Because I still don't see why what is or is not funny or what is or is not intended to be funny has any bearing on the restrictions that we as a society deem necessary to impose on freedom of expression.
It doesn't, but I didn't intend it to either. I thought we were on about what constitutes as comedy -vs- what is funny to people.
I am talking about an environment in which jokes (or other methods of expression) are used to persistently target and subjugate a particular social grouping.
Groups are being made fun of, they always have. But there is no environment that I know of where jokes are used to "persistently target and subjugate a particular social grouping."
Really?
Yeah, they're free to have a comedy night. Why not?
My point is that this is not a one joke at a time situation. But one of wider context and intent.
I just don't see it, anywhere. The reality is nothing like that is taking place in public venues. Muslims are surely being made fun of, but Muslim comics make fun of Americans. Black comics make fun of white people as do hispanic comics. I heard Polish jokes before I even knew who Polish people were. Everyone gets made fun of, dude.
At what point does the advocacy of ones prejudices through popular culture (e.g. comedy) become propaganda?
Never, or always, It depends on what you want to call propaganda. Was Lenny Bruce anti-religious propaganda? Is Chris Rock pro-black propaganda? Is Bill Hicks anti-government propaganda?
Or, are these just comics trying to make certain subjects funny?
Do you agree that restrictions imposed by society on freedom of expression should apply as much to comedy as anything else? That comedic success/funniness/whatever is not the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not acceptable even in the context of comedy?
Oni writes:
I thought we were on about what constitutes as comedy -vs- what is funny to people.
And I thought we were talking about this in the context of censorship and acceptability. When people seek to censor they are not doing so one joke at a time. Those seeking to censor do so because they perceive there to be a pervading culture of mysoginy, homophobia, Islamaphobia or whatever else.
Oni writes:
Groups are being made fun of, they always have. But there is no environment that I know of where jokes are used to "persistently target and subjugate a particular social grouping."
But as we have already agreed such conclusions are subjective. Others disagree. And they have the right to make their case. Whether we agree with it or not.
Oni writes:
I just don't see it, anywhere. The reality is nothing like that is taking place in public venues. Muslims are surely being made fun of, but Muslim comics make fun of Americans. Black comics make fun of white people as do hispanic comics. I heard Polish jokes before I even knew who Polish people were. Everyone gets made fun of, dude.
Some get "made fun of" more persistently than others and some get "made fun of" in a more vitriolic manner than others.
I actually think that those who suggest that gays and Moslems are currently subject to a disproprtionate amount of such treatment probably have a point.
I just don't think censorship is the best answer to such issues in most cases.
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Really?
Yeah, they're free to have a comedy night. Why not?
Yes they are. My "really" was in response to your assertion that simple non-attendance by those who disagree is necessarily a sufficient response where such targeting as the KKK would indisputably like to see is culturally widespread.
Straggler writes:
At what point does the advocacy of ones prejudices through popular culture (e.g. comedy) become propaganda?
Never, or always, It depends on what you want to call propaganda. Was Lenny Bruce anti-religious propaganda? Is Chris Rock pro-black propaganda? Is Bill Hicks anti-government propaganda?
Or, are these just comics trying to make certain subjects funny?
I would agree with your assessment in all the cases you cite above. But others may not. And they have the right to make their case too.
Do you agree that restrictions imposed by society on freedom of expression should apply as much to comedy as anything else?
Yes, as I have said before. But, it is comedy, so there will be people pushing the limit on those restrictions.
That comedic success/funniness/whatever is not the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not acceptable even in the context of comedy?
Well of course not, I don't think there is any ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable. Plus, what is and isn't acceptable is always subject to change, so there really can't be an ultimate arbiter.
Oni writes:
Groups are being made fun of, they always have. But there is no environment that I know of where jokes are used to "persistently target and subjugate a particular social grouping."
Straggler writes:
But as we have already agreed such conclusions are subjective. Others disagree.
Others would have to show evidence, objective evidence, of where this is taking place. I'm not aware of such places.
Some get "made fun of" more persistently than others and some get "made fun of" in a more vitriolic manner than others.
