Ho Hum...Knicks Win. Just Wait Till We Play Utah

[NAOS]

You are being intellectually dishonest to think that your "three word sentence" was not loaded with implication in regards to both the poster and anyone else who might find the joke funny. Again, hiding behind semantics.


Again, being rude is not a universal thing. I am sure most can agree that certain things have a very high probability for being perceived as rude, