idiot is immaterial. What you need to show is why the argument is idiotic.
At no point did Patrice actually explain why what was said was comedic rather than cruel. Everybody agreed that comedians will try to be funny and sometimes they will fail. So since everybody agreed to that, what was the point of going on for another six minutes? Yeah, there's no accounting for taste, sometimes jokes fail, that's all well and good.
But was this a joke? Just because people say it is doesn't mean it actually is. But to discuss that, we're going to have to talk about the joke and analyze it and defend it.
But I forget. "That's not his job." Then what good is he?
quote:
No, HE doesn't have to explain why other people find it funny
Incorrect. That's precisely what he has to do. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of talking to him? If he can't explain why it's funny, then he isn't the "expert on comedy" he claims to be.
quote:
Period.
No consequences. You prove my point. You want to be able to say anything you want without there being any consequences.
quote:
First, if you paid attention and knew what they were discussing, you'd know that this was about O&A and their bit, not Patrice's act.
(*chuckle*) That's rich. You lecturing me about paying attention. Of course this was about O&A's bit. Patrice was brought on to talk about O&A's bit. He was brought on to defend O&A's bit, but he ran away in fright like the coward that he is. He said that comedians try to be funny and sometimes fail and nobody disagreed. He then went on to have almost every statement out of his mouth be a denigration of anybody who dared to actually analyze the statements. The host included.
quote:
Which, btw, O&A were fired from XM for.
No, they weren't. Aren't you paying attention?
They were suspended for 30 days not for the joke, which they apologized for, but rather for complaining about the reaction and having to apologize for it.
"Comments made by Opie and Anthony on yesterday's broadcast put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter," Washington-based XM said in a statement. "The management of XM Radio decided to suspend Opie and Anthony to make clear that our on-air talent must take seriously the responsibility that creative freedom requires of them."
-- USA Today, 5/15/2007
They were fired from CBS Radio when they put on a call from people claiming to be having sex in St. Paul's Cathedral. They have since been rehired by CBS.
quote:
Patrice, nor I, are trying to defend O&A's joke.
Then you have nothing to say. Everybody already agrees that comedians try to be funny and sometimes they fail.
The question, however, is whether or not what happened was even an act of comedy in the first place. Ah, but you don't want to talk about that, so what good are you? What do you possibly bring to the discussion that hasn't already been agreed upon by everybody involved?
quote:
Have them fired, which DID happen.
No, it didn't. You need to start paying attention.
quote:
The AUDIENCE spoke, not some random, self-appointed judge of comedy.
And she's not part of the audience?
You seem to be very afraid that she might convince other people of the legitimacy of her claim and thus have a result that you don't like. Free speech for everybody except those who disagree with you.
quote:
What I AM defending is their right to tell the joke.
And nobody is disagreeing with a comedian's "right" to tell a joke.
What is being discussed is if it was a joke in the first place. To do that, we have to examine the specific statements. That you find it funny doesn't make it a joke.
quote:
People take jokes too serious
"You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
quote:
If its funny then its funny. Racism is hilarious. Bigotry is hilarious. If it wasn't then All in the Family and The Jeffersons would not have been able to broadcast.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? No, not the issue about "racism is hilarious" or that "bigotry is hilarious." It's that you don't see the difference between making fun of racism/bigotry and basing humor upon racism/bigotry.
F'rinstance, much has been made of the possible "wife beating" aspect of The Honeymooners. Ralph is always threatening to beat Alice. But what makes it OK, what makes it an act of comedy and not cruelty is that we know that he's never gonna do it. She'd never put up with it, she always stares him down, and the only reason he's even going there is because he knows that he's screwed up but he's too prideful to admit it. They aren't indicating that Alice deserves to be beaten or that it would be funny to actually do it. Instead, they're making fun of the hole Ralph is digging for himself.
quote:
He wasn't there to defend O&A's joke.
Oh, yes, he was. Weren't you paying attention?
Is radio cleaning house?
...
Patrice, are O&A next?
...
What if they're not funny?
...
I don't know how many jokes about rape there are.
...
You think it's OK to try to make jokes about rape?
...
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?
...
Don't you think a joke about rape is doomed to be not funny?
...
