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.
Why do I think some restrictions of freedom of expression are necessary? Because freedom of expression without any restriction at all can have a seriously detrimental effect on the freedoms of those who fall victim to slander, defamation, libel, targeted bullying, threats, intimidation, harrassment and all of the other laws that most Western democracies have implemented.
For all your assertions about legal action not changing anything the fact is that legality against such things is entirely necessary in any representative democracy if individual freedoms are to be maintained.
Oni writes:
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.
How many times did Patrice mention intent? How many times did he invoke funniness as the determining factor?
Oni writes:
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.
His entire reason for being in that discussion was as the representative of what is and is not funny (i.e as the much vaunted "professional").
The entire purpose of his presence in that discussion was as misfounded as the woman's argument.
Why do I think some restrictions of freedom of expression are necessary?
Expression yes, I agree on that one. Expression can be physically harmful to people, or damage property, or whatever.
I'm just concerned with the words; I don't think the words should be censored. I don't think there should exist any laws that limit what someone can verbally say.
You can limit where they can say it, but not what they're saying.
For all your assertions about legal action not changing anything the fact is that legality against such things is entirely necessary in any representative democracy if individual freedoms are to be maintained.
And that's fine, I recognize the necessity of certain laws, but also, we need to recognize when they are not needed.
How many times did Patrice mention intent? How many times did he invoke funniness as the determining factor?
He did the best he could in the beginning, but then the conversation was dragged over to "Was it funny" by the interviewer and the lady. So even if it was once, it wasn't his fault I don't think.
His entire reason for being in that discussion was as the representative of what is and is not funny (i.e as the much vaunted "professional").
Yeah, but that's not Patrice's fault. He was invited to be there. That may have been the networks reason for him being there, but as a professional he knows better than to think he knows what is and isn't funny.
When he says "I know funny," he meant that as in "I'm the pro and I can best recognize the intent to be funny. You guys aren't in this business so you're not as knowledgable as I am."
That was his reason for being there. Not to weigh in on whether the bit was funny or not. I wouldn't do that, and he's been in comedy 13 years longer than me.
The entire purpose of his presence in that discussion was as misfounded as the woman's argument.
I agree that that is the way the network presented it. I truly believe Patrice in his own mind was there to argue the intent.
That is why he asked that very question to the interviewer AND the woman: "Do you think they were trying to be funny?"
I had to wake up early and I'm bored now. So, I'm gonna post the video here for those who haven't seen it and break down Patrice's argument so hopefully everyone can see that his purpose was to establish intent. And that lady is just a twat, as I previously determined.
- Patrice opens up with: "I'm going to speak as the expert on funny, and funny people should just be left to try to be funny."
- The interviewer asks him: "What if they're not funny?" To which Patrice replies: "Then they made a mistake."
- Then the interviewer asks for Sonia's opinion, she says: "What's happening now is the market is deciding was is and isn't appropriate." She adds, "The "nation" is tired."
- Patrice then he asks her, straight up: (min 2:16) "Do you think they were trying to be funny?" And Sonia replies with: "You know what, I don't care if they were trying to be funny."
- Up until this point, I feel Patrice has handle the interview properly. He is trying to establish the intent behind the O&A bit.
- Sonia however clearly states that she doesn't care if their intent was to try and be funny, since she didn't find it funny, it should be censored.
- From this point she turns the focus to Patrice and the material she heard at one of his shows 6 years back. And now Patrice is forced to defend something he didn't go on that show to talk about. But again, Sonia's focus is on whether it was funny or not. She says, "I went to your show once and it wasn't funny."
- Then it gets fuzzy. She actually states (min 2:46) "These guys have every right to be as funny as they want." -- which doesn't really make sense to me. I hope she meant that they have every right to try and be as funny as they want. But if that was her point then her and Patrice would be in agreement, so I don't think that is what she meant to say.
- The interviewer then asks Patrice (min 3:53) what I consider to be a stupid 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] women to ever become secretary of state?" Patrice answers again by trying to establish the intent, he says: "The attempt is what I'm trying to fight for. The joke may or may not be funny [but] you should be able to attempt to make anything funny."
From here the interview goes back and forth between Patrice's joke she heard years back, why Al Sharpton isn't speaking out on it, and other irrelevant crap.
After hearing it and reading the break down, is there any doubt that Patrice was there to establish whether or not O&A were trying to be funny?
Is there any doubt that Sonia's entire position was whether the bit was funny, and didn't focus on the intent?
- Then the interviewer asks for Sonia's opinion, she says: "What's happening now is the market is deciding was is and isn't appropriate." She adds, "The "nation" is tired."
Put to one side that she is unjustifiably claiming that "the nation" agrees with her for one moment (because we both agree that is just bollocks)
Oni writes:
- Patrice then he asks her, straight up: (min 2:16) "Do you think they were trying to be funny?" And Sonia replies with: "You know what, I don't care if they were trying to be funny."
Well I thought that we had agreed that whether someone is trying to be funny or not is irrelevant in comparison as to whether they were trying to be malicious or not?
In that sense have we not agreed with her?
Oni writes:
- Up until this point, I feel Patrice has handle the interview properly. He is trying to establish the intent behind the O&A bit.
He has based his entire position on the basis that they were trying to be funny. When (I thought) you and I had agreed that this is utterly irrelevant in comparison to whether or not they were trying to be malicious. No?
Oni writes:
- Sonia however clearly states that she doesn't care if their intent was to try and be funny, since she didn't find it funny, it should be censored.
Is that how you read it?
I think she is arguing her case on the basis of what is and is not appropriate (i.e. her subjective line). Exactly as we have been discussing. She seems to be saying that any intention to be funny is irrelevant as compared to some line being crossed. That is not the same as I don’t find it funny therefore it should be banned — Is it?
Patrice’s argument (i.e that they intended to be funny) doesn’t counter that at all. He doesn’t make the main point that you have that they weren’t intending to be malicious. He doesn’t make any coherent points about freedom of expression. He doesn’t tell her that her right to complain is based on the same principle and point out the fact that this principle means that it is inevitable that not everybody will be happy with everything that is said at all times. He doesn’t point out to her that there are wider principles than simply avoiding offence at play here.
He simply just keeps telling her that it was funny (or intended to be funny). As though this excuses all other factors. Which I thought you and I had agreed in this thread is neither a valid not helpful position?
Well I thought that we had agreed that whether someone is trying to be funny or not is irrelevant in comparison as to whether they were trying to be malicious or not?
Can you show me where I agree that whether they were trying to be funny was irrelevant? That has been my point the entire time.
You said that they could try to be funny and malicious at the same time, that the two weren't mutually exclussive. And I agreed. You could try to be funny and try to be malicious at the same time.
But it doesn't make showing the intent to be funny irrelevant. It just means you have to show how they were trying to be malicious too. Showing they were trying to be funny is a good start to showing they weren't trying to be malicious.
If I can establish that, then I can invite you to prove your suspicion. But I have made my case for my points.
In that sense have we not agreed with her?
With her?! Her entire point (on the O&A bit ONLY) is that it wasn't funny. I don't care about that. I'm on the side of showing that they were trying to be funny.
When (I thought) you and I had agreed that this is utterly irrelevant in comparison to whether or not they were trying to be malicious. No?
No. Not at all. I never agreed with any of that. Utterly irrelevant in comparison? When did I agree with that? I just re-read my posts going back a few pages and don't see anything like that.
His argument is that they were trying to be funny, it's a fair place to start to remove malicious intent. It works for me.
However, I agree that they could still have been trying to be malicious too. So...If the lady feels they were also trying to be malicious, then it's up to her to prove that. But saying "It wasn't funny," doesn't support that argument.
I think she is arguing her case on the basis of what is and is not appropriate (i.e. her subjective line).
No, not in reference to the bit O&A did. What she argued was inappropriate was Patrice's show that she went to see a few years back. Something that neither of them were there to talk about in the first place.
The only thing she states about the O&A bit (which is what they were there to discuss) was that it wasn't funny, and she didn't care whether they were trying to be funny. After that, she attacks Patrice for a show she saw of his. Which was completely irrelevant to the interview.
Patrice’s argument (i.e that they intended to be funny) doesn’t counter that at all.
His argument about whether they were trying to be funny is for O&A's bit ONLY. The part about being inappropriate had to do with Patrice's show that she once saw. Why should he defend that? He wasn't there to talk about that.
That is why he never gets a chance to delve deeper into the argument, because she side-tracked the whole conversation by bringing up something completely irrelevant. If she would have answered the question of whether they were trying to be funny with an actual answer, and not just dismissed it, then maybe he could have made the other points. But that never happened because she went elsewhere with the convo.
She could have explained why they were also being malicious, she could have made her argument clear and shown how both intents were present (funny and malicious) but the intent to be malicious is the bigger focus. She could have done all of that. But, instead, she chose to derail the interview by bringing up Patrice's show which again was irrelevant.
Her complaint is about "violent images put out towards women" (sic) (about 2:03 in the vid)
Whether you or I agree with her assessment this is not about whether she finds it funny. Her point is that a moral line has been crossed.
And in response all Patrice says is that "It was hilarious". All he does throughout is declare how "funny" is the be all and end all criteria upon which such things should be judged.
At what point does he actually tackle her point about whether something is appropriate or inappropriate regardless of how "funny" it may or may not be?
Oni writes:
Can you show me where I agree that whether they were trying to be funny was irrelevant? That has been my point the entire time.
Oh. OK. Why does an attempt to be funny have any bearing on whether or not the material was also intended to be malicious?
Oni writes:
You said that they could try to be funny and malicious at the same time, that the two weren't mutually exclussive. And I agreed. You could try to be funny and try to be malicious at the same time.
Oh. OK. So why does any argument that something was intended to be funny have any bearing on whether or not the material was also intended to be malicious?
Oni writes:
But it doesn't make showing the intent to be funny irrelevant. It just means you have to show how they were trying to be malicious too. Showing they were trying to be funny is a good start to showing they weren't trying to be malicious.
If I can establish that, then I can invite you to prove your suspicion. But I have made my case for my points.
The woman in the vid thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the comedy content under discussion is unacceptable and malicious towards women.
Patrice makes no defence of the material other than asserting as to how funny it is.
Is there a giant black dude in the one you're watching?
Her complaint is about "violent images put out towards women" (sic) (about 2:03 in the vid)
Listen to it carefully though. She is talking about a report she did 6 years ago on O&A and their violent images toward women. Not about the current bit that involve Condeleezza Rice. She has an issue with O&A's overall existence.
But she wasn't there to discuss the report she did 6 years ago, she was there to discuss this particular bit. In this case, not the one 6 years ago, were they trying to be funny? That is all Patrice asked.
And in response all Patrice says is that "It was hilarious". All he does throughout is declare how "funny" is the be all and end all criteria upon which such things should be judged.
Listen to it carefully, what he says was "hilarious" was HIS show that she went to.
Min 2:23 (Sonia) "I've been to your show once (Patrice) and it wasn't very funny being a woman when you talked about (the angry pirate joke)..."
To which Patrice replied, it was hilarious.
But again, this line of dialogue is irrelevant to the O&A bit, that they were both there to discuss.
So why does any argument that something was intended to be funny have any bearing on whether or not the material was also intended to be malicious?
Some bearing on it, yes. Don't you?. I think that is a good start in showing that they weren't trying to be malicious.
Patrice makes no defence of the material other than asserting as to how funny it is.
Does he? If so where?
You are having the same issue Rrahin had (sorry) - there are TWO arguments taking place in that video : The O&A bit - AND - Patrice's joke (the Angry Pirate) which she heard once at his show.
What he asserted was funny was HIS joke - the angry pirate.
However, in reference to the O&A bit, his defence is, were they trying to be funny.
He asks both the interviewer and Sonia, were they trying to be funny. The "they" is O&A. That is the only thing that should have been under discussion, and NOT his angry pirate joke or what happened 6 years ago.
The interviewer asks Patrice (min 3:53): "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] women to ever become secretary of state?" <--- for. The joke may or may not be funny [but] you should be able to attempt to make anything funny."
She is talking about a report she did 6 years ago on O&A and their violent images toward women. Not about the current bit that involve Condeleezza Rice. She has an issue with O&A's overall existence.
