How will Valiant handle the outrage culture?

[lorddunlow]

Louis CK cracked me up on The Daily Show one time. He had apparently tweeted about Daniel Tosh being funny right after Daniel Tosh made a rape joke. He said he left for vacation after that and didn't check responses until he got back. So everyone was outraged that he was encouraging rape jokes. He was explaining that he had no idea that Tosh had made the jokes when he commented. During the conversation, Stewart implied that Louis CK thought the joke was was in poor taste to which he said something along the lines of, "hell no. Rape jokes can be hilarious."

It was hilarious because Stewart was completely thrown off and everyone was laughing nervously.

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits. The world is so horrific that if we refuse to laugh at the horrible stuff as well as the silly, then we'd all go insane. There is a thin line between inappropriate humor meant to make people laugh and jokes told to hurt another, but it's all in the telling. To be honest, if we limited comedy to that which avoided offending anyone, we'd be left with puns and little kids jokes. How boring that would be.

[Brother Darque]

Louis CK cracked me up on The Daily Show one time. He had apparently tweeted about Daniel Tosh being funny right after Daniel Tosh made a rape joke. He said he left for vacation after that and didn't check responses until he got back. So everyone was outraged that he was encouraging rape jokes. He was explaining that he had no idea that Tosh had made the jokes when he commented. During the conversation, Stewart implied that Louis CK thought the joke was was in poor taste to which he said something along the lines of, "hell no. Rape jokes can be hilarious."

It was hilarious because Stewart was completely thrown off and everyone was laughing nervously.

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits. The world is so horrific that if we refuse to laugh at the horrible stuff as well as the silly, then we'd all go insane. There is a thin line between inappropriate humor meant to make people laugh and jokes told to hurt another, but it's all in the telling. To be honest, if we limited comedy to that which avoided offending anyone, we'd be left with puns and little kids jokes. How boring that would be.

This reminded me of an article comedian Jim Norton did for time.com, it was during when Trevor Noah was announced as the successor to John Stewart as host of the daily show and people dug up old tweets of jokes he made and tired to making a big fuss over them.

Jim Norton: Trevor Noah Isn’t the Problem. You Are.

[Blood of Heroes]

Louis CK cracked me up on The Daily Show one time. He had apparently tweeted about Daniel Tosh being funny right after Daniel Tosh made a rape joke. He said he left for vacation after that and didn't check responses until he got back. So everyone was outraged that he was encouraging rape jokes. He was explaining that he had no idea that Tosh had made the jokes when he commented. During the conversation, Stewart implied that Louis CK thought the joke was was in poor taste to which he said something along the lines of, "hell no. Rape jokes can be hilarious."

It was hilarious because Stewart was completely thrown off and everyone was laughing nervously.

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits. The world is so horrific that if we refuse to laugh at the horrible stuff as well as the silly, then we'd all go insane. There is a thin line between inappropriate humor meant to make people laugh and jokes told to hurt another, but it's all in the telling. To be honest, if we limited comedy to that which avoided offending anyone, we'd be left with puns and little kids jokes. How boring that would be.

Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

[lorddunlow]

Louis CK cracked me up on The Daily Show one time. He had apparently tweeted about Daniel Tosh being funny right after Daniel Tosh made a rape joke. He said he left for vacation after that and didn't check responses until he got back. So everyone was outraged that he was encouraging rape jokes. He was explaining that he had no idea that Tosh had made the jokes when he commented. During the conversation, Stewart implied that Louis CK thought the joke was was in poor taste to which he said something along the lines of, "hell no. Rape jokes can be hilarious."

It was hilarious because Stewart was completely thrown off and everyone was laughing nervously.

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits. The world is so horrific that if we refuse to laugh at the horrible stuff as well as the silly, then we'd all go insane. There is a thin line between inappropriate humor meant to make people laugh and jokes told to hurt another, but it's all in the telling. To be honest, if we limited comedy to that which avoided offending anyone, we'd be left with puns and little kids jokes. How boring that would be.

Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

[comicsyte95]

Louis CK cracked me up on The Daily Show one time. He had apparently tweeted about Daniel Tosh being funny right after Daniel Tosh made a rape joke. He said he left for vacation after that and didn't check responses until he got back. So everyone was outraged that he was encouraging rape jokes. He was explaining that he had no idea that Tosh had made the jokes when he commented. During the conversation, Stewart implied that Louis CK thought the joke was was in poor taste to which he said something along the lines of, "hell no. Rape jokes can be hilarious."

It was hilarious because Stewart was completely thrown off and everyone was laughing nervously.

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits. The world is so horrific that if we refuse to laugh at the horrible stuff as well as the silly, then we'd all go insane. There is a thin line between inappropriate humor meant to make people laugh and jokes told to hurt another, but it's all in the telling. To be honest, if we limited comedy to that which avoided offending anyone, we'd be left with puns and little kids jokes. How boring that would be.

Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

[Sven the Returned]

It's perfectly reasonable to argue about what should and should not matter in a society.culture/subculture.

Except it's rarely a case that someone wants to argue about what is important. It is usually a case that someone wants to dismiss a criticism because there is what they see as a "bigger evil out there, so why don't you focus on that thing and leave the thing I like alone?"

What's wrong with objectifying man, woman or fictional aliens that look kinda hot?

You don't seriously need this explained, do you?

Feel free to explain.

I assume, considering your user name, that you are a female? You don't have a problem with women being judged primarily by their looks? When the objectification of women is a commonly recurring element in popular culture, it helps to reinforce the notion that this is okay.

At first everyone is judged primarily on his or her looks. Wherever it's okay or not i doubt that it will ever go away. I am a male.

Women are judged far more in this regard.

How can you tell?

[ilzuccone]

Louis CK cracked me up on The Daily Show one time. He had apparently tweeted about Daniel Tosh being funny right after Daniel Tosh made a rape joke. He said he left for vacation after that and didn't check responses until he got back. So everyone was outraged that he was encouraging rape jokes. He was explaining that he had no idea that Tosh had made the jokes when he commented. During the conversation, Stewart implied that Louis CK thought the joke was was in poor taste to which he said something along the lines of, "hell no. Rape jokes can be hilarious."

It was hilarious because Stewart was completely thrown off and everyone was laughing nervously.

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits. The world is so horrific that if we refuse to laugh at the horrible stuff as well as the silly, then we'd all go insane. There is a thin line between inappropriate humor meant to make people laugh and jokes told to hurt another, but it's all in the telling. To be honest, if we limited comedy to that which avoided offending anyone, we'd be left with puns and little kids jokes. How boring that would be.

i love Louis CK... his show is incredibly depressing but his standup is on point.

the day after 9/11 i was at a concert with some friends and we decided "I'm going to bin laden your @s$" was a good way to say "i'm going to knock you the *SQUEE* down."
nothing is off limits when your joking.

[kjjohanson]

Except it's rarely a case that someone wants to argue about what is important. It is usually a case that someone wants to dismiss a criticism because there is what they see as a "bigger evil out there, so why don't you focus on that thing and leave the thing I like alone?"
You don't seriously need this explained, do you?

Feel free to explain.

I assume, considering your user name, that you are a female? You don't have a problem with women being judged primarily by their looks? When the objectification of women is a commonly recurring element in popular culture, it helps to reinforce the notion that this is okay.

At first everyone is judged primarily on his or her looks. Wherever it's okay or not i doubt that it will ever go away. I am a male.

Women are judged far more in this regard.

How can you tell?

Because I interact with other human beings on a regular basis.

[hunter_peterson]

Feel free to explain.

I assume, considering your user name, that you are a female? You don't have a problem with women being judged primarily by their looks? When the objectification of women is a commonly recurring element in popular culture, it helps to reinforce the notion that this is okay.

At first everyone is judged primarily on his or her looks. Wherever it's okay or not i doubt that it will ever go away. I am a male.

Women are judged far more in this regard.

How can you tell?

Because I interact with other human beings on a regular basis.

That's kind of dismissive of the question. There's just as much scrutiny on the bodies and behaviours of males, IMHO, it's just because it goes against the rules of masculinity to actually observe that. It's not like dudes can look however they want and be accepted as good examples of being male- just like how there are ideal forms that relate to femininity. It's bad feminism to pretend gendered issues don't have two sides to them. Just because it's common sense that women are scrutinized more in that way, that doesn't mean it's actually true- it just means people don't actually criticize the notion that it is fact. Critical thought really is rare, sadly. (Not directed at you, btw, just a thought.)

Which brings us back to the topic; I think Valiant will handle it well. It's tricky to give an example, because it's literally a matter of opinion whether or not something is good or bad. I like to think that in the face of the irrationally and shrilly outraged people whose argument for the target of their ire being bad lacks both logic and credibility would be ignored or quietly told why they are stupid by Dino.

With people who want to be offended and also don't want things that offend them to exist, there can be no reasoning, nor really is it necessary. Not giving the desired attention works spectacularly.

As for legitimate complaints? I expect them to handle them as perfectly as they have so far. Valiant is good at listening to valid critique, which is great!

