See, the problem with moral offense is that it's entirely subjective and what is considered "insensitive" or "bigoted" changes as often as clothing styles. Sure, discrimination against someone for superficial qualities is wrong. No doubt. Ostracizing, mocking, etc, a person or class of people based on those qualities is wrong.
Satirizing that humor is not wrong. It's an effective progressive tool. If you can't grok this, I don't know how to load it into your brain in a manner that you'll understand, and for that I apologize. When you make a mockery of discriminatory stupidity, you render it ineffective. When people laugh at your bigoted remark and assume you're not serious, instead of grabbing their torch and pitchfork and shouting "Yeah!! Stupid [nationality/orientation/deodorant preference]!! Let's go kill them/deport them/force them to eat soap]!!", the satirists have won. They are winning, more and more.
Back to subjective moral offense. Some people are offended by homosexuality. Should gays and lesbians not be "overtly" gay or lesbian in sight of someone who's offended by that? Some people are offended by furries, bronies, people who eat meat, people who don't eat meat... why do you feel qualified to establish yourself as an arbiter of what "reasonable" offense is?
Because of the subjectivity of moral offense, it's the offended party that needs to take measures to mitigate their offendedness. No other solution makes sense or is reasonable.
Obviously cases of discriminatory practices such as in hiring, commerce, law enforcement, and so on, are a wholly different issue, but we were arguing about whether satirizing "offensive" humor is itself offensive.
You know, people love to present the idea that it's impossible to "keep up" with what is and isn't offensive. You know, I agree to a degree. However, here's the thing. You really don't have to. The point where you cross the line is when you get defensive about it when somebody calls you out.
We can't be perfect about this stuff 100% of the time. I know it's a little hypocritical coming from me, because I beat myself up about this stuff to no end, but that's my problem. If you say something really fucked and offend somebody, the mature thing to do is to apologize when somebody lets you know. If you know what you are going to say is going to piss people off and you say it anyway just to get a rise out of them, well, that's actual jackass territory, but you can't pledge ignorance.
You aren't some kind of rebel subverting society's expectations by making offensive jokes. You are, in fact, simply perpetuating them.
I'm not being defensive about offending anyone. I'm defending a show for satirizing bigotry because I believe that satire is an effective progressive tool against exactly that bigotry. Not sure if you were singling me out with that comment, but there it is.
You took several paragraphs of an argument that I thoughtfully wrote out, snatched one very briefly touched on concept that was a trigger for you, rebutted just that one line, and disregarded the rest. That's pretty weak.
I started writing before your second post came up, and anyway I don't disagree with you 100%. Mocking bigotry with exaggeration is is effective, I don't disagree. However, you gotta be careful with it because of Poe's Law. Some of the Futurama bits sort of failed in that regard is all. Again, it's not the end of the world; everyone slips up, it doesn't make them irredeemably evil. But it doesn't require defense either. Some things are allowed to be mistakes.
Christian fundamentalism is not only objectively incorrect in it's beliefs, but is a powerful, oppressive regressive force. It is a concept that deserves to be mocked along with their supporters.
It's obvious common sense that you don't have to care about the feelings of racist assholes, religious fanatics, sexist douchebags, homophobic dunkasses, and so forth when you debunk their bullshit because confronting their bullshit is more important than their feelings. Like, obviously you probably shouldn't like, use violence on them or stalk them or whatever, but you don't have to be polite to people you disagree with. The point isn't a world without confrontation. The point is to not be egregious dicks to one another.
Additionally, you haven't actually refuted my argument here. You are just trying to prove me a hypocrite, which I'll gladly admit. I don't like large religions which demean and destroy the lives of my friends. I don't like systems of oppression that tell my sister that she's lesser than I am. I'm not a fan of judging people by made-up constructs about their genetic makeup. I will hate those people and say whatever I want about them.
You also made a side argument that ultimately absolves you of responsibility for being an asshole and not caring about other people's feelings, which is unacceptable.