That depends on your environment. If you go to an urban (black) comedy show, the only people being made fun of in an excessive way are white people; the same goes for a hispanic comedy show. But your normal everyday enviroment that you experience is not like that, so you get a different take on things.
Yes, white, conservative America makes fun of Muslims, but black America and hispanic America doesn't, they make fun of white America. Muslim America makes fun of white, conservative America too. In fact, white conservative Americans are made fun of more than any other group.
I actually think that those who suggest that gays and Moslems are currently subject to a disproprtionate amount of such treatment probably have a point.
Maybe in the UK, I don't know. But comics in America are mostly liberals, so gays are rarely made fun of in a demeaning manner and neither are Muslims. Just watch an episode of the Daily Show, or watch it for a week. The group made fun of the most is white, conservative Americans.
Now as far as bullying and threats go, sure, minorities will always feel the most of that. Any minority. Blacks as much as gays here in the US. Muslims too. Hispanics just the same. No one group stands out more. However, if you listen to the media they make it seem as though Muslims and gays get the worse, and currently Mexicans too. But blacks feel it, they've just had a long time to learn to deal with it.
I would agree with your assessment in all the cases you cite above. But others may not. And they have the right to make their case too.
But, it is comedy, so there will be people pushing the limit on those restrictions.
I think artists of all descriptions should push the boundaries of such things.
Oni writes:
Well of course not, I don't think there is any ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable. Plus, what is and isn't acceptable is always subject to change, so there really can't be an ultimate arbiter.
Well to be pedantic ultimately there is the law of the day. And people have the right to seek to change laws to accommodate their point of view. Society as a whole will decide what it's priorities with regard to freedom of expression and the necessary restrictions on that are at any given point.
But fine. We both basically agree that "But the majority find it funny" is not a valid or even particularly helpful response to those who feel that some line or other has been crossed.
Which was one of my main points in this thread.
Oni writes:
Others would have to show evidence, objective evidence, of where this is taking place. I'm not aware of such places.
Well surely it depends where one draws the line with regard to targeting? Which we have both agreed is highly subjective. So they may well provide examples of what they consider targeted bullying and you or I might well just laugh at their prudishness or over-sensitivity.
But they have the right to make their case.
Oni writes:
That depends on your environment. If you go to an urban (black) comedy show, the only people being made fun of in an excessive way are white people; the same goes for a hispanic comedy show. But your normal everyday enviroment that you experience is not like that, so you get a different take on things.
Like I said earlier "majority" is a contextual term.
Oni writes:
In fact, white conservative Americans are made fun of more than any other group.
But dude can't you see? That is all part of the grand master plan. The plan to trick us into thinking they are just the same as when in fact they are a highly organised elite running our lives and making vast profits of our enforced labour.
(**Straggler puts aluminium saucepan on head***)
Oni writes:
Now as far as bullying and threats go, sure, minorities will always feel the most of that.
Is that not the targeted bullying we have been talking about? The targeted bullying you have largely denied exists? Are you saying comedy specifically is immune to such wider cultural trends?
Oni writes:
But blacks feel it, they've just had a long time to learn to deal with it.
And they have fought hard against it too. They did a lot fucking more than just refuse to attend KKK open mic nights in the vague hope that their absence would send a sufficiently strong signal of disapproval!!
Well then, on the main issue, we wholeheartedly agree.
But they have the right to make their case.
Oh absolutely, they have all the right to bitch, and I the right to ignore them.
But dude can't you see? That is all part of the grand master plan. The plan to trick us into thinking they are just the same as when in fact they are a highly organised elite running our lives and making vast profits of our enforced labour.
(**Straggler puts aluminium saucepan on head***)
Ha ha ha, you're crazy, man.
(**Oni quietly reaches for his aluminum hat and puts it on**)
Is that not the targeted bullying we have been talking about? The targeted bullying you have largely denied exists?
Well, I don't think it's one that you can point to, like you said, it's subjective. BUT, if there is bullying or targeting, it's only logical that minorities get the blunt of it, because, they are the minority. But only where they are the minority. Where they are not the minority, and you are, the bullying and targeting will be directed at you.
