Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

Comedians can still be edgy. Daniel Tosh still has a TV show after that whole rape incident at the Laugh Factory.

Russell Peters whole touring gig is based around lame racist Indian jokes.

I know they can still be edgy. They can still be critiqued. But what Chris Rock is saying that some will now avoid certain venues--college campuses--because any instance of edginess would then be subject to a huge social media revolt.

It's not worth the trouble as he said.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I know they can still be edgy. They can still be critiqued. But what Chris Rock is saying that some will now avoid certain venues--college campuses--because any instance of edginess would then be subject to a huge social media revolt.

It's not worth the trouble as he said.

College kids also liked Dane Cook and Andrew Dice Clay. They are not the best judges of what makes good standup.

Stand Ups still have to workshop jokes and bits at Comedy Bars, so if anything it forces the craft back to its roots and maybe back to strip clubs and other places there is a stage and a tough crowd.

I'd love it if stand ups went back to this kind of show, where fans had to discover good talent by going to actual shows and not parroting Louis CK a million times.

 

[entremet]

College kids also liked Dane Cook and Andrew Dice Clay. They are not the best judges of what makes good standup.

Stand Ups still have to workshop jokes and bits at Comedy Bars, so if anything it forces the craft back to its roots and maybe back to strip clubs and other places there is a stage and a tough crowd.

I'd love it if stand ups went back to this kind of show, where fans had to discover good talent by going to actual shows and not parroting Louis CK a million times.

I wouldn't call Dane Cook edgy at all. Dice Clay is from a different era completely.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I wouldn't call Dane Cook edgy at all. Dice Clay is from a different era completely.

Dice Clay would not exist in today's current social media world.

Neither would Lenny Bruce tbh or early Eddie Murphy.

 

[ppor]

It's not about just being offended but creating campaigns to squash any voices. #CancelColbert is good example of this.

You can be offended by a joke. That has happened ever since comedy existed. But when you over the offense and look totally railroad a comedian with a social media campaign. That's a bit different.

Hey I'm actually fine with comedians like Lisa Lampanelli, etc. And yes Twitter campaigns are a new thing (Gilbert Gottfried being dropped from Aflac comes to mind).

But let's not forget about CD burnings (Lennon), radio boycotts (Dixie Chicks), and banned television episodes (Married With Children). Traditional anti-media campaigns organized by churches, consumers, and watchdog groups. At the end of the day, they have way more power than a Twitter nontroversy.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Hey I'm actually fine with comedians like Lisa Lampanelli, etc. And yes Twitter campaigns are a new thing (Gilbert Gottfried being dropped from Aflac comes to mind).

But let's not forget about CD burnings (Lennon), radio boycotts (Dixie Chicks), and banned television episodes (Married With Children). Traditional anti-media campaigns organized by churches, consumers, and watchdog groups. At the end of the day, they have way more power than a Twitter nontroversy.

Really? Because from what Rock said and from what entrement posted, they're both stating that Twitter can do more harm than a watchdog group

 

[ReplacementPelican]

No, it was in the context that, anything meant for good can have the opposite effect if used to the extreme. The argument was based around the idea that any opinion that falls in a grey area, or debatable and gets attacked, is a small price to pay for the 'good' political correctness does for society. It is something that comedian said, and in some sense you echoed. My point was that if you create this climate where any trivial little thing or any legitimate opinion that falls outside of the conventional wisdom, is staunchly attacked and has repercussions, then people will self-censor. It was an argument made also, as I mentioned by George Orwell, who explained how things can be suppressed without an official ban by a government or institution. He was also talking about the current climate in his day as well.

First and foremost, I don't believe you that anything falling into a 'grey' area is preyed upon. Anything that is obviously offensive gets jumped upon because society has deemed it unacceptable.

You have also failed to tell me just what these 'repercussions' are, there is a reason why I use to term very loosely as you're hardly hung, drawn and quartered. The self-censoring also only has to happen if you go to say offensive things to begin with, I don't have to self-censor because I have nothing to say that's offensive or cruel to or about groups of people.

As for the Orwell quote, there's a reason why I didn't respond directly to it and that's because I feel it's rather hyperbolic when we're talking about people just realizing not to be unnecessarily cruel or vulgar in everyday speech.

And it is not some government-sponsored dictionary no, but you seem to dismiss completely the notion that 'political correctness' or whatever you choose to call it, needs institutions and governments to help insure its success.

No, what I am suggesting is that because there's no ban on saying these things then you still retain your right to say them. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough that your hyperbolic way of speaking about this is what I find incorrect more than the philosophical content of what you're trying to convey.

I mean, it's hard to make a case for saying there is no positive benefit to it, but I'm not saying that. I'm not saying fighting against racism or anything else is wrong in any way. I just understand that a climate where every single thing is picked apart isn't necessarily a good thing either in the bigger scheme of things. In terms of being 'overly PC' well, you could be overly PC, it's possible it could go in a direction where it no longer becomes beneficial to society as a whole.

Are you saying this climate is something new? People have faced repercussions for their words for almost as long as one cares to think and, if we're being honest, it's better now.

Now people are held accountable when they're cruel to other people or say things that are really quite nasty rather than because they mock the establishment.

I really don't see any negatives to political correctness as I care not if people have to 'walk on eggshells' because it clearly shows they have some outdated views. If the government tried to institute these things then I would be against them due to the philosophical reasons which you also seem to believe in.

I would still like to know what topics you feel you need to 'walk on eggshell' about or perhaps which you feel other people do. I'm not trying to trap you here, I'm just interested.

 

[MetatronM]

GAF is proof that Chris Rock is right. I think liberalism and conservatism have switched positions to some extent. Twenty years ago it was conservatives trying to ban offensive music and games etc. In the current times its liberals trying to get that kind of stuff banned.

Liberals have always been trying to get that stuff banned. You have Explicit Content warnings on music today thanks to Tipper Gore being offended by Darling Nikki in the 80s.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Liberals have always been trying to get that stuff banned. You have Explicit Content warnings on music today thanks to Tipper Gore being offended by Darling Nikki in the 80s.

Isn't Tipper Gore a conservative Democrat?

 

[leadbelly]

First and foremost, I don't believe you that anything falling into a 'grey' area is preyed upon. Anything that is obviously offensive gets jumped upon because society has deemed it unacceptable.

'Society' is not one homogenous entity though, right? Society doesn't in one voice deem something unacceptable. In fact it seems to me that it is not necessarily about the majority at all, but rather being sensitive to the views and needs of the minority. Again though, I am not saying that is a bad thing.

And in terms of whether it is a grey area or not, that is just my interpretation of what Stewart Lee said about something that is debatable on whether it is offensive being a small price to pay for the overall good political correctness does. Something that you, in some sense, agreed with. Which as I have pointed out is the basis of my argument.

I wasn't really the one proposing this, as such. I never made that argument, only added my opinion to that specific view.

You have also failed to tell me just what these 'repercussions' are, there is a reason why I use to term very loosely as you're hardly hung, drawn and quartered. The self-censoring also only has to happen if you go to say offensive things to begin with, I don't have to self-censor because I have nothing to say that's offensive or cruel to or about groups of people.

You never asked me in the first place... Anyway, one might assume it would be having your name slandered or losing your position in whatever field you belong to.

In terms of self-censoring, I did give a decent example already.

In terms of grey areas, it could be any politically sensitive topic. Charges of anti-semitism for a particular attack or criticism of Israel or 'Zionism', for example. I'm not going to give a particular example, nor does it necessarily mean it is a topic I am deeply entrenched in, just that it is a very complicated issue, which is also politically sensitive. Max Keiser for instance said that when he was working for the BBC, he was explicitly told that he could comment on any subject except Israel. Such was the political sensitivity of the subject at the time, he was barred from speaking about it. Max Keiser, it should be stated, is a very opinionated presenter.

As for the Orwell quote, there's a reason why I didn't respond directly to it and that's because I feel it's rather hyperbolic when we're talking about people just realizing not to be unnecessarily cruel or vulgar in everyday speech.

Some context with the Orwell quote This was written towards the end of WW|I when Communist Russia was an Ally to the UK. His argument was the media and various institutions were self-censoring themselves so as not to criticise Russia in any way. Something we now know in hindsight would have been legitimate criticism.

I suppose that is analogous to self-censoring anything about Israel.

No, what I am suggesting is that because there's no ban on saying these things then you still retain your right to say them. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough that your hyperbolic way of speaking about this is what I find incorrect more than the philosophical content of what you're trying to convey.

Well, it might be considered hyperbolic arguing that we need to protect all forms 'freedom of speech' in general. Some people will argue that some forms of speech are harmful to society and needs limits, and that it is hyperbolic to think there may come a time when our own views might be considered 'hate speech' and we are oppressed and marginalised. Of course the reason some people are adamant about protecting freedom of speech is because they see it as one of the checks and balances that limits government power. It doesn't necessarily mean it would ever happen, but insuring we have freedom of speech is at least some safeguard against it never happening.

My argument is not really all that different to that. It is just a question of semantics. The argument you are making is that the government isn't coding this into law (not entirely accurate when it comes to my government and that is part of the problem) but as I was stating, it doesn't necessarily need to because of the way people will do it for them by means of self-censoring.

It is an argument also, that is not entirely about government, but attitudes towards offensive language. I am going stress again however that the basis of my argument is about a specific thing mentioned, not political correctness as a whole.

Are you saying this climate is something new? People have faced repercussions for their words for almost as long as one cares to think and, if we're being honest, it's better now.

No. I don't believe I said that. The basis of my argument I have already mentioned including in this very post. I have absolutely nothing against criticism of people's views or that some institutes will punish those who harbour such views, I just take issue with the tolerance of people being attacked for views that do not have a clear line but are nevertheless within an area that is politically sensitive.

I really don't see any negatives to political correctness as I care not if people have to 'walk on eggshells' because it clearly shows they have some outdated views. If the government tried to institute these things then I would be against them due to the philosophical reasons which you also seem to believe in.

I would still like to know what topics you feel you need to 'walk on eggshell' about or perhaps which you feel other people do. I'm not trying to trap you here, I'm just interested.

You don't care, but you do care. I will mention again that I live in a country where freedom of speech is probably more under attack than currently in the United States. I do care about that. I don't see all opinions as black and white but rather some having gradients of grey, that may or may not be worth expressing.

To sum up my argument in very simple basic language: Anything taken to the extreme has the potential to have the opposite effect.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

'Society' is not one homogeneous entity though, right? Society doesn't in one voice deem something unacceptable. In fact it seems to me that it is not necessarily about the majority at all, but rather being sensitive to the views and needs of the minority. Again though, I am not saying that is a bad thing.

And in terms of whether it is a grey area or not, that is just my interpretation of what Stewart Lee said about something that is debatable on whether it is offensive being a small price to pay for the overall good political correctness does. Something that you, in some sense, agreed with. Which as I have pointed out is the basis of my argument.

I wasn't really the one proposing this, as such. I never made that argument, only added my opinion to that specific view.

No, it's not homogeneous but in this case it is based on consensus. Are you implying that it isn't a majority consensus? I'd wager that if you don't say something because you realise it's in poor taste you're probably not concerned about what 3% of people will think but rather what the majority of people would think or even merely infer from what you've said.