[Blood of Heroes]

"Irrationally and shrilly outraged people"
Love it.

[kjjohanson]

I assume, considering your user name, that you are a female? You don't have a problem with women being judged primarily by their looks? When the objectification of women is a commonly recurring element in popular culture, it helps to reinforce the notion that this is okay.

At first everyone is judged primarily on his or her looks. Wherever it's okay or not i doubt that it will ever go away. I am a male.

Women are judged far more in this regard.

How can you tell?

Because I interact with other human beings on a regular basis.

That's kind of dismissive of the question. There's just as much scrutiny on the bodies and behaviours of males, IMHO, it's just because it goes against the rules of masculinity to actually observe that. It's not like dudes can look however they want and be accepted as good examples of being male- just like how there are ideal forms that relate to femininity. It's bad feminism to pretend gendered issues don't have two sides to them. Just because it's common sense that women are scrutinized more in that way, that doesn't mean it's actually true- it just means people don't actually criticize the notion that it is fact. Critical thought really is rare, sadly. (Not directed at you, btw, just a thought.)

Which brings us back to the topic; I think Valiant will handle it well. It's tricky to give an example, because it's literally a matter of opinion whether or not something is good or bad. I like to think that in the face of the irrationally and shrilly outraged people whose argument for the target of their ire being bad lacks both logic and credibility would be ignored or quietly told why they are stupid by Dino.

With people who want to be offended and also don't want things that offend them to exist, there can be no reasoning, nor really is it necessary. Not giving the desired attention works spectacularly.

As for legitimate complaints? I expect them to handle them as perfectly as they have so far. Valiant is good at listening to valid critique, which is great!

That there's "just as much scrutiny on the bodies…of males" doesn't come close to reality that I observe. But keep in mind that the concept of the objectification of women is not so much about scrutinizing bodies as it is about the idea that women are there for the pleasure of men. Part of the problem is that that's not always a conscious frame of mind, but it's displayed in little ways, such as when men tell women they don't know to smile (what goes unsaid, or unexamined, is that men want them to smile because it makes them look more appealing). Of course it sometimes it displayed in more explicit ways, such as street harassment. These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

[depluto]

Basically, the world is a confounding place.

[depluto]

These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

Tell that to my sister-in-law who was howling on the couch watching Magic Mike while I was trying to play a *SQUEE* video game upstairs. She says tacky *SQUEE* to guys all the time.

But your points are valid. Too many dudes are absolute hounds. If I check out booty at least I do it behind some sunglasses and don't look directly at them.

[kjjohanson]

These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

Tell that to my sister-in-law who was howling on the couch watching Magic Mike while I was trying to play a *SQUEE* video game upstairs. She says tacky *SQUEE* to guys all the time.

But your points are valid. Too many dudes are absolute hounds. If I check out booty at least I do it behind some sunglasses and don't look directly at them.

That's why I said "at the same level"; because I knew people would have anecdotes that would be used to supposedly disprove the point.

[depluto]

Whoosh!

[lorddunlow]

There's just as much scrutiny on the bodies and behaviours of males, IMHO, it's just because it goes against the rules of masculinity to actually observe that. It's not like dudes can look however they want and be accepted as good examples of being male- just like how there are ideal forms that relate to femininity. It's bad feminism to pretend gendered issues don't have two sides to them. Just because it's common sense that women are scrutinized more in that way, that doesn't mean it's actually true- it just means people don't actually criticize the notion that it is fact. Critical thought really is rare, sadly.

QFT

[lorddunlow]

That there's "just as much scrutiny on the bodies…of males" doesn't come close to reality that I observe. But keep in mind that the concept of the objectification of women is not so much about scrutinizing bodies as it is about the idea that women are there for the pleasure of men. Part of the problem is that that's not always a conscious frame of mind, but it's displayed in little ways, such as when men tell women they don't know to smile (what goes unsaid, or unexamined, is that men want them to smile because it makes them look more appealing). Of course it sometimes it displayed in more explicit ways, such as street harassment. These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

The fact that we try to pigeonhole men and women equally into boxes that society made is the problem. We just have a very motivated movement in feminism working to fix the problem on the female side of things. A lot of feminists don't have equality of sexes as their goal. They want a reversal. And I'm sick and tired of being lumped in with "men" as a whole since I've been treated like *SQUEE* by "men" my entire life (excluded from "Guy activities" as recent as my pediatric residency 6 years ago).

The fact of the matter is that if someone is an @sshole, they will likely never stop being one no matter what I or anyone else does. Social change comes when we teach our children not to be @ssholes and the previously existing @ssholes die out.