Example: Go to an all-black comedy show and sit in the front row. There will be definite minority targeting and possibly, subjectively, some bullying. It will be hilarious though.
My point is, the minority of the group gets picked on. It all depends on where you are and who's around you as to whether you're the minority or not. I don't mean minorities in the traditional sense, I mean it mathematically.
Remember from the "Hate Crime" thread that I don't accept the argument that traditional minorities are victims. The only exception I make is for homosexuals, who have been the target of some disgusting bullying, especially as of late. But as far as blacks and hispanics, we dish out just as much violence and bullying that has been directed toward us.
And they have fought hard against it too. They did a lot fucking more than just refuse to attend KKK open mic nights in the vague hope that their absence would send a sufficiently strong signal of disapproval!!
With a lot of targeting and bullying of their own.
Oh absolutely, they have all the right to bitch, and I the right to ignore them.
You personally can ignore them but society may not agree with you. Social attitudes are ever evolving exactly because people take stands rather than because they sit back and accept the status quo.
Look at the popular culture of 50 or 60 years ago. The way blacks and even women were portrayed would in many cases just be considered socially unacceptable if repeated today. We make allowances for the unenlightened times in which such portrayals were created when viewed today.
Is it beyond the reams of possibility that in 20 or 30 years time people will look back at the popular culture of today and view it in a similar way? Rap music, comedy (maybe even some of your own material?), novels, popular journalism etc. etc.
How do you think attitudes to these things (e.g. homosexuality) will change if people do as you advise and keep their objections to themselves or expect to be ignored?
They have a right to make their case.
Oni writes:
Oh absolutely, they have all the right to bitch, and I the right to ignore them.
I expect entertainers said the same 50 or 60 years ago. And yes the price of the right for people to make the case for change that may one day be almost unquestioningly accepted as reasonable is that a lot of unreasonable people get to bitch. But neither you nor I nor any other individual is in a position to definitively distinguish between the two.
Only time will ultimately tell.
Oni writes:
Remember from the "Hate Crime" thread that I don't accept the argument that traditional minorities are victims.
If you remember I agreed with you. I argued that the laws are not in fact doing that as they do not focus on protecting any particular grouping (i.e. blacks are no more protected by hate laws than whites or indeed any other specific racial grouping).
Instead hate laws focus on the distinctions humanity has demonstrated itself as being prone to act hatefully upon. Race, sexuality, nationality etc. etc.
The reason there is no hate law relating to eyebrow density is that no social grouping has ever been significantly subjugated on the basis of bushy eyebrows.
But if anyone is tempted to go down the "hate law" path they should do it in that topic Hate-crime = Thought crime?
The reason there is no hate law relating to eyebrow density is that no social grouping has ever been significantly subjugated on the basis of bushy eyebrows.
i guess you have not met this man
people make fun of his eyebrows his singing and he does not give a f%&$$ cause he is making money of of it
athough his lyrics are not bad nategnem e tvojo prijatelj can be interpreted Should i f%$# yours too my friend, or what the song realy talks about should is stretch yours too my friend (meaning a Slingshot)
How do you think attitudes to these things (e.g. homosexuality) will change if people do as you advise and keep their objections to themselves or expect to be ignored?
They have a right to make their case.
Wouldn't you agree though, that more often than not, it's in outlets like music, comedy, theater, art, where these social issues get the strongest support? In fact, wouldn't you agree that the biggest supporters are usually the arts?
Blacks found their home in music, where they were accepted as equals. Same for theater and comedy. This especially goes for homosexuals, where they have been accepted long before society accepted them.
When I say they can bitch and I won't listen, I'm not talking about the voice of the minority, I'm talking about the voice of the socially conservative dickheads. They can bitch all they want, if history is any indicator, they'll slowly be silenced.
I expect entertainers said the same 50 or 60 years ago.
Yes, but this group consisted of gays, blacks, hippies, beatniks, women, liberals, potheads, anti-establishment advocates - basically, anyone who wasn't a conservative.
And from what I observe our society to be today, it shows that the "ignore them and lets just be ourselves" attitude has prevailed.
