Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gender and Humor
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 196 of 269 (559754)
05-11-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by aiki
05-11-2010 4:40 AM


Re: Last Was-ism?
Hmmm, I see the thread's moved on a bit
Yeah. It has all gotten very serious with Oni and Rrhain going at it with each other. But that is entertaining in it's own way.
I'm doin' it! Well, made a start anyway.
May the wildlife be with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by aiki, posted 05-11-2010 4:40 AM aiki has not 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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 199 of 269 (560333)
05-14-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rrhain
05-14-2010 7:50 AM


Since you're gonna keep acting like a fag (and I don't mean that in the sexual sense, I just mean you're being a fag) I'll respond in my usual 'Rrhain wants to act like a fag' fashion...
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.
Playing arm-chair psychologist and then accuse me of doing it first? You're so full of shit, dude, you're eyes must be completely brown.
I don't care that there was push back. 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.
He gave his opinion, the joke was not offensive. She gave her opinion, the joke was offensive. My point is, why listen to ONLY her? That's what Patrice is saying. Who is she to determine what's funny or not funny for other people? 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?
Oh, but that would require actually analyzing the joke, something onifre has directly stated that he will not do.
Analyzing the joke? Why? I found it funny, she didn't. Ok. Who gives a fuck? There, I've analyzed it.
I mean honestly, where do you get off thinking you can analyze the potential humor of a joke? Something completely subjective. Next, lets analyze the emotional meaning of poems or colors... christ you're a douche.
He doesn't want there to be any consequences.
Holy shit, what's it like to live in your world of delusion, dude? Are all theater people this fucking annoying?
I clearly state, and you fucking quote it too which is the funny part:
quote:
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?
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. If they didn't like the show and refused to listen to O&A, then there will be proper action taken. And that is fine with me.
BUT, if the people listening to the O&A show weren't offended and found the show funny, or the bit funny, this woman's personal opinion should not affect anything. Sure, I'll listen to her, and she'll listen to me. But in the end, neither of our opinons should affect anything. The listeners of the O&A show will make the final verdict.
Do you agree or not? If not why not?
And her point was that this misogyny has real effects upon real women.
So what... Are you saying people can't make misogynistic jokes? Or racist jokes?
Huh? Are you saying that consensual sex is equivalent to rape?
Christ you're a fucking douche...
For example, in my response to onifre's continued fascination with my sex life
Sorry dude, I have enough trouble keeping up with mine. I made two comments about the fact that you mentioned dick twice. 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.
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.
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.
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. .
- What?!
Rape being funny in one particular joke will lead to rape? This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read from you.
No further comment....
Take the famous scene for Cyrano de Bergerac.
Be honest, you're gay, right? Not that there's anything wrong with that!
It's the context and presentation that let us know if it is meant as humor or something else.
Finally you say something that can be discussed.
So you feel that O&A really would like homeless people to rape Rice?
Do you think they didn't mean that as a joke?
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.
Once again you act like an arm-chair psych? Dude, relax, some of my best friends have sex with gay people.
In fact, I specifically ignored all that rethoric in your post cos it was getting stupid. Both you and I are not homophobic; its clear that we are both in a business where we almost couldn't be. So lets drop it. I know you mean it as a joke, but it's a stupid joke that doesn't make sense to continue.
Remember, I'm not the one that brought up sex. I never am.
Lets see if that's true. Lets go back to when this started:
Message 180
Oni writes:
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.
Rrhain writes:
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.
No one mentioned anything about a penis till you brought it up. In other words, you feel Patrice has a small dick or some kind of dick issue, which is the reason for his issue with this lady, right? Sorry, I'm just asking because I'm not the one here with the superhuman ability to comprehend.
Same post had the "Wave your dick at me" comment, but we'll let that one slide.
But as you can see, you instigated it. I responded once with some fun gay comments but then I droppped it. You picked it up and ran with it and tried to make me sound homophobic and claim that I wanted to fuck you. I don't know why that seemed like the logical conclusion from my gay jokes, but OK.....
If you think it was funny then cool. But I dropped it in the next post, I even said I would drop it, you now continue with it. Any reason for that?
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.
Excuse me asshole, but I NEVER bullshit with you like that. This is the crap you and CS get on about and I challenge you to show me when the fuck in past posts I ever attacked you like that. Other than in ONE post on this thread as a joke. Even though I thought (and still do think) that you're homosexual. But that's just my opinion that I came to from reading your posts. But I don't mean that in an insulting manner. So please don't take it that way. We all make assumtions about one another on this forum, lets not pretend we don't.
When I use the word 'fag' I don't say it to mean homosexual. Don't act stupid! You know there are two meanings, one playful, one derogatory. People use the phrase, "that's gay" all the time. They don't mean, that's something homosexual's like, don't be a fuckhead about it. Christ your a fucking douche.
He's nothing but a coward.
Why do you pretend to be a tough guy on an internet forum? 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, Peter Pan.
He wants to be able to spout his homophobia without any consequences to his actions.
I love penis! Is that better?
Btw, someone very, very close to me is gay and I love her just the same. If you're joking then cool, but you can stop if you're being serious cos its getting stupid.
His attempts to use being gay as an insult
Dude, I honestly thought you were gay. Sorry. I didn't mean it as an insult. I may have been mocking you about it but fuck that, I mock all my gay friends about them being gay. Why not, they aren't above being mocked. They fuck with me about liking vaginas. No one is offended cos no one gives a shit or takes the other too serious. You take shit too personal and think you have everyone figured out. But that's cos you're a fag about everything (not in the homosexual context), I just mean like, a fag.
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.
First, as you can see above, you brought penis' up first. I commented once and dropped it in my next post to you, but here you are again bringing it up. Its the same thing you do with CS. He'll make a gay reference and you automatically make it seem like he wants to fuck you. I know you're just attempting to be funny, but you're so not funny that it comes off as stupid, homophobic rethoric on your part.
Mod even caught that you were doing it too and you respond by claiming HE is homophobic.
Is your entire argument, I know you are but what am I?
Christ you're a fucking douche....
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 7:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2010 3:50 PM onifre has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 200 of 269 (560348)
05-14-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rrhain
05-14-2010 7:50 AM


You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough
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
So what was the purpose with preceding with a quote where onifre was not being defensive but light hearted?
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?
Don't ask me - you are the one that claimed that the determiner of turd laying was the audience. You attempted to prove that by showing a single example of a person (with an associated special interest group) that was clearly not the audience. If they performed that bit at a NOW-NYC conference, then you'd be making a much stronger point.
I don't think onifre ever disputed that a human being existed that didn't like the joke - so pointing out that such human beings exist doesn't really seem relevant.
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
This would be like someone calling for the banning of playing Mozart on the air because someone complained about how Mozart used an offensively racist portrayal of a Moor through Monostatos. Or even worse (since the racist bits can almost be entirely extracted without hampering the music) - banning it because it is an inherently misogynistic piece.
Is there a reason you're playing dumb?
I'm not playing dumb. I am either dumb, or you shifted the definition of 'laying a turd' between posts.
Instead, onifre wants to hide behind whines of censorship as if accepting consequences for one's statements is beyond the pale.
And if the consequences amount to censorship?
Rrhain, you are a reasonable fellow. Clearly you think the consequences here are just fine, but onifre might argue differently.
If saying "Jesus was a fraud" could get you burned alive - do you think onifre would be merely whining if he complained about that? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's complaint about the consequences of having one's throat slit for criticising Islam - are you suggesting she wants to live in a consequence free world?
Probably not.
So if the consequences for telling a joke that a loud enough minority complain about is losing one's livelihood... that might be something worth commenting on. It might not, it would depend on context. I think onifre's position is that the context being 'comedy' is sufficiently important.
Because his reaction is not to engage her speech but to shut it down.
Except he hasn't. At all. She thinks the comedians should shut up. Onifre thinks she should shut up. You are condemning onifre for responding to her responding to them. Why?
He doesn't want there to be any consequences.
It is my view that onifre is a 'free market' comedian. If the market finds it funny the consequences are that you make money and go on tours and so on. If the market finds it crass, tasteless, offensive and unfunny, you don't make any money and probably get things thrown at you or at least heckled into humiliation. You know - Ford occasionally produces a car that is dangerous and should never make it to the roads. Occasionally they do. Unless this is endemic, we don't close Ford down while there is still market demand for them. Why go chicken little when a comic makes a comedic error (if such an error occurred)?
If you worked in a grimy basement bar, and a passing tourist came in to see the local 'colour' and then got upset when you greeted them, "Yeah whaddya want?" should you be fired - if your regulars all prefer that to 'What can I serve you today, sir?"
I appreciate this is not a direct parallel for a number of reasons, its purpose is to highlight that just because you might balk at the consequences that actually result from an action - that doesn't mean you believe you should live in a consequence free world. Just a world free of a specific consequence.
Onifre seems to be irritated that when she speaks, she does so as if she has the backing of the many and that this unjustly gives greater weight to her words which in turn leads to consequences which are unfair.
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke. So much for that "responding to speech with more speech" claim of yours.
Since this is an internet forum - unless you have video footage you can embed to the contrary - all I see is onifre responding to her speech on their speech with more speech of his own. As you yourself point out, you have deduced this using your reading comprehension skills. Which must mean you are looking at words. Which constitutes 'speech'.
The brunt of which is: You are an individual lady, don't think you speak for everyone when you dictate what is or is not funny, what is or is not offensive etc.
So is there any particular reason you are criticising Onifre for doing what it is your are defending? I can understand you disagreeing with him - but you seem to be going further than that.
So why are Patrice and onifre saying something different?
Because neither onifre nor Patrice did it and so don't feel obliged to apologize for any offense they may have caused in so doing.
They seem more concerned with the general principle of whether a comedian should have licence to offend in pursuit of their art and whether artists should have funding to their work cut off by the active pressure from vocal minorities.
Huh? Are you saying that consensual sex is equivalent to rape?
No.
Homeless Charlie didn't actually express a desire to rape anybody. He expressed a desire to have sex with several people and a desire to have sex and punch in the face another as a remedy for their image of sexlessness. Like any humour it relies on the unexpected: A person is brought to mind, and then something unexpected happens. You associate Ms Rice with statesmanship, with being well dressed, dignified and maybe some other things. The unexpected is the image of that person undressed and undignified.
Granted, Ms Rice would probably not consent to having violent sex with Homeless Charlie. But Sheridan Smith is unlikely to consent to getting covered in baby oil and letting me have anal sex with her while badly tattooing my name on her spine...but that doesn't mean expressing my desire to do that is expressing a desire to rape.
That this was a deliberate attempt on O&As part to make jokes about raping Ms Rice is just the kind of thing that vocal minority does: They don't listen to what happened, take someone they trust's summary of the situation and then spin it into a whole new mythos that gets everyone saying they were joking about raping a black woman. In fact, if you watch the video Fox News frames the discussion that way from the outset.
Unless of course, I've missed a significant part of the bit?
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.
Allow me laugh like fucking drunk whore who just got punched in her kidneys by a child abusing Nazi vivisectionist.
So when a soldier is in a foxhole, and his makeshift shelter is destroyed by shellfire and he later comments to his comrades "Damnit, I just got this place the way I liked it." should a member of the press who overhears this black humour then apply pressure to the Generals to fire the soldier because when soldiers start making jokes about getting shelled they'll think that shelling is funny and potentially start shelling innocent people for fun and the military might treat those people as less than monsters?
quote:
Q: What is worse than being raped by Jack the Ripper?
A: Being fingered by Captain Hook
Ho ho - we're all smirking (I doubt laughing) about a serial killer raping someone and a fictional character tearing out the insides of someone's genitals. Clearly we'll now think people that do those things are not monsters.
I know you weren't saying these are walls, but small bricks that form walls, but do you have any evidence that humour about a bad situation leads to tolerance towards those bad situations?
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.
As far as I can see, they gave a load of homeless people money and alcohol and they were let loose in a shopping mall. Naturally - I would agree this is irresponsible and is beyond the realm of comedy.
But O&A can't stop people from being exposed to a prevalent attitude. Their job is to laugh at such attitudes and to get their audience to laugh at them too. Whether they succeed or not is not relevant as far as that point is concerned.
So here is what happened as far as I can see, from the transcript. Apparently they put him on the air because he was a funny guy and they had been talking for a while when the following basically takes place.
Homeless guy: I think C.Rice needs a man, she needs sex, I'd like to volunteer for the job.
Comedians: I can just imagine the look on her face when she realizes what's going on.
Homeless guy: I'd like to commit violent acts against her.
Comedians: Yes that's exactly what I meant
I don't think they vetted him to make sure he held no opinions that might offend, and I don't think they are obligated to.
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.
But you didn't just say that, otherwise onifre's actual response makes no sense. You used the dick waving metaphor provocatively as you admit and you also said,
quote:
Look, I'm very sorry about his penis
To which onifre wryly remarked (as comics are wont to do) that not only did you think of a penis metaphor when you wanted to express an ego battle of one upmanship but you did it again when attempting to humorously express your sorrow for Patrice being male by suggesting you had penis on your mind, and building up from there.
You retorted that onifre did this because he was secretely gay for you, and that suggesting that onifre was making advances on you.
Onifre was suggesting that he was perfectly fine with you being gay, and said nothing disparaging about you. You seemed to take being called gay was an attempt to insult and so retorted "And you!". If you think onifre was being homophobic for joking about you making two penis references must mean its on your mind, therefore you like gay porn. Surely you are being homophobic when you suggest he is homosexual for making a joke about you being homosexual?
You even took 'stop being a fag about it' not to mean 'stop being an annoying meddler' but to mean 'stop doing things that gay people do about the affair' and ranted about onifre's metaphorical attempt to anally rape you before impugning him for homophobia.
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.
Clearly it worked if that was his intent. I was only making a tiny point that your comments about onifre being gay as if that was an insulting thing to say to him, could be construed as being offensive even if they are very witty in context.
You responded on a defensive rant against onifre's homophobia. But I wasn't talking about onifre's homophobia or lack thereof. Onifre has not represented himself in any kind of politically correct context. You even tried to throw a little defensive shit my way referencing an argument we had years ago.
I could raise the "I'm offended about your jokes about gayness" point against onifre I suppose - but he'd probably just retort "So?", because I think that's kind of his point. For the record, I don't think either of you are being homophobic.
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.
Erm, or we could just discuss things in a grown up fashion using occasional adult humour that we don't take personally?
I just saw onifre replied while I was typing this, it'd be interesting to see what my score is on 'what I think onifre is attempting to say'
Edited by Modulous, : just added a bit since I realized I forgot to give credit to some context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 7:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 5:31 AM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 201 of 269 (560782)
05-17-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by aiki
05-11-2010 4:40 AM


Re: Last Was-ism?
I see you have entered the fray and received a member rating of 5 for your efforts. Message 45 AND you have incorporated your wildlife expertise into the bargain!! Good going.
Obviously posting your perfectly scored reply to the wrong member was some sort of female self deprecating form of humour
Anyway keep up the good work.
Mod writes:
You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough
How much is enough? More than you need but less than you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by aiki, posted 05-11-2010 4:40 AM aiki has not 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

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 204 of 269 (561572)
05-21-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rrhain
05-21-2010 4:02 AM


Just asking . . .
Hi Rrhain,
For me, when posts are too lengthy, repetitive or insulting, the points are sometimes unclear. The following are four items that seem to be unresolved. Can you help? . . .
1. I am disadvantaged from offering my full opinion, I cannot view videos at work. It seems strange we are having so many posts, that are so lengthy, without citing/discussing the actual joke in question. For those on the forum that doesn't know the "Donkey Punch" joke, can you or Oni supply it in writing (please forum participants, no more youtube supporting evidence without brief summaries). Thanks.
Nobody is saying they should be thrown in jail.
2. Correct, no one has asserted that any laws were broken. 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? If true, is it POSSIBLE the lady is over-reacting? Which leads to the broader item #3 . . .
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.
3. It seems you are arguing from a slippery-slope POV. Thusly: IF the public can become inured to crass/racist/sexist "jokes", it MIGHT eventually lead our society down a moral-sewer. If this is the only thing you are cautioning, than I think many people can understand your concern. But in a world filled with such real dire problems (starvation, disease, torture, military spending, illegal and immoral wars), being outraged over a seemingly inappropriate or failed "joke" may be fighting a mighty disproportionate mole-hill. Do you agree?
The issue is whether or not this was comedy to begin with.
4. Oni has expressed, if a comic is successful, that CONCLUSIVELY means his jokes ARE funny (Carrot-top sends his thank-filled gratitude to you Oni). Thus, NO further analysis is necessary/needed. Any specific/occasional bad "joke" will have the CONSEQUENCE of silence/booing. The failed "joke" will be deleted, or else the comic will no longer be funny and/or successful. (It seems very much like the self-corrective process in science.) Do you disagree with this specific point?
Thanks,
d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2010 4:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 1:15 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 217 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 4:18 AM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 205 of 269 (561581)
05-21-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by dronestar
05-21-2010 12:16 PM


Re: Just asking . . .
For those on the forum that doesn't know the "Donkey Punch" joke, can you or Oni supply it in writing
Gladly, but first I'll set up what he (Patrice) is attempting to make a joke about.
In his act he mocks the silly names we give certain sexual acts, then he goes on a tirad of all the one's he's heard. I explained "The angry pirate," I'll do a few others.
1) Donkey Punch: It's when you're doing it doggy style and before you orgasm, you punch him/her in the back of the head and they clinch up making for a great orgasim due to the tightness.
2) Gorilla Mask: You cum in the person's face and then throw pubs on their face.
3) The Poltergeist: Have sex doggy style, then you have a friend take your place and you go outside and wave at the person you were having sex with.
He goes through a bunch of 'em, but these are some.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Be the first at EvC Forum to own a Dave Mabus shirt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by dronestar, posted 05-21-2010 12:16 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by dronestar, posted 05-21-2010 1:36 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 208 by cavediver, posted 05-21-2010 6:33 PM onifre has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 206 of 269 (561584)
05-21-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by onifre
05-21-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Just asking . . .
While joke #1 and #3 are humorous, I find joke #2 about gorillas to be vulgar and debasing to the entire primate community.
Why, with "jokes" like that, gorillas just might become an endangered species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 1:15 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 207 of 269 (561586)
05-21-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rrhain
05-21-2010 4:02 AM


Oni writes:
He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said.
Rrhain writes:
Then what on earth was he doing there?
He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said.
The issue, however, is whether or not this particular instance was an example of comedy or cruelty.
I'll use your example:
Rrhain writes:
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.
And we know that Homeless Charlie is never going to rape, Rice. So that makes it an act of comedy.
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.
Sure. The joke she's refering to is The Angry Pirate. To me, it's funny because when you hear "angry pirate" you have no idea which direction he's going in. When he then explains that it's when you cum in someone's eye and kick them in the shin, and the hop around holding one eye and yelling, Arggg, the mental picture of that makes me laugh.
Oni writes:
Now, is he incouraging people to go out and do it? No!
Rrhain writes:
Oh, really? That is, after all, the point of the discussion.