Fair enough to the rest. I still don't believe that people being careful of what they say isn't merely a small price to pay.

You never asked me in the first place... Anyway, one might assume it would be having your name slandered or losing your position in whatever field you belong to.

In terms of self-censoring, I did give a decent example already.

Some context with the Orwell quote This was written towards the end of WW|I when Communist Russia was an Ally to the UK. His argument was the media and various institutions were self-censoring themselves so as not to criticise Russia in any way. Something we now know in hindsight would have been legitimate criticism.

I suppose that is analogous to self-censoring anything about Israel.

That's a rather good example however I would think loss of reputation would be an obvious repercussion of saying things such as you'd expect people to face this penalty for. As for the job losses there was a thread about this not too long ago and, whilst I think it's maybe a bit extreme to hound these people down over the internet, if you're going to say egregious things and thus provide a bad image of the company I can't really blame anyone but the individual.

I do not believe that you are Anti-Semitic for dislike Israel so long as it's based upon an informed decision, I would assume most people would think that way unless they're Zionists.

Thank you for the context however I still feel it to be hyperbolic in this discussion.

Well, it might be considered hyperbolic arguing that we need to protect all forms 'freedom of speech' in general. Some people will argue that some forms of speech are harmful to society and needs limits, and that it is hyperbolic to think there may come a time when our own views might be considered 'hate speech' and we are oppressed and marginalised. Of course the reason some people are adamant about protecting freedom of speech is because they see it as one of the checks and balances that limits government power. It doesn't necessarily mean it would ever happen, but insuring we have freedom of speech is at least some safeguard against it never happening.

That's very true but as long as there's a judicial system about whether or not something is deemed as inciting racial hatred I can't see any issue. Unwarranted detention, sure but if someone is posing a threat to society by inciting hatred or violence then I believe the State has every right to remove that person from society.

My argument is not really all that different to that. It is just a question of semantics. The argument you are making is that the government isn't coding this into law (not entirely accurate when it comes to my government and that is part of the problem) but as I was stating, it doesn't necessarily need to because of the way people will do it for them by means of self-censoring.

I perfectly understand what you're saying on this issue however I still take no issue as long as what is acceptable is decided based upon societies views and beliefs at any given time. I realise that this is horrendously confusing for elderly people as it seems like things change so fast these days but ultimately political correctness is nothing more than just trying to be nice to people.

It is an argument also, that is not entirely about government, but attitudes towards offensive language. I am going stress again however that the basis of my argument is about a specific thing mentioned, not political correctness as a whole.

That's fair enough.

 

[gutter_trash]

Isn't Tipper Gore a conservative Democrat?

yup, in America there is this false premiss that Democrats are Liberals but many Democrats are Conservative and prudy, not necessarily Liberal per say

 

[leadbelly]

No, it's not homogeneous but in this case it is based on consensus. Are you implying that it isn't a majority consensus? I'd wager that if you don't say something because you realise it's in poor taste you're probably not concerned about what 3% of people will think but rather what the majority of people would think or even merely infer from what you've said.

Fair enough to the rest. I still don't believe that people being careful of what they say isn't merely a small price to pay.

Well, it's not like people vote on any specific issue for there to be a consensus. That's not to say there isn't majority consensus at times, it's just that I don't think it entirely works that way. Arguments and issues raised about there not being enough black football managers wasn't really something that was brought up through consensus of the public. That sort of thing is brought up by institutions, studied and decided upon by institutions. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean many people are against it.

I do not believe that you are Anti-Semitic for dislike Israel so long as it's based upon an informed decision, I would assume most people would think that way unless they're Zionists.

Yet, the BBC was obviously getting pressure for the way it was reporting news about Israel. Again I think that comes from pressure groups.

That's very true but as long as there's a judicial system about whether or not something is deemed as inciting racial hatred I can't see any issue. Unwarranted detention, sure but if someone is posing a threat to society by inciting hatred or violence then I believe the State has every right to remove that person from society.


I perfectly understand what you're saying on this issue however I still take no issue as long as what is acceptable is decided based upon societies views and beliefs at any given time. I realise that this is horrendously confusing for elderly people as it seems like things change so fast these days but ultimately political correctness is nothing more than just trying to be nice to people.

Hmmm. I really don't think Western governments care about society's views and beliefs all that much. I still think if we had the vote about whether to sign the Lisbon Treaty in the UK, we probably would have voted against it. Why we never got the chance to.

I also think if there was a vote at this moment about limiting EU immigration a lot of people would vote Yes.

I think a lot of people believe generally that we should be nice to people. Again it isn't really where my argument focused, it was more about where the line is drawn. There always needs to be reasonable balance of course.

 

[DoktorEvil]

yup, in America there is this false premiss that Democrats are Liberals but many Democrats are Conservative and prudy, not necessarily Liberal per say

I thought so. So is her husband IIRC.

It's normally the conservative Democrats that wish to ban or legislate the fuck out of people as well, the Nancy Pelosi's of the world.

 

[FStop7]

Dice Clay would not exist in today's current social media world.

Neither would Lenny Bruce tbh or early Eddie Murphy.

Or Richard Pryor or Redd Foxx.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Great interview all around.

I'm completely on same page as Rock here. Social media has neutered comedians. Even if what they say isn't necessarily something that would largely offend a sold out show to the point of inspiring vitriol- it only takes one person with a smartphone to gain traction among a specific group of people that can't take a joke. And then the whole thing snowballs.