Your "subjective moral offense" paragraph fails to make a distinction (well, takes advantage of me not explicitly making a distinction) between harmful speech and non-harmful speech. I will agree with you that the "disgust argument" (i. e. "your speech makes me go 'ew'") is not a sufficient argument for whether particular speech is offensive. However, when you get into the territory of things like racist jokes, that speech is harmful: it perpetuates stereotyping of and insults a traditionally underprivileged group, and that speech merely by existing reinforces the disadvantaged position of that group.
There is an exception to harmful speech for comedy and satire, which can serve to bring attention to racism/sexism/ableism/etc, but for speech not to be harmful your audience must be able to tell that you are making satire, rather than just perpetuating a negative stereotype.
Nissl and Rym were claiming that, while there are points in Futurama where they satirize and ridicule racism and sexism through exaggeration, there are times where it's not exaggerated - it just seems like the show is making a "haha, women like shopping, amirite?" type of joke, which is actively sexist and unacceptable. I can't tell if you actually understood that from their arguments.
Nah. Christians are a social majority who wield lots of political power and who actively oppress others. They can fuckin' deal with it.
See? You're setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what reasonable offense is. Careful, that's how theocracies get started.
No, Sketch is right. Traditionally privileged and majority groups are not actually harmed by jokes that make fun of them. Members of that group can just go "hey, I'm not like those other Christians!" and not really be harmed by the joke.
The easy test for that one is to try to think of a racial slur for white people that actually, really hurts like a punch to the gut when a non-white person says it. (within the normative culture of western society of course.)
Nah. Christians are a social majority who wield lots of political power and who actively oppress others. They can fuckin' deal with it.
See? You're setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what reasonable offense is. Careful, that's how theocracies get started.
No, Sketch is right. Traditionally privileged and majority groups are not actually harmed by jokes that make fun of them. Members of that group can just go "hey, I'm not like those other Christians!" and not really be harmed by the joke.
Oh my God. I just laughed out loud at my desk at this one. I hope I didn't wake the baby.
Says who? You? It's ok to be offensive as long as you pick on majority groups?
You also made a side argument that ultimately absolves you of responsibility for being an asshole and not caring about other people's feelings, which is unacceptable.
Really? Let's go over that. Be specific. Carpet the world you mean? I stand by it. You can't refute it without sounding ridiculous, in my experience. Prove me wrong.
There is an exception to harmful speech for comedy and satire, which can serve to bring attention to racism/sexism/ableism/etc, but for speech not to be harmful your audience must be able to tell that you are making satire, rather than just perpetuating a negative stereotype.
The bulk of the audience gets it. If you are part of the minority (of the audience) that does not, that falls under the "your problem" category.
Nissl and Rym were claiming that, while there are points in Futurama where they satirize and ridicule racism and sexism through exaggeration, there are times where it's not exaggerated - it just seems like the show is making a "haha, women like shopping, amirite?" type of joke, which is actively sexist and unacceptable. I can't tell if you actually understood that from their arguments.
This is an example of a minority portion of the audience not getting the joke. There's no point in Futurama where there is a sexist, racist, or bigoted joke in earnest. Not one.
There is an exception to harmful speech for comedy and satire, which can serve to bring attention to racism/sexism/ableism/etc, but for speech not to be harmful your audience must be able to tell that you are making satire, rather than just perpetuating a negative stereotype.
The bulk of the audience gets it. If you are part of the minority (of the audience) that does not, that falls under the "your problem" category.
You're wrong. The majority of the audience is usually cis straight white people, that is, the very people least likely to be offended or harmed. The majority of the audience has never been called a racial slur, or beaten because they were gay, or have an autistic brother who gets insulted and harassed every day at school. Limiting the right to be offended to "the majority" is exactly the behavior that perpetuates discrimination.
From this, I'd guess that you're a white, straight, cis, and unaware of your own privilege. This puts you far and away in the majority of Americans, and far and away the least harmed by offensive jokes and stereotypes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That's right, that's science. When 97% of an audience understands why a joke is not offensive, they're not burdened with a moral obligation to kow-tow to the remaining 3% that is getting their dicks bent.
This is why abortion is legal in most states, you are allowed to possess firearms, and free speech still exists.
You two are arguing for a politically correct censorship state. Scary shit. At least in the US, the damage done (and still continuing to be done) to civil rights over the past two decades is bad enough without people clamoring for more censorship, more silencing of bothersome viewpoints, more conformity and more control.
If you are offended by Futurama, don't watch. When Futurama is being quoted by leadership figures who are denying food, shelter, employment, happiness, or freedom to a class of people, then maybe get out your soapbox.
I'm wondering at what point we advocated for state censorship. I believe it was never. All we're saying is that being offended by things, and letting people know, is valid, and responding to that with mockery and defensiveness is a dick move.
There is an exception to harmful speech for comedy and satire, which can serve to bring attention to racism/sexism/ableism/etc, but for speech not to be harmful your audience must be able to tell that you are making satire, rather than just perpetuating a negative stereotype.
The bulk of the audience gets it. If you are part of the minority (of the audience) that does not, that falls under the "your problem" category.
You're wrong. The majority of the audience is usually cis straight white people, that is, the very people least likely to be offended or harmed. The majority of the audience has never been called a racial slur, or beaten because they were gay, or have an autistic brother who gets insulted and harassed every day at school. Limiting the right to be offended to "the majority" is exactly the behavior that perpetuates discrimination.
From this, I'd guess that you're a white, straight, cis, and unaware of your own privilege. This puts you far and away in the majority of Americans, and far and away the least harmed by offensive jokes and stereotypes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
White, straight, and fully cognizant of why social programs, affirmative action, reparations, et al are fully necessary and absolutely essential to modern society.
But I'm not going to climb on a bandwagon and yell about how offensive a cartoon is because it made an ironic joke about women going shopping. That's ridiculous.
I'm wondering at what point we advocated for state censorship. I believe it was never. All we're saying is that being offended, and letting people know, is valid, and responding to that with mockery and defensiveness is a dick move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that if 3% of an audience is offended by X, the remaining 97% is beholden by morality and good taste to abstain from ever uttering X again.
What would you call that if not censorship in the name of an offended minority? That sort of thing is very, very popular in places like Afghanistan and other third world theocratic hell holes. Perhaps the United States is not the place for you?
First off, no it isn't. I live in Canada. Second off, yeah, in an ideal world we'd try to watch what we say and respect people, even if those people are in a minority. I'm trying to extract some kind of Orwellian overtones from that, but I'm not getting anything.
First off, no it isn't. I live in Canada. Second off, yeah, in an ideal world we'd try to watch what we say and respect people, even if those people are in a minority. I'm trying to extract some kind of Orwellian overtones from that, but I'm not getting anything.
Part of respecting people is respecting their right to speech. Debate is not oppression. Neither is making a joke that doesn't pander to 100% of the population's tastes (which is impossible).
Christian bashing isn't disrespectful because it applies to a majority group? How big is your anti-cognitive-dissonance helmet? It's working a wonder.
You also made a side argument that ultimately absolves you of responsibility for being an asshole and not caring about other people's feelings, which is unacceptable.
Really? Let's go over that. Be specific. Carpet the world you mean? I stand by it. You can't refute it without sounding ridiculous, in my experience. Prove me wrong.
Here's my stance on offensive humor: I have every right to make a joke about whoever I want (Jews, Italians, Women, Geeks, etc.). However, nobody has any right to avoid the consequences of their actions, and nobody has the right to tell me how to feel. I get to judge you based on whatever criteria I desire. Some you may agree with, some you may not. That said, in much the same way that I don't ultimately have any right to tell you specifically what to say and not to say, you don't ultimately have any right to tell me how to feel or not to feel. If you feel that that's "carpeting the world" because I think we should respect our fellow human beings if they're bothered by something that's fairly reasonable to be bothered by, there's no helping you, brah.
You also made a side argument that ultimately absolves you of responsibility for being an asshole and not caring about other people's feelings, which is unacceptable.
Really? Let's go over that. Be specific. Carpet the world you mean? I stand by it. You can't refute it without sounding ridiculous, in my experience. Prove me wrong.
Here's my stance on offensive humor: I have every right to make a joke about whoever I want (Jews, Italians, Women, Geeks, etc.). However, nobody has any right to avoid the consequences of their actions, and nobody has the right to tell me how to feel. I get to judge you based on whatever criteria I desire. Some you may agree with, some you may not. That said, in much the same way that I don't ultimately have any right to tell you specifically what to say and not to say, you don't ultimately have any right to tell me how to feel or not to feel. If you feel that that's "carpeting the world" because I think we should respect our fellow human beings if they're bothered by something that's fairly reasonable to be bothered by, there's no helping you, brah.
Who's telling you how to feel? Let's go back to the genesis of this argument which was whether satire of bigotry is an effective tool against bigotry and thus: not offensive.
Maybe you think that repeating bigoted sentiments, even for the sake of satire, is offensive. I have no problem with you feeling that way, on a fundamental level. That is, you have a right to feel that way, because you're a (relatively) sovereign human being.
By the same token, I have a right, as a relatively sovereign human being, to express incredulity at your opinions (just as you do mine.)
Seems to me as though a few people here are arguing that people should not be allowed to say certain things, if those things are considered mean by anyone, anywhere, at any time. I'm not in that group. I'm perfectly receptive to your and their opinions in that I have read them all and responded earnestly to them. I've certainly not made accusations of tastelessness, cluelessness, or stupidity as others have chosen to do in this thread.
Comments
Satirizing that humor is not wrong. It's an effective progressive tool. If you can't grok this, I don't know how to load it into your brain in a manner that you'll understand, and for that I apologize. When you make a mockery of discriminatory stupidity, you render it ineffective. When people laugh at your bigoted remark and assume you're not serious, instead of grabbing their torch and pitchfork and shouting "Yeah!! Stupid [nationality/orientation/deodorant preference]!! Let's go kill them/deport them/force them to eat soap]!!", the satirists have won. They are winning, more and more.
Back to subjective moral offense. Some people are offended by homosexuality. Should gays and lesbians not be "overtly" gay or lesbian in sight of someone who's offended by that? Some people are offended by furries, bronies, people who eat meat, people who don't eat meat... why do you feel qualified to establish yourself as an arbiter of what "reasonable" offense is?
Because of the subjectivity of moral offense, it's the offended party that needs to take measures to mitigate their offendedness. No other solution makes sense or is reasonable.
Obviously cases of discriminatory practices such as in hiring, commerce, law enforcement, and so on, are a wholly different issue, but we were arguing about whether satirizing "offensive" humor is itself offensive.
We can't be perfect about this stuff 100% of the time. I know it's a little hypocritical coming from me, because I beat myself up about this stuff to no end, but that's my problem. If you say something really fucked and offend somebody, the mature thing to do is to apologize when somebody lets you know. If you know what you are going to say is going to piss people off and you say it anyway just to get a rise out of them, well, that's actual jackass territory, but you can't pledge ignorance.
You aren't some kind of rebel subverting society's expectations by making offensive jokes. You are, in fact, simply perpetuating them.
You took several paragraphs of an argument that I thoughtfully wrote out, snatched one very briefly touched on concept that was a trigger for you, rebutted just that one line, and disregarded the rest. That's pretty weak.
This is pretty obviously offensive, wouldn't you say? I mean, to a large segment of the population. Don't you think this crossed the line?
It's obvious common sense that you don't have to care about the feelings of racist assholes, religious fanatics, sexist douchebags, homophobic dunkasses, and so forth when you debunk their bullshit because confronting their bullshit is more important than their feelings. Like, obviously you probably shouldn't like, use violence on them or stalk them or whatever, but you don't have to be polite to people you disagree with. The point isn't a world without confrontation. The point is to not be egregious dicks to one another.
Additionally, you haven't actually refuted my argument here. You are just trying to prove me a hypocrite, which I'll gladly admit. I don't like large religions which demean and destroy the lives of my friends. I don't like systems of oppression that tell my sister that she's lesser than I am. I'm not a fan of judging people by made-up constructs about their genetic makeup. I will hate those people and say whatever I want about them.
Your "subjective moral offense" paragraph fails to make a distinction (well, takes advantage of me not explicitly making a distinction) between harmful speech and non-harmful speech. I will agree with you that the "disgust argument" (i. e. "your speech makes me go 'ew'") is not a sufficient argument for whether particular speech is offensive. However, when you get into the territory of things like racist jokes, that speech is harmful: it perpetuates stereotyping of and insults a traditionally underprivileged group, and that speech merely by existing reinforces the disadvantaged position of that group.
There is an exception to harmful speech for comedy and satire, which can serve to bring attention to racism/sexism/ableism/etc, but for speech not to be harmful your audience must be able to tell that you are making satire, rather than just perpetuating a negative stereotype.
Nissl and Rym were claiming that, while there are points in Futurama where they satirize and ridicule racism and sexism through exaggeration, there are times where it's not exaggerated - it just seems like the show is making a "haha, women like shopping, amirite?" type of joke, which is actively sexist and unacceptable. I can't tell if you actually understood that from their arguments.
Says who? You? It's ok to be offensive as long as you pick on majority groups?
Where did you learn that? Women's Studies?
Oh, and I learned it from my friends who learned it from Womens' and Gender Studies. So yeah.
From this, I'd guess that you're a white, straight, cis, and unaware of your own privilege. This puts you far and away in the majority of Americans, and far and away the least harmed by offensive jokes and stereotypes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
This is why abortion is legal in most states, you are allowed to possess firearms, and free speech still exists.
You two are arguing for a politically correct censorship state. Scary shit. At least in the US, the damage done (and still continuing to be done) to civil rights over the past two decades is bad enough without people clamoring for more censorship, more silencing of bothersome viewpoints, more conformity and more control.
If you are offended by Futurama, don't watch. When Futurama is being quoted by leadership figures who are denying food, shelter, employment, happiness, or freedom to a class of people, then maybe get out your soapbox.
But I'm not going to climb on a bandwagon and yell about how offensive a cartoon is because it made an ironic joke about women going shopping. That's ridiculous.
What would you call that if not censorship in the name of an offended minority? That sort of thing is very, very popular in places like Afghanistan and other third world theocratic hell holes. Perhaps the United States is not the place for you?
Christian bashing isn't disrespectful because it applies to a majority group? How big is your anti-cognitive-dissonance helmet? It's working a wonder.
And if debate isn't oppression, what's wrong with calling people out, and continuing to call people out, for their mistakes? Where's the harm?
Maybe you think that repeating bigoted sentiments, even for the sake of satire, is offensive. I have no problem with you feeling that way, on a fundamental level. That is, you have a right to feel that way, because you're a (relatively) sovereign human being.
By the same token, I have a right, as a relatively sovereign human being, to express incredulity at your opinions (just as you do mine.)
Seems to me as though a few people here are arguing that people should not be allowed to say certain things, if those things are considered mean by anyone, anywhere, at any time. I'm not in that group. I'm perfectly receptive to your and their opinions in that I have read them all and responded earnestly to them. I've certainly not made accusations of tastelessness, cluelessness, or stupidity as others have chosen to do in this thread.
Ironically, I'm the offensive one. So it goes.