I'm not sexist/racist/etc. and I don't treat people poorly. I can't affect anyone else's behavior other than my son's as I teach him how to interact with other humans. I'm doing my part. I'm not going to let people make me feel bad because other people are dicks.

There is definitely still a long way to go and I sympathize with the victims of discrimination, but I despise being lumped in as part of the problem.

[kjjohanson]

That there's "just as much scrutiny on the bodies…of males" doesn't come close to reality that I observe. But keep in mind that the concept of the objectification of women is not so much about scrutinizing bodies as it is about the idea that women are there for the pleasure of men. Part of the problem is that that's not always a conscious frame of mind, but it's displayed in little ways, such as when men tell women they don't know to smile (what goes unsaid, or unexamined, is that men want them to smile because it makes them look more appealing). Of course it sometimes it displayed in more explicit ways, such as street harassment. These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

The fact that we try to pigeonhole men and women equally into boxes that society made is the problem. We just have a very motivated movement in feminism working to fix the problem on the female side of things. A lot of feminists don't have equality of sexes as their goal. They want a reversal. And I'm sick and tired of being lumped in with "men" as a whole since I've been treated like *SQUEE* by "men" my entire life (excluded from "Guy activities" as recent as my pediatric residency 6 years ago).

The fact of the matter is that if someone is an @sshole, they will likely never stop being one no matter what I or anyone else does. Social change comes when we teach our children not to be @ssholes and the previously existing @ssholes die out.

I'm not sexist/racist/etc. and I don't treat people poorly. I can't affect anyone else's behavior other than my son's as I teach him how to interact with other humans. I'm doing my part. I'm not going to let people make me feel bad because other people are dicks.

There is definitely still a long way to go and I sympathize with the victims of discrimination, but I despise being lumped in as part of the problem.

I agree with your point about gender roles (and most of what you said, generally). I think default gender roles is a large part of why there is inequality between the sexes, and I do think that there are some men that are open to change if you show that the gender role they've adopted (without really thinking about it, possibly) can, in part, be harmful.

[jeremycoe]

That there's "just as much scrutiny on the bodies…of males" doesn't come close to reality that I observe. But keep in mind that the concept of the objectification of women is not so much about scrutinizing bodies as it is about the idea that women are there for the pleasure of men. Part of the problem is that that's not always a conscious frame of mind, but it's displayed in little ways, such as when men tell women they don't know to smile (what goes unsaid, or unexamined, is that men want them to smile because it makes them look more appealing). Of course it sometimes it displayed in more explicit ways, such as street harassment. These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

I have been told to smile 100x more (by people I don't or barely know) than I have ever told someone else to. I never knew I was being objectified.

[hunter_peterson]

That there's "just as much scrutiny on the bodies…of males" doesn't come close to reality that I observe. But keep in mind that the concept of the objectification of women is not so much about scrutinizing bodies as it is about the idea that women are there for the pleasure of men. Part of the problem is that that's not always a conscious frame of mind, but it's displayed in little ways, such as when men tell women they don't know to smile (what goes unsaid, or unexamined, is that men want them to smile because it makes them look more appealing). Of course it sometimes it displayed in more explicit ways, such as street harassment. These situations don't happen to men (if at all) at the same level that women have to endure them.

The fact that we try to pigeonhole men and women equally into boxes that society made is the problem. We just have a very motivated movement in feminism working to fix the problem on the female side of things. A lot of feminists don't have equality of sexes as their goal. They want a reversal. And I'm sick and tired of being lumped in with "men" as a whole since I've been treated like *SQUEE* by "men" my entire life (excluded from "Guy activities" as recent as my pediatric residency 6 years ago).

The fact of the matter is that if someone is an @sshole, they will likely never stop being one no matter what I or anyone else does. Social change comes when we teach our children not to be @ssholes and the previously existing @ssholes die out.

I'm not sexist/racist/etc. and I don't treat people poorly. I can't affect anyone else's behavior other than my son's as I teach him how to interact with other humans. I'm doing my part. I'm not going to let people make me feel bad because other people are dicks.

There is definitely still a long way to go and I sympathize with the victims of discrimination, but I despise being lumped in as part of the problem.

I agree with your point about gender roles (and most of what you said, generally). I think default gender roles is a large part of why there is inequality between the sexes, and I do think that there are some men that are open to change if you show that the gender role they've adopted (without really thinking about it, possibly) can, in part, be harmful.

+1 to Dunlow.