Well personally I would ban someone with eyebrows like that from appearing in public.
But until I can convince the rest of society to take my stance on excessive hair density in the forehead/eye region I shall have to simply make do with demonstrating outside his concerts and thinking hateful thoughts to myself.
Wouldn't you agree though, that more often than not, it's in outlets like music, comedy, theater, art, where these social issues get the strongest support? In fact, wouldn't you agree that the biggest supporters are usually the arts?
In the sort of arenas we have been discussing this has indisputably more often been the case than not. Lowest common denominator forms of entertainment less so. They have followed rather than set trends. As one would expect.
But I was the one arguing that the demographics of a stand-up gig audience are not necessarily representative of the national majority and I thought you were disagreeing with that?
Oni writes:
When I say they can bitch and I won't listen, I'm not talking about the voice of the minority, I'm talking about the voice of the socially conservative dickheads. They can bitch all they want, if history is any indicator, they'll slowly be silenced.
And amen to that. But it is not beyond the realms of possibility that trends will reverse and a puritanical streak will prevail in society at some point At that point it will be and you and I that are the whingeing dickheads complaining on the sidelines while the moral majority declare their right to ignore our decadant hippy crap.
Should that happen you might suddenly find yourself more in agreement with the case I have been attempting to make re the right to make ones case in the face of prevailing social attitudes.
Oni writes:
And from what I observe our society to be today, it shows that the "ignore them and lets just be ourselves" attitude has prevailed.
Yeah sure. And you and I can agree that is a good thing. But we cannot base our principles on the current status of such transient things as social attitudes happening to be going our way.
Like I say - Should Western society take a socially conservative turn at some point it will be us that become the complainers and us that will be in need of the right to make our case whether most want to hear it or not.
Who is riding the crest of the wave currently should have no bearing on the principle being applied. The principle of the right to make ones case and be heard whether anyone wants to hear it or not.
But I was the one arguing that the demographics of a stand-up gig audience are not necessarily representative of the national majority and I thought you were disagreeing with that?
I still am.
The audience doesn't have to share the ideologies of the comic to enjoy them. Like I said before, when clubs just fill seats with the general public, you will get normal everyday people. And of course location is everything (a club in Atlanta doesn't have the same crowd as a club in the Village.)
But you'll get the majority of the demographic in that town - within reason. No kids under 18/21 (even cruiseships have G rated shows and R rated) and for the most part, with a few exceptions, not many 80+ year olds (unless your on a cruiseship, then it's nothing but 80+ year olds.)
But it is not beyond the realms of possibility that trends will reverse and a puritanical streak will prevail in society at some point
Relative to my experience, I felt the Bush admin was a (mild) version of puritanical governance.
At that point it will be and you and I that are the whingeing dickheads complaining on the sidelines while the moral majority declare their right to ignore our decadant hippy crap.
I still find myself doing this in many cases. We're not allowed to bring our 420 Show to many colleges because COLLEGE STUDENTS shouldn't be exposed to that kind of material. We actually received that in a letter from the The National Association for Campus Activities.
So it's alive and well. We have gotten away with it by calling it: 4 comics doing 20 minutes, which we dubbed "The 4-20 Show." That's worked a few times.
Who is riding the crest of the wave currently should have no bearing on the principle being applied. The principle of the right to make ones case and be heard whether anyone wants to hear it or not.
On this I agree, and see your point. But basically what you're saying is we should fight hard to protect our freedom of speech and expression, no matter what the majority feels. And I don't think many would disagree with that.
But I was the one arguing that the demographics of a stand-up gig audience are not necessarily representative of the national majority and I thought you were disagreeing with that?
I still am.
I still think the average 65+ year old is unlikely to be found at one of your gigs. Yet they do make up a certain percentage of the population.
Oni writes:
Relative to my experience, I felt the Bush admin was a (mild) version of puritanical governance.
Well let's hope that is as bad as it gets.........
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Who is riding the crest of the wave currently should have no bearing on the principle being applied. The principle of the right to make ones case and be heard whether anyone wants to hear it or not.