No. Here's where you continue to get confused. The point of the discussion was whether or not O&A's joke was meant as a joke or was it just plain cruelty. Patrice was not there to defend his own material. She brought up his material and he address it, but it most certainly was not the original point of that discussion.
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.
That's what YOU think he was saying. I think he was saying exactly what he said, and he never called her a stupid bitch.
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?
Not at all. But he wasn't a sexist prick to her because he didn't use any of that language. You claim it's "what he really meant to say" but that's just your opinion and I don't share it.
At no point did Patrice actually explain why what was said was comedic rather than cruel.
Sure he did. He said people find it funny, thus it's comedic. It's also comedic because he meant it as a joke, because he told it as a joke, during his comedy performance on a stage in front of people who came to a comedy show, not at a random location. That settles it for me.
But I forget. "That's not his job." Then what good is he?
You're mixing up the O&A joke with his joke and you're now confusing me as to which one you want him to discuss.
For the O&A joke he said he thought they were trying to be funny, he asked her what she thought but she said she didn't care if it was funny or nor (2:20min)...so that ended that conversation about that.
She then moved on to his joke and said it wasn't funny. He said it was funny because audiences full of people find it funny. What else was there to discuss that you felt he didn't answer?
He was brought on to defend O&A's bit,
No he wasn't.
They were suspended for 30 days not for the joke
You're right, they were just suspended. Question though, who got O&A back on the air?
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?
I have, over and over. I think it was an act of comedy. They did a bit, they meant to make a joke, it failed. End of story, right?
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.
And we know that Homeless Charlie is never going to rape, Rice. So that makes it an act of comedy.
Thanks for proving me right.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2010 4:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 7:32 PM onifre has replied
 Message 219 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:31 AM onifre has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 208 of 269 (561594)
05-21-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by onifre
05-21-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Just asking . . .
1) Donkey Punch: It's when you're doing it doggy style and before you orgasm, you punch him/her in the back of the head and they clinch up making for a great orgasim due to the tightness.
2) Gorilla Mask: You cum in the person's face and then throw pubs on their face.
3) The Poltergeist: Have sex doggy style, then you have a friend take your place and you go outside and wave at the person you were having sex with.
1) Not funny (IMO)
2) Vaguely funny (IMO)
3) Still can't stop laughing, and I read it five minutes ago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 1:15 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 7:03 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 211 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 10:32 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 209 of 269 (561597)
05-21-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by cavediver
05-21-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Just asking . . .
Cavey writes:
3) Still can't stop laughing, and I read it five minutes ago
Yeah - I had that reaction to that one as well. I read it earlier this afternoon.
Still chortling quietly to myself now.

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 210 of 269 (561598)
05-21-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by onifre
05-21-2010 2:09 PM


Reluctant Involvement - But Compelled to Join In
Oni writes:
Rrhain writes:
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.
And we know that Homeless Charlie is never going to rape, Rice. So that makes it an act of comedy.
This to me is the clinching point.
I have been reading this discussion with much interest. You, Mod and Rrhain are three of my favourite posters. So y'all goin at it hammer and tong I find kinda fun. And you and Rrhain have obviously got some past chemistry going on which adds extra spice to the whole affair.
My opinion (for what it is worth) is that whilst the woman in the vid has every right to complain if she feels offended her basic premise that she is somehow speaking for "the nation" or "the people" is ridiculous.
As for Patrice - Well to be honest I wasn't impressed with him either. Rather than make the argument clinching point that you now have (i.e that it is a joke exactly because we all know it isn't going to actually happen) he instead just sorta bullies her into submission by relentlessly and remorselessly making the same point in different ways. Namely that it isn't up to her to decide what is funny and that it is patently stupid for her to claim to represent the view of "the nation". I think we all agree with this. But IMHO he was kinda a dick about it and he never made the most salient point that you now have.
Edited by Straggler, : Misattributed quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 2:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 11:25 PM Straggler 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