I mean, look at what this shit has become. Constantly losing your shit over anything that could possibly be construed as offensive is not only unhealthy, it's also annoying as fuck. Who the hell wants to be around that person? Moreover, what drives you to become that person? Especially when it comes to a comedy show. Comedy is subjective- not every comedian is for everyone. And you're going to go out of your way to water down someone's act because it didn't cater to what you find acceptable? Fuck off.

 

[terrene]

I'm more cynical than most about it. I can't help but feel like there are plenty of sites now who financially depend on their readers being outraged. The various arms and legs of Gawker, XOJane, HuffPo, Upworthy, etc -- I mean, people make good money attempting to make things "go viral" so Twitter, et al, link back to them and bring in ad revenue.

I find it quite apropos that Upworthy's coverage of the Chris Rock interview is only about the comments about racial progress. They would never, ever call out the part where Rock goes into detail about how purveyors of shareable outrage like themselves have taken the fun out of his profession. In fact, they don't touch any moment where that paradigm embarrasses itself -- note how they stayed silent on #CancelColbert, which was probably an all-time low point of hashtag activism.

Every outrage flare up, there are a handful of articles that "get" to be the ones passed around as the definitive take on that situation and in many cases, there was no flare up before they posted something -- and these sites have real, paid employees. They absolutely NEED you to share their next tirade about something, or they will close their doors. In fact, I would wager that if a white comedian had said much of what Chris Rock did about political correctness poisoning his profession, the bloggers would be calling him out as an "entitled straight white male" who is anathema to social progress, or "cover the controversy" (end the article with the question, "were we wrong to like (straight white male comedian)?" because the article brings in viewers.

It is a shame because I am a straight up progressive, feminist, socialist, left-of-every-politician-in-America scorched earth motherfucking uber-liberal, but also a comedy nerd (and occasional comedian), and I absolutely see and feel both sides of the issue and KNOW my fellow liberals need to take a step back, even though I agree with them.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Or Richard Pryor or Redd Foxx.

That would be a fucking travesty if someone ever tried to censor Richard Pryor.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Just read the whole interview. What an amazing piece. Really solidifies Chris Rock as one of my favorite comedians and political/social commentators.

 

[ivysaur12]

I thought so. So is her husband IIRC.

It's normally the conservative Democrats that wish to ban or legislate the fuck out of people as well, the Nancy Pelosi's of the world.

What.

 

[entremet]

I'm more cynical than most about it. I can't help but feel like there are plenty of sites now who financially depend on their readers being outraged. The various arms and legs of Gawker, XOJane, HuffPo, Upworthy, etc -- I mean, people make good money attempting to make things "go viral" so Twitter, et al, link back to them and bring in ad revenue.

I find it quite apropos that Upworthy's coverage of the Chris Rock interview is only about the comments about racial progress. They would never, ever call out the part where Rock goes into detail about how purveyors of shareable outrage like themselves have taken the fun out of his profession. In fact, they don't touch any moment where that paradigm embarrasses itself -- note how they stayed silent on #CancelColbert, which was probably an all-time low point of hashtag activism.

Every outrage flare up, there are a handful of articles that "get" to be the ones passed around as the definitive take on that situation and in many cases, there was no flare up before they posted something -- and these sites have real, paid employees. They absolutely NEED you to share their next tirade about something, or they will close their doors. In fact, I would wager that if a white comedian had said much of what Chris Rock did about political correctness poisoning his profession, the bloggers would be calling him out as an "entitled straight white male" who is anathema to social progress, or "cover the controversy" (end the article with the question, "were we wrong to like (straight white male comedian)?" because the article brings in viewers.

It is a shame because I am a straight up progressive, feminist, socialist, left-of-every-politician-in-America scorched earth motherfucking uber-liberal, but also a comedy nerd (and occasional comedian), and I absolutely see and feel both sides of the issue and KNOW my fellow liberals need to take a step back, even though I agree with them.

Good post. I share the same ideological leanings, but these mobs need to stay away from comedy. I don't mind if people think some jokes are distasteful, but this whole outrage flavor of the month against comedy is depressing.

 

[DoktorEvil]

What.

You can be conservative in more ways than just on social issues y'know.

 

[Aurongel]

Social media and cellphones have enabled us better than ever before to record jokes and upload them online with zero context. Without context, even intelligently prepared and crafted jokes can sound horrifying at a glance. Unfortunately for comedians, people on social media reacting to out of context jokes based on knee-jerk reactions is the norm. Social media excels at both removing context for something and giving us a quick way of sharing our knee-jerk reactions to something.

It's not something I see getting better any time soon so I definitely sympathize with what Chris Rock is arguing.

 

[Honey Bunny]

GAF is proof that Chris Rock is right. I think liberalism and conservatism have switched positions to some extent. Twenty years ago it was conservatives trying to ban offensive music and games etc. In the current times its liberals trying to get that kind of stuff banned.

Banned.

Comedy.

 

[entremet]

If you'd like an explanation of your ban, you're welcome to PM a mod at any time.

In your case, you have multiple bans for derailing threads by shitting on religious posters and religion in general, with increased ban times when you didn't get the point. And you were banned by an atheist moderator.

If you'd like to discuss them further, PM a mod.

That goes for the rest of you who are complaining about your bans. If you want to know why you got them, PM a mod.

I will point out to other people in the thread that often the guys complaining about their unfair bans are being incredibly dishonest in how they represent them. That's pretty common, so take what's said with a grain of salt.

This why a ban list like SA would be best, but I don't run the site.

 

[Sanjuro]

I like Chris Rock.

Example. His 9/11 + Boston Marathon SNL commentary was out of place and pretty bland. However, I knew what he was doing, and we haven't heard his style in a while.

Still, comedy is a bit fucked. You can't get away with as much as you would like. You can do it, but you're always going to have some snippet being fed to the masses who need to form an opinion of some sort, supporters included.

 

[Doc Holliday]

A bit off subject, Gilbert Gottfreid fans should check out his podcast. His episode with jay Thomas had me on the floor.

 

[terrene]

It's not something I see getting better any time soon so I definitely sympathize with what Chris Rock is arguing.

I dunno, just because something is happening online right now doesn't mean it will never change. People will get sick of the perpetual cycle of outrage > retweet > outrage at some point. Give it time.

 

[ivysaur12]

You can be conservative in more ways than just on social issues y'know.

There are almost no ways in which you could use the word "conservative" to describe Nancy Pelosi besides maybe "conservatively dressed". I'm struggling to see how she's even relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Lothar]

Banned.

Comedy.

Was he banned for that post? Heh, you really never can tell. I don't see anything bad in there.

A bit off subject, Gilbert Gottfreid fans should check out his podcast. His episode with jay Thomas had me on the floor.

I recently listened to a 50+ hour Gilbert Gottfried on Howard Stern pack. He's the funniest comedian if you like edgy humor. But I haven't been able to get into his podcast. I'll check this out.

 

[border]

It's a historically loaded term, and was poisoned early in its life much like "Social Justice Warrior" has been poisoned now. Hopefully when we repeat history further on in the 21st century, we'll remix the dumb shit with a little more aplomb than that particular example.

Usually what happens is the phrase "Political Correctness" is used, and that's more often than not a signal for people who think life's gotten more unfair now that marginalized people aren't willing to stay marginalized for the sake of you having a cheap ha-ha at their expense

"Political correctness" and "social justice" were poisoned by both their opponents and their supporters. The movements were good in intent, but their zealots were frequently such terrible emissaries that there was an inevitable backlash. The holier-than-you "I know best" attitude and constant concern over offensiveness was just tiresome, and they pushed beyond the point of reason.

When I think "social justice" now I don't think about marriage equality, equal pay for equal work, ending racial profiling, etc. I think about some blogger whining that Iggy Azalea is guilty of disgusting cultural appropriation. I think of the tone-deaf, humorless #CancelColbert movement. I think of some space scientist reduced to tears because he wore a stupid shirt with some pin-up girls on it. I think of a 20 minute talk about how Princess Peach is a harmful cultural influence that re-enforces outdated gender norms. The obsession with useless pop culture minutiae combined with such bloated rhetoric and self-righteousness is mostly tiresome and laughable.

I'm not sure how much of this is the result of legitimate social justice pioneers, and how much of it is the result of shitty clickbait websites who've realized that manufacturing outrage over pop culture is a solid way to generate web traffic.

 

[ivysaur12]

"Political correctness" and "social justice" were poisoned by both their opponents and their supporters. The movements were good in intent, but their zealots were frequently such terrible emissaries that there was an inevitable backlash. The holier-than-you "I know best" attitude and constant concern over offensiveness was just tiresome, and they pushed beyond the point of reason.

When I think "social justice" now I don't think about marriage equality, equal pay for equal work, ending racial profiling, etc. I think about some blogger whining that Iggy Azalea is guilty of disgusting cultural appropriation. I think of the tone-deaf, humorless #CancelColbert movement. I think of some space scientist reduced to tears because he wore a stupid shirt with some pin-up girls on it. I think of a 20 minute talk about how Princess Peach is a harmful cultural influence that re-enforces outdated gender norms. The obsession with useless pop culture minutiae combined with such bloated rhetoric and self-righteousness is mostly tiresome and laughable.

I'm not sure how much of this is the result of legitimate social justice pioneers, and how much of it is the result of shitty clickbait websites who've realized that manufacturing outrage over pop culture is a solid way to generate web traffic.

There are plenty of examples of overblown gender and race criticism on the internet -- Salon thrives on this sort of critique with lazy liberal think pieces more than anyone else. However, I do think you're being too broad with your criticism of cultural appropriation think pieces.

I think it's overblown, but I understand why POC feel slighted by cultural appropriate and the rise of Iggy and Mackelmore into popular culture. We saw this with twerking -- it was gross and ghetto when black people were doing it, but once Miley does it, mom's love it! It's an example of a double standard in how we love black culture but can't seem to stop shooting black people. Social media rage is usually not the best avenue to air grievances, and can lead to something disastrous like #CancelColbert or, even worse, #GamerGate.

More interestingly is #CancelCobert. I thought #CancelColbert was stupid in more ways than one, but reading about Suey Park reveals reasons why she's angry. She's naive and young and I don't think she actually understands how to articulate her point without the use of a thousand buzzwords, but there's a rationality to her angry in the ways in which Asian people are understood in the media and society. That's where his anger comes from, and while it manifested itself in one of the most pointless ways possible, I can understand why she might be set off by something that's benign to almost all sane readers who could understand the joke that Colbert was making.

There's a fair amount of outrage for outrage's sake and outrage without understanding context of media or of humor. Or people who should understand context but just don't care to -- this might be the greatest offender. There's also legitimatete concerns that need to be addressed and not shoved in the corner with Slate's trash. And there's irrational outrage -- like #CancelColbert -- that has a completely stupid and disillusioned endpoint yet comes from a place that can and should be understood even by those who believe the entire produce is an exercise in idiocy.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

People would still blow their shit about legitimate social justice even if everyone interested in it was polite and infinitely patient. I see it happen all the time, that's just how people are when they have something to lose or think they have something to lose.

 

[AlexMogil]

I would have loved pages more of that interview. As it stands it is ripe for people to co-opt.