You've heard a funny rape joke?
...
You've got the same problem that Opie and Anthony did. You can't say just anything on the air
Did you even bother to listen to your own source? The host tries and tries and tries to get Patrice to defend the joke...or does the phrase "how do you justify" mean something different in your world?...and he evades, avoids, and distracts.
quote:
He was there to make the point that everything has the potential to be funny.
Incorrect. If it were, why did he keep on talking for another six minutes? Why did the host directly ask him to justify the joke?
quote:
Which is when the interviewer ask him "Even rape?" and Patrice said, "Yes, even rape can be funny."
And Sonya agreed:
All these guys have every right to be as funny as they want. They can go out and try and be as funny as they want, make as much money being as funny as they want.
So since everybody agrees, what on earth was Patrice complaining about? Why are you pissing your pants over something that everybody agrees on?
quote:
She didn't hear the O&A bit for herself
You know that for a fact? There's a recording of it. It's on YouTube.
When you read other people's minds, do you have to cancel out everybody else's thoughts and focus on just one person or do you just "change the channel" to the specific person you want to listen to?
quote:
Sure, I agree, in the end the audience will decide.
Unless you disagree with them. Free speech to everybody but those who disagree with you.
quote:
I don't think a joke should be taken so serious.
You assume it was a joke. That assumption is what is in question.
quote:
People are overly sensitive these days and feel the need to be PC about everything.
Right, because wishing someone to be violently assaulted is of no concern.
quote:
The consequences come, not because the joke wasn't funny, but because advertisers don't want to lose money. Its not about whats right, its about money. And to me, that makes the punishment meaningless if your only reason for punishing is because it hurt your pocket.
There is no sencerity at that point, just a bunch of corporate douchebags who don't want to lose their summer homes.
That's why Patrice said, and I agree 100%, there is no passion in their argument, its all a bunch of corporate dicks trying to save their wallets.
Huh? XM is owned by NOW?
Your complaint about money is baseless. The entire reason O&A have a show in the first place is because of money. They are selling themselves to the radio station because the station is in the business of making money. To complain about the station coming down on their properties because they're not making money while ignoring the fact that those properties only exist in order to make money is to be disingenuous at best.
But once again, you haven't been paying attention. O&A weren't fired. They were suspended.
And they weren't suspended because they made the joke. They were suspended because they got pissy at their employers.
quote:
But to hurt this person with fines, or fire them and try to ruin their career over it, just because some corporate sponser asked you too, is pathetic.
So no consequences. We get it. When your comments start hurting other people, you don't get punished in any way. You want to say whatever vile thought crosses your mind (a very short trip, indeed), and heaven help anybody who dares to talk back.
quote:
Because it solves NOTHING.
You mean not popularizing violence doesn't actually reduce violence? Having people think that violence is a bad thing doesn't actually reduce violence?

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 192 by onifre, posted 05-10-2010 2:21 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by dronestar, posted 05-21-2010 12:16 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 207 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 2:09 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 203 of 269 (561523)
05-21-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by onifre
05-10-2010 5:42 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
Just in case anyone is feeling like Patrice himself can't take a racist joke. Here is a clip, from the O&A show, in which a white comic (Louis CK) makes a completely racist joke and Patrice laughs at it.
Incorrect. Louis CK does not make a racist joke. He makes a joke poking fun at racists. There's a difference. His joke is rooted not in the idea that there is a "nigger" way of being but rather in the ridiculousness of the idea that there is a "nigger" way of being.
quote:
Now, why didn't this OBVIOUSLY racist remark gather any kind of backlash?
Because it wasn't racist in the slightest.
You seem to be caught up on the individual word that was spoken rather than paying attention to the context in which it was said.

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 194 by onifre, posted 05-10-2010 5:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


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

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 204 by dronestar, posted 05-21-2010 12:16 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024