On this I agree, and see your point. But basically what you're saying is we should fight hard to protect our freedom of speech and expression, no matter what the majority feels. And I don't think many would disagree with that.
Those who are advocating further censorship would disagree. They may be a minority now but who knows in the future?
In light of this discussion and where we are now I would ask that you review the Patrice vid you supplied in the previous comedy thread.
Do you think he made any argument other than "But it is funny" (which we have both agreed is a rather vacuous, invalid and unhelpful argument in this context)?
We both agree that her assertion that "she is speaking for America" (or whatever) is equally poor. But that vid is a demonstration (as far as I am concerned) of two people talking at cross purposes and making equally invalid claims.
Freedom of expression Vs the harm that certain forms of expression result in is the only consideration that should matter.
If I say something libelous against you it is libelous and harmful to you whether I say it in a poem, in a way that makes an audience crack up with hilarity, in a novel, in a newspaper or whatever.
We cannot base our laws on what is funny (or poetic, or whatever). We can only base them on what is harmful to the point of necessitating restrictions on freedom of expression. The medium of expression and things such as "funniness" are just not valid considerations in such matters.
I still think the average 65+ year old is unlikely to be found at one of your gigs.
Well, I'm not the only one doing comedy. There are plenty of comics who draw older crowds.
Oni writes:
But basically what you're saying is we should fight hard to protect our freedom of speech and expression, no matter what the majority feels. And I don't think many would disagree with that.
Straggler writes:
Those who are advocating further censorship would disagree.
Those who are advocating further censorship are excercising freedom of speech and expression, so why would they disagree?
Do you think he made any argument other than "But it is funny" (which we have both agreed is a rather vacuous, invalid and unhelpful argument in this context)?
If we're going to review that, lets get his point right. His argument was "they were trying to be funny." In other words, they were not targetting or bullying, or seriously wanted Homeless Charlie to rape Michelle Obama. This was Patrice's argument. Basically were O&A trying to be assholes or funny?
The WOMAN"S argument was that "It wasn't funny" and that "America agreed with her." She was the one using funny, or the lack there of, as her argument. It was a rather rather vacuous, invalid and unhelpful argument, as you said.
This is the only reason Patrice asked her what she knew about funny. Because to say what is or isn't funny requires some experience in the field of comedy.
The argument wasn't whether it was funny or not, its about whether they were trying to be funny. He even states that and asked the guy interviewing them "Do you think O&A were trying to be funny?"
So I'll ask you, do YOU think O&A were trying to be funny?
Do you think whether it was funny or not is even relevant?
Freedom of expression Vs the harm that certain forms of expression result in is the only consideration that should matter.
Intent should also be considered.
If I say something libelous against you it is libelous and harmful to you whether I say it in a poem, in a way that makes an audience crack up with hilarity, in a novel, in a newspaper or whatever.
The thing to focus on is whether the person was trying to say something libelous or whether they were just trying to be funny. If you have an extremely conservative personality you might think just about everything said to you is libelous. And here's where, in a case when professionals are involved and not just a guy at a bar saying a joke, one needs to have some experience to be able to judge it correctly and unbiasly. You're playing with people's livelihoods and careers here.
Absolutely. Intent to be malicious is key. But the problem is that intending to be funny (or poetic, or whatever) is NOT mutually exclusive to intending to be malicious. It is perfectly possible to do both simultaneously.
Oni writes:
The thing to focus on is whether the person was trying to say something libelous or whether they were just trying to be funny.
And if it was both? Why would funny be a consideration? If (to take an extreme example for the purposes of making a point) I intentionally spread misinformation that you are a child molester and this adversely impacts your employability and life in general does it matter that I did it in comic verse? Should the quality of my song or the hilarity of my lyrics have any bearing on society’s judgement of my actions?
Oni writes:
So I'll ask you, do YOU think O&A were trying to be funny?
I do. More to the point I don't think they were trying to be malicious. But one doesn’t lead from the other.
Oni writes:
Do you think whether it was funny or not is even relevant?
No. I think that their lack of intent to be malicious is by far the overriding factor here.
Oni writes:
The WOMAN"S argument was that "It wasn't funny" and that "America agreed with her." She was the one using funny, or the lack there of, as her argument. It was a rather rather vacuous, invalid and unhelpful argument, as you said.
Yeah sure. No disagreement there.
Oni writes:
There are plenty of comics who draw older crowds.
Of course. Which was my point in the first place. No individual audience is likely to represent the demographic of society as a whole. So the fact that a particular audience finds something acceptable because it is funny is not particularly relevant as to whether or not any accusations of targeted bullying are valid or not. Lines are subjective and majority" and "minority" are contextual terms.
Oni writes:
Those who are advocating further censorship are exercising freedom of speech and expression, so why would they disagree?
Because the disagree as to where the lines between freedom of expression and the harm that expression causes should be.
You have said you think people should be able to say absolutely anything they want. There are others who think all sorts of things should be censored in the name of the moral good. I am closer to you in principle but think that some restriction is practically necessary whilst believing that we need to be ever vigilant of those who would sacrifice freedom of expression as a secondary concern to their own pet peeves.
But we all draw different lines and we all have the right to make our case. You and I agree that woman made a crap case. I think Patrice made a crap case too. You made the far more relevant case for intent in that thread and I supported it. I still do.
But I remain unconvinced that funniness or the comedic expertise Patrice was supposed to be bringing to the discussion in question has any real relevance at all. Funniness or lack of it was a side issue at best.
It is perfectly possible to do both simultaneously.
Definitely, one can try to be funny while also try to be malicious.
But if my intent was to be funny, and the joke didn't go off as planned because frankly I can't write certain jokes, and it comes off as malicious, it is safe to say that the intent was to be funny but the unfortunate result was malicious.
In a case like that, the intent is what matters. I intended it to be funny. I was trying to be funny. I just suck at being funny.
If (to take an extreme example for the purposes of making a point) I intentionally spread misinformation that you are a child molester and this adversely impacts your employability and life in general does it matter that I did it in comic verse? Should the quality of my song or the hilarity of my lyrics have any bearing on society’s judgement of my actions?
No, it wouldn't matter if you did it in a comical verse, nor if the song was awesome or the joke hilarious. If you intended to be malicious then that is what matters.
But if you wrote a funny song to deliver at my birthday party, and in the song you try to include a joke about me being a child molester, and my boss who happens to be there takes it serious and fires me, or my girlfriend takes it serious and breaks up with me - does it really fall on you the song writer who intended to be funny?
More to the point I don't think they were trying to be malicious. But one doesn’t lead from the other.
I agree that you could try to be funny and malicious at the same time, but you would still have to make an active effort to be malicious. One doesn't lead form the other though, that I do agree with.
Of course. Which was my point in the first place. No individual audience is likely to represent the demographic of society as a whole.
I just meant that some comics draw older crowds, but I didn't mean exclusively. A Carlin audience was made up of people from 20 to 80 years old. Cruiseship audiences are the same. Most comedy clubs also have that broad audience. Maybe not 80, but I would say for clubs it's more like 20 to 60.
So the fact that a particular audience finds something acceptable because it is funny is not particularly relevant as to whether or not any accusations of targeted bullying are valid or not.
That I agree with.
I am closer to you in principle but think that some restriction is practically necessary whilst believing that we need to be ever vigilant of those who would sacrifice freedom of expression as a secondary concern to their own pet peeves.
Why? What should we do with someone who hates jews and wears a swastika? Or, legally assembles and delivers "hate" speeches?
I simply don't care, so, let them say what they want. I don't need legal action to restrict them because it won't change anything.
But I remain unconvinced that funniness or the comedic expertise Patrice was supposed to be bringing to the discussion in question has any real relevance at all. Funniness or lack of it was a side issue at best.
But again, "funniness" was NOT Patrice's argument. His was that of intent, which if you agree that intent was the main focus then, you should agree with Patrice's argument. I just elaborated his point a lot more.
That's why he got upset with that lady, because SHE dragged it into a discussion about funniness. And that's when the whole interview lost relevancy.
™ Version 4.2