But she wasn't there to discuss the report she did 6 years ago, she was there to discuss this particular bit. In this case, not the one 6 years ago, were they trying to be funny? That is all Patrice asked.
I'll answer you with a quote from myself back in post Message 167
Straggler writes: "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."
Do you think this applies to the point she is (rightly or wrongly) making?
Oni writes:
However, Patrice answers again by trying to establish the intent, he says: "The attempt is what I'm trying to fight for. The joke may or may not be funny [but] you should be able to attempt to make anything funny."
OK. But throughout his interview he seems to assume that if the intent is to be funny then any other considerations are irrelevant.
No?
Oni writes:
The interviewer asks Patrice (min 3:53): "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] women to ever become secretary of state?" <--- right?
Given that Patrice had self declared himself to be the representative of "funny" in his opening gambit this is hardly fucking surprising is it?
Is he solely to blame? No. The director/producers/whatever are equally at fault.
But if he really wanted to make valid points he would have said something like this:
"Listen lady what is or is not funny here is not for me or you to decide. What is or is not acceptable is not for you or me to decide. This is a free country in which freedom of expression is a key principle. This means that sometimes people will be offended and sometimes people will be hurt. The only question that matters here is whether or not the freedom of expression under consideration (i.e. the O&A session) was so harmful to society that it, and things like it, are deserving of censorship. If you believe that they are then make that case. Don't tell me what you do or do not think is funny. Don't expect me to expect you to take into account what I do or do not think is funny. What I will ask is that you take into account the context and intent of the piece under discussion. Are they intending to be malicious? Are they setting out to intimidate, subjugate, or otherwise discriminate against anyone? Are their intentions anything other than comedic no matter how poor in taste you or anyone else may feel that comedy is? If the answer to all these questions is "No" then accept that your subjective opinion on these matters is no more or less valid than anyone elses. Don't claim to speak for the nation. Don't make false claims to bolster your case. If you have a moral case it deserves to be heard and ultimately society will be the judge of that."
Something like that.
But instead all I saw was Patrice tell us how funny and hilarious things are. And that isn't in and of itself an argument.
Do you think this applies to the point she is (rightly or wrongly) making?
I'll give you that this could have been her overall point, that she really failed to establish. For a few reasons, one being her almost comical cries that "The nation has spoken."
Say that to a comic and you open the door up for ridicule. Patrice is a comic befre he's a talking head on a news show. Instinct will push him to go for the laugh instead of making the point. The lady was a joke and he had fun exploiting that.
If that's your beef then I agree. He was aggressive and pompous.
But throughout his interview he seems to assume that if the intent is to be funny then any other considerations are irrelevant.
No?
I didn't get that. Throughout the interview he was arguing in favor of the attempt to be funny and that funny people should be left to do their work. He was arguing for his point, if someone wanted to bring up malice then they could have. He probably didn't care otherwise but the issue was never raised so who knows what he would have said.
Given that Patrice had self declared himself to be the representative of "funny" in his opening gambit this is hardly fucking surprising is it?
Are you saying he's not the representative of "funny" in that interview?
Something like that.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Also, when you ask someone as your opening argument whether O&A were trying to be funny and their reply is "I don't care," it's safe to assume that this person is not here to have a fair and open debate. They don't care what you have to say or what your point is.
And, more of an actual fact is, black comics from Brooklyn don't speak as eloquently as you, Strag. So give the dude a break.
But instead all I saw was Patrice tell us how funny and hilarious things are.
That's all you heard? I love when people say that, when clearly, for anyone listen to that interview, that is not all that was said. He said "hilarious" one time and it was to defend his own show - and again, that was not something he was there to defend in the first place. So you can disregard that "hilarious" since it was irrelevant to the topic.
On the issue of O&A, he doesn't even bring up whether the bit was funny, ever, at all, not one time. So perhaps you need to watch it again?
Also, when you ask someone as your opening argument whether O&A were trying to be funny and their reply is "I don't care," it's safe to assume that this person is not here to have a fair and open debate. They don't care what you have to say or what your point is.
Dude I still think you are missing the entire point.
She thinks that Patrice's jokes and the O&A session under discussion are promoting violence against women. She thinks that there is a pervading culture of promoting violence against women in comedy. That is what she wants to talk about. That is her complaint. That is why she is on the show.
Now (whether we think she is right or wrong about this) given that this is her point of view why on Earth would you expect her to give a monkeys shit whether or not they were attempting to be funny? If she genuinely thinks that their actions are going to result in violence towards women why would their intent to be funny even be a factor as far as she is concerned?
I am not asking you to agree with her. I am asking you to try and see this from her perspective.
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
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.
Exactly.
So why would you expect her to say anything other than "I don't care" when asked if she thought they were intending to be funny?
I am not asking you to agree with her. I am asking you to try and see this from her perspective.
Oh, is that all you're saying? I can see it from her perspective. She's an idiot who has no business judging what comics do in their fields and her opinion is worthless, BUT, I can tell she thinks highly of it and wants to speak up. I can see that clearly.
So why would you expect her to say anything other than "I don't care" when asked if she thought they were intending to be funny?
Because it was a direct question. He, I, you may have a bigger point to make after your initial question was asked. By dismissing it saying "I don't care" then you temp the other person to say "Fuck you then, I don't care what you have to say or ask me either. Cunt."
Let’s pretend for one moment (for the sake of argument) that there is a demonstrable link between the sort of comedy under discussion and the prevalence and acceptability of violence against women in society.
Would it really matter whether or not the comedy in question was funny or not? Would it really matter whether or not the comedy in question was intended to be funny or not?
Would funniness be the overriding concern here? Or would there be a more pressing moral question about the balance between freedom of expression and the harm it can cause? A moral question that has absolutely fuck-all to do with how funny or unfunny something is (or even is intended to be).
The woman in your video believes (rightly or wrongly) that this link exists. Given this belief the answer I don’t care seems to me to be a very reasonable response to questions about funniness.
The mistake that Patrice (and now you) are making is to think that funniness (or even intended funniness) has any bearing on the moral position she is taking.
I think her position is nonsense. But I don’t think this has anything to do with questions about funniness.
Oni writes:
Because it was a direct question
If she had answered "How funny they were or were not and how funny they were or were not attempting to be has no bearing on whether promoting violence against women should be considered acceptable or not" - Would you have been happier with her answer?
Let’s pretend for one moment (for the sake of argument) that there is a demonstrable link between the sort of comedy under discussion and the prevalence and acceptability of violence against women in society. Would it really matter whether or not the comedy in question was funny or not? Would it really matter whether or not the comedy in question was intended to be funny or not?
Of course not. Nothing would matter, IF there was a link.
But there is absolutely zero link, so why recognize her position at all? It's a moot point.
The mistake that Patrice (and now you) are making is to think that funniness (or even intended funniness) has any bearing on the moral position she is taking.
No, wait, don't get that mixed up because it is very specific and not interchangable.
It has NOTHING to do with "funniness," it has to do with the intent to make a joke - O&A intended it to be a comedic bit, their intent was to be funny within the context of a joke - their intent was to make a joke - and NOT to be malicious, which is the main point.
Lets go back to your party where I sing a song. If I include in that song, jokingly, a bit about you being a pedophile, and someone got mad - wouldn't your first response be, "Relax it was just a joke. The song was intended to be a joke, it was an attempt to be funny. Why are you taking it so serious?"
See, if you're in the business of comedy, you can recognize malice and separate it from what is ONLY meant to be funny, as in, meant as a joke, better than someone who is not involved in it. If you are not in the business of comedy, then you will make the mistake this woman has made (and many people make) to think that jokes about rape and donkey punches are automatically malicious. This is why she says "I don't care," because she already considers the topic of their joke to be malicious.
Patrice's point about them attempting to be funny, about them attempting to make a joke, removes the attempt to be malicious. If she was in the business of comedy, she would recognize that a lot better than how she now does.
What you're thinking is that he meant "They were attempting to be funny," as in, "They were attempting to make something violent hilarious, and if it was hilarious then it's all good." And that is NOT what he meant by that. What he meant was, they were making a joke, not being intentionally malicious. That is not the same as how you're making it sound.
If she had answered "How funny they were or were not and how funny they were or were not attempting to be has no bearing on whether promoting violence against women should be considered acceptable or not" - Would you have been happier with her answer?
™ Version 4.2