 

[Boss Doggie]

There are plenty of examples of overblown gender and race criticism on the internet -- Salon thrives on this sort of critique with lazy liberal think pieces more than anyone else. However, I do think you're being too broad with your criticism of cultural appropriation think pieces.

I think it's overblown, but I understand why POC feel slighted by cultural appropriate and the rise of Iggy and Mackelmore into popular culture. We saw this with twerking -- it was gross and ghetto when black people were doing it, but once Miley does it, mom's love it! It's an example of a double standard in how we love black culture but can't seem to stop shooting black people. Social media rage is usually not the best avenue to air grievances, and can lead to something disastrous like #CancelColbert or, even worse, #GamerGate.

More interestingly is #CancelCobert. I thought #CancelColbert was stupid in more ways than one, but reading about Suey Park reveals reasons why she's angry. She's naive and young and I don't think she actually understands how to articulate her point without the use of a thousand buzzwords, but there's a rationality to her angry in the ways in which Asian people are understood in the media and society. That's where his anger comes from, and while it manifested itself in one of the most pointless ways possible, I can understand why she might be set off by something that's benign to almost all sane readers who could understand the joke that Colbert was making.

There's a fair amount of outrage for outrage's sake and outrage without understanding context of media or of humor. Or people who should understand context but just don't care to -- this might be the greatest offender. There's also legitimatete concerns that need to be addressed and not shoved in the corner with Slate's trash. And there's irrational outrage -- like #CancelColbert -- that has a completely stupid and disillusioned endpoint yet comes from a place that can and should be understood even by those who believe the entire produce is an exercise in idiocy.

So the root of all evil is social media then? One could argue that even slacktivism boomed with its rise.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

"Political correctness" and "social justice" were poisoned by both their opponents and their supporters.

No, not really. Granted, there are and were overbearing proponents of progress that make positive social movements seem tiresome as fuck. I understand that.

But both those terms were poisoned by people who opposed the idea that progress would impede on their freedom to be a shithead - that in order for something to "progress" they'd have to give up (or have taken from them) valuable freedoms. "Politically Correct" was used as it was originally intended for a very short time before it was turned into code for "pussy." And Social Justice Warrior wasn't even a term people were USING, really, before it became - again - code for "pussy."

In both cases, the underlying reasoning behind using the term as an epithet is a means to re-establish a sort of masculine dominance over weaker people who, through those masculine eyes, are essentially trying to cheat their way to some sort of carefully constructed equality through the BULLSHIT use of their pussy-ass WORDS, of all the things.

And this thread has, inevitably, become what I said it was going to become way back on page 1. People are taking Rock's words on this subject, and using it as a means to decry "mobs" of people who are out here making it so hard for funny people to stay funny, wielding weapons of "manufactured outrage" designed to distract us all from the real crime - the erosion of our freedoms to thoughtlessly shit on people who occupy lower rungs on the social ladder, because we can, and it's fun in the short-term to do so.

His words are removed from their context, or mangled to fit the new context, which is almost always this: Other people are pussies, and pussies hate comedy because pussies never could take a joke, and things were better before the pussies could talk at length, tricking people with all their SOCIAL JUSTICE and their HASHTAGS into believing that having to think before you speak is a GOOD THING.

Nevermind that part of the point Rock's making is that the comedians he's referring to are people who already think before they speak. That's the entirety of what they do. What he's talking about is knowing his audience, and adjusting accordingly. Like ANY fucking comedian would do. Like any comedian has done, and always did, since people started getting money to stand up in front of others and make them laugh, surprising positive emotions out of them even though they're EXPECTING to laugh. All the way back to the first backflipping clown with bells on his head trying to find out what the tone of the room at the royal court is.

Shit isn't getting worse because people aren't free to punch down as hard as they can whenever they want anymore. And comedy isn't suffering for it, either.

The only thing that's suffering are the wanna-be amateur comedians who see someone telling jokes for a living and takes the misguided notion that they can do that too into their work, or online, or in a conversation at a party. The only people really suffering due to the rise of "Social Justice" and the application of "Political Correctness" are people who think it's bullshit they have to think before they speak.

And yes, that sometimes applies to people legitimately out there trying to advocate for the lesser-thans and the have-nots. Sometimes they don't fuckin think before they speak, either.

But I fucking guarantee you there's WAY less of them making their bleating misguided noises than their opposite number.

 

[Boss Doggie]

You imply though that your average blogger thinks before they post. Then again, terms have been broadly applied that you have people arguing that one person isn't a real "feminist" or "SJW" because of different reasons.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

You imply though that your average blogger thinks before they post.

You're implying the majority of them don't. I dont' know that I agree with that on the face of it.

Then again, that's still drawing a comparison between "average blogger" which I'm taking to mean an unpaid, amateur journalist who is essentially just throwing rocks into a pond and hoping for big ripples - and stand-up comedian, a legitimate profession that is a lot more specific, and a lot harder, than simply writing essays.

It's still a matter of taking Rock's words and context, and discarding or misconstruing the context so that his words now apply to someone who never really fit them.

A person being funny at in the breakroom, a person on their twitter tweeting the first stupid thing that pops into their head is not the same as Chris Rock working on a standup routine. And when people use Rock's beef to justify their need to punch down without repercussion, they're misusing him. They're drawing a false equivalency. They're trying to hide behind Chris Rock's shield when Rock isn't holding it for them. It's a misappropriation of him.

Chris Rock is a guy who is trying to subvert expectation FOR A LIVING. Tim on twitter is doing it because he'd like some RT's. The two situations aren't comparable. When you don't get the response Rock got for doing a bad facsimile of his comedy, that's not becaues "the pussies" are winning with all their SJW. It's because you didn't fuckin think before you spoke, and there are consequences for that. And there should be, because you're not a comedian, and it's not 1965.

 

[ivysaur12]

No, not really. Granted, there are and were overbearing proponents of progress that make positive social movements seem tiresome as fuck. I understand that.

But both those terms were poisoned by people who opposed the idea that progress would impede on their freedom to be a shithead - that in order for something to "progress" they'd have to give up (or have taken from them) valuable freedoms. "Politically Correct" was used as it was originally intended for a very short time before it was turned into code for "pussy." And Social Justice Warrior wasn't even a term people were USING, really, before it became - again - code for "pussy."

In both cases, the underlying reasoning behind using the term as an epithet is a means to re-establish a sort of masculine dominance over weaker people who, through those masculine eyes, are essentially trying to cheat their way to some sort of carefully constructed equality through the BULLSHIT use of their pussy-ass WORDS, of all the things.

And this thread has, inevitably, become what I said it was going to become way back on page 1. People are taking Rock's words on this subject, and using it as a means to decry "mobs" of people who are out here making it so hard for funny people to stay funny, wielding weapons of "manufactured outrage" designed to distract us all from the real crime - the erosion of our freedoms to thoughtlessly shit on people who occupy lower rungs on the social ladder, because we can, and it's fun in the short-term to do so.

His words are removed from their context, or mangled to fit the new context, which is almost always this: Other people are pussies, and pussies hate comedy because pussies never could take a joke, and things were better before the pussies could talk at length, tricking people with all their SOCIAL JUSTICE and their HASHTAGS into believing that having to think before you speak is a GOOD THING.

Nevermind that part of the point Rock's making is that the comedians he's referring to are people who already think before they speak. That's the entirety of what they do. What he's talking about is knowing his audience, and adjusting accordingly. Like ANY fucking comedian would do. Like any comedian has done, and always did, since people started getting money to stand up in front of others and make them laugh, surprising positive emotions out of them even though they're EXPECTING to laugh. All the way back to the first backflipping clown with bells on his head trying to find out what the tone of the room at the royal court is.

Shit isn't getting worse because people aren't free to punch down as hard as they can whenever they want anymore. And comedy isn't suffering for it, either.

The only thing that's suffering are the wanna-be amateur comedians who see someone telling jokes for a living and takes the misguided notion that they can do that too into their work, or online, or in a conversation at a party. The only people really suffering due to the rise of "Social Justice" and the application of "Political Correctness" are people who think it's bullshit they have to think before they speak.

And yes, that sometimes applies to people legitimately out there trying to advocate for the lesser-thans and the have-nots. Sometimes they don't fuckin think before they speak, either.

But I fucking guarantee you there's WAY less of them making their bleating misguided noises than their opposite number.

You're pretty fantastic, you know that?

 

[Fantastical]

Which I think is actually bigger than the football player. Because the average person in that locker room is in his 20s. And it’s just not a big deal to be around a gay guy — if you’re in your 20s.

Mmm... I would disagree, particularly in athletics, and especially in a locker room.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

aw, shucks.

It's only because I've been a bleating asshole, and I've been the thoughtless ape. I've been the guy who decided getting my mean-spirited laugh was more important than the feelings of whoever might be around, and I've been the mealy-mouthed motherfucker who overstepped his bounds trying to fight a fight when nobody really asked me to get in the ring - nor did I belong there.

Eventually you start learning some shit, I guess

(haven't learned enough to stop arguing with people on the internet, though)

 

[ronito]

GAF is proof that Chris Rock is right. I think liberalism and conservatism have switched positions to some extent. Twenty years ago it was conservatives trying to ban offensive music and games etc. In the current times its liberals trying to get that kind of stuff banned.

Did this guy get banned for this? Cause if so I have a hardy laugh to have. Actually, even if he wasn't don't tell me. It's too delicious to have ruined.

 

[entremet]

Did this guy get banned for this? Cause if so I have a hardy laugh to have. Actually, even if he wasn't don't tell me. It's too delicious to have ruined.

Most likely, not really about the content of his message--the liberal conservative thing--but for painting broad brushes about the forum "GAF is this. GAF is that".

That's usually a bannable offense.

 

[Valhelm]

GAF is proof that Chris Rock is right. I think liberalism and conservatism have switched positions to some extent. Twenty years ago it was conservatives trying to ban offensive music and games etc. In the current times its liberals trying to get that kind of stuff banned.

Sucks that you're banned, because you can't respond. But hopefully somebody else can.

Are there really progressive campaigns to ban certain shows, songs, and video games? The video game industry has recently come under a lot of scrutiny and analysis from the far left, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that somebody like Anita Sarkeesian wants to make problematic games illegal.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Sucks that you're banned, because you can't respond. But hopefully somebody else can.

Are there really progressive campaigns to ban certain shows, songs, and video games? The video game industry has recently come under a lot of scrutiny and analysis from the far left, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that somebody like Anita Sarkeesian wants to make problematic games illegal.

While I'm sure some of the fringe left is calling for that, the closest I've seen is the call for an ESRB like warning for sexist portrayals. Sweden is considering it. This could hypothetically bar it from certain retail chains like an x rating would but of course the retail chains have that right.

There's tons of outcry to remove certain offending material from games, but that's pressure and not censorship.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Sucks that you're banned, because you can't respond. But hopefully somebody else can.

Are there really progressive campaigns to ban certain shows, songs, and video games? The video game industry has recently come under a lot of scrutiny and analysis from the far left, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that somebody like Anita Sarkeesian wants to make problematic games illegal.

A lot of people claim Anita Sarkeesian/feminists want to ban video games based on no evidence whatsoever. (because voicing criticism = wanting to ban games)

I can only assume that's what he was on about.

 

[BocoDragon]

I think it's fair that some segment of our society urges us to be careful with our words, as they shape the society we live in.

But we do realize that if we don't have at least some pushback against political correctness... we are fucked, right?

You can't just let the loudest activist determine what is or is not okay to say. It's right to argue with people's call for PC behavior, and ultimately, to reject some of their calls as unreasonable.

 

[terrene]

Then again, that's still drawing a comparison between "average blogger" which I'm taking to mean an unpaid, amateur journalist who is essentially just throwing rocks into a pond and hoping for big ripples - and stand-up comedian, a legitimate profession that is a lot more specific, and a lot harder, than simply writing essays.

That's quite off. There are plenty of writers making money on writing specious outrage articles and diatribes on both the left and the right, and even if that weren't true, portraying the massive echo chamber that is set up to give a megaphone to such outrage as some sort of ragtag band of powerless and voiceless people fighting against "legitimate professionals" like the big bad standup comedians is frankly ridiculous.

But both those terms were poisoned by people who opposed the idea that progress would impede on their freedom to be a shithead - that in order for something to "progress" they'd have to give up (or have taken from them) valuable freedoms. "Politically Correct" was used as it was originally intended for a very short time before it was turned into code for "pussy." And Social Justice Warrior wasn't even a term people were USING, really, before it became - again - code for "pussy."

No, liberals get tired of perpetual outrage machines too.

His words are removed from their context, or mangled to fit the new context, which is almost always this: Other people are pussies, and pussies hate comedy because pussies never could take a joke, and things were better before the pussies could talk at length, tricking people with all their SOCIAL JUSTICE and their HASHTAGS into believing that having to think before you speak is a GOOD THING.

Actually, the entire section dealing with this was quoted in full, and I feel like it's you who is trying to change what he was saying to protect social media gotcha scandals that flare up "in the name of progress" from the criticism Rock is leveling here. Your claim that "comedy isn't suffering" is at direct odds with what he is saying.

 

[entremet]

Sucks that you're banned, because you can't respond. But hopefully somebody else can.

Are there really progressive campaigns to ban certain shows, songs, and video games? The video game industry has recently come under a lot of scrutiny and analysis from the far left, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that somebody like Anita Sarkeesian wants to make problematic games illegal.

Interestingly this happened recently in Australia.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=944197

GTAV being banned due to depictions of violence against women. It's just Target, however, yet there was pressure to ban something due to political reasons.

 

[Cybit]

That's quite off. There are plenty of writers making money on writing specious outrage articles and diatribes on both the left and the right, and even if that weren't true, portraying the massive echo chamber that is set up to give a megaphone to such outrage as some sort of ragtag band of powerless and voiceless people fighting against "legitimate professionals" like the big bad standup comedians is frankly ridiculous.

Seeing as we are talking about Suey Park, Terrene is factually accurate on this statement.

No, liberals get tired of perpetual outrage machines too.

I get tired of outrage machines whose goals are to either chase money or assuage their own guilt of those being outraged, because there is a large amount of self-guilt tied to the fact that they are not actually spending time, energy, effort, and money in trying to actually see change. Been rounded up a great deal of times (especially in college, hello Iraq war) for protesting. Never were any of the people I was rounded up with folks who used twitter or tumblr as the primary way to express their outrage. Hell, we'd probably get shit actually changed for the better if all the people who said they were offended by XYZ thing actually called their damn congressman or voted like it (Or hell, voted at all). I'm sure some do; but alas, if this last election is any indication, not enough IMO.

Hell, we had this problem all the time at Obama's office in IL. Everyone would be like "oh that's a great idea! that's so cool!" or "that's so true! we should do something about it!" Few of 'em ever showed up to help out though. Took a pissed off GOP party member to cause the Senate race to go to hell in a handbasket. (Thank you 7 of 9 for getting President Obama on his way to the presidency)

Actually, the entire section dealing with this was quoted in full, and I feel like it's you who is trying to change what he was saying to protect social media gotcha scandals that flare up "in the name of progress" from the criticism Rock is leveling here. Your claim that "comedy isn't suffering" is at direct odds with what he is saying.

While I agree mostly with BobbyRobby on the general usage of PC by people who just want to continue to bully; terrene is factually accurate on this statement, and BobbyRobby is flat out incorrect. Chris Rock specifically answers the question "is comedy being hurt by this" in the affirmative. There is no context before or after the quoted section in the OP that apply to anything quoted in the OP. The beginning of the article is about Obama and the Republicans, and the questions afterward transition from bad places he's played and onto other topics.

Anyone who lives their lives (willingly or unwillingly) in the public eye has every right to call this out as BS. Our collective willingness to remove context from actions & comments and then declare outrage over them is pretty appalling to those who are not afforded the right to live in privacy. Hell, imagine the types of politicians this behavior will lead to.

It's odd; we say "most tumblr folks are not being extremist", but then turn around and say "all people getting upset about PC are just doing it to be bullies." There's a word for that. It's called hypocrisy (or delusional). Just as the majority of people who get upset when people punch down are doing so legitimately and within reason, the majority of people who get upset when they feel that the outrage machine is generating outrage for the sake of money or because they are being extreme in their policing views (they don't want anyone around who doesn't superficially believe what they believe) are reasonable folks who see the excesses of slacktivism.

Moderates and reasonable people make up the majority of both camps. Hell, you can find me fighting against twitter activism in one thread and spitting fire that the laws for the police are so screwed up that Eric Garner and Michael Brown will never even get a trial. There is a really large moderate space in between the two extremes. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that only our extreme is "moderate and correct and full of nuance" and the other extreme is "an absolute monolithic entity".