That was my point. It isn't that one group is more or less disadvantaged or harmful than the other. It's that the system by which a largely meaningless set of biological characteristics have ballooned in meaning to shape the lives of all people in unnecessarily restrictive ways. Ideally, feminism claims to strive toward the minimization of gender roles.

It isn't, as you say, to "reform" men for "adopting" roles thrust on them from birth. Being a man harms nobody.. Being a man should be equal to being woman, and increasingly in the West this is becoming so. Why else would feminism be a default "good" that people are afraid to argue with? Because the original ideas resonate witht everybody. It's just that lots of bad people use divisions such as gender, sex, religion, ethnicity and wealth to victimize anyone unlike them. So we should focus on weeding out the real discrimination, instead of focussing on minutia like it helps anyone.

Being a bad person harms society, and through that, harms everybody. Simple enough to avoid, as long as we all teach subsequent generations to not think along divisions and instead think along commonalities.

[Tony_H]

In my opinion, in humor nothing is off limits.

In light of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, I agree. I would note, though, that when my wife and I have been in France in recent years, this jerk has been spewing a fair amount of anti-Semitic garbage cloaked as comedy...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tacks.html

...while there's been an increasingly volatile situation in western Europe concerning Islamist extremism and waves of refugees arriving from the eastern Mediterranean. After reading about Dieudonne and thinking about what he's been doing, my personal belief in the sanctity of free speech has eroded a bit. Using comedy to repeatedly bash a particular ethnic or religious group isn't acceptable public behavior (because there are likely to be lots of idiots with lots of personal and mental problems sitting in the audience), and such conduct doesn't have to be tolerated in a multiethnic country where laws and courtrooms exist to (try to) keep the citizenry from killing each other for one stupid reason or another.

[Blood of Heroes]

Using comedy to repeatedly bash a particular ethnic or religious group isn't acceptable public behavior.

Of course it isn't. That's the kind of behavior that will get you punched in the mouth if you say it to the wrong person. It just isn't the government's job to do the punching.

[Tony_H]

Using comedy to repeatedly bash a particular ethnic or religious group isn't acceptable public behavior.

Of course it isn't. That's the kind of behavior that will get you punched in the mouth if you say it to the wrong person. It just isn't the government's job to do the punching.

You're making my point for me. We mutually agree to have a government so that we don't have a society perpetually roiled by blood feuds. While the government shouldn't be able to just punch you in the mouth, it might be the government's job to fine the crap out of someone or throw them in prison if they start using comedy to encourage violence against a particular group of people.

[Blood of Heroes]

Using comedy to repeatedly bash a particular ethnic or religious group isn't acceptable public behavior.

Of course it isn't. That's the kind of behavior that will get you punched in the mouth if you say it to the wrong person. It just isn't the government's job to do the punching.

You're making my point for me. We mutually agree to have a government so that we don't have a society perpetually roiled by blood feuds. While the government shouldn't be able to just punch you in the mouth, it might be the government's job to fine the crap out of someone or throw them in prison if they start using comedy to encourage violence against a particular group of people.

When I say it isn't the government's job to do the punching, I'm using that as a metaphor for fines or imprisonment. It isn't the government's job to limit the freedom of speech, although they do in certain circumstances. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and Charlie Manson is in prison for murders he didn't personally commit.

But since I don't know what comedy you are talking about that is encouraging violence against a particular group of people, I don't know if we agree or disagree. I'm talking about racist or any other offensive jokes in general.

[Tony_H]

Using comedy to repeatedly bash a particular ethnic or religious group isn't acceptable public behavior.

Of course it isn't. That's the kind of behavior that will get you punched in the mouth if you say it to the wrong person. It just isn't the government's job to do the punching.

You're making my point for me. We mutually agree to have a government so that we don't have a society perpetually roiled by blood feuds. While the government shouldn't be able to just punch you in the mouth, it might be the government's job to fine the crap out of someone or throw them in prison if they start using comedy to encourage violence against a particular group of people.

When I say it isn't the government's job to do the punching, I'm using that as a metaphor for fines or imprisonment. It isn't the government's job to limit the freedom of speech, although they do in certain circumstances. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and Charlie Manson is in prison for murders he didn't personally commit.

But since I don't know what comedy you are talking about that is encouraging violence against a particular group of people, I don't know if we agree or disagree. I'm talking about racist or any other offensive jokes in general.

I think we agree--if some yutz is making an offensive joke or jab, that's not the kind of chronic, egregious behavior that's described in the news item I linked above. If you could be jailed for general offensiveness, I'd've been three strikes into a life sentence a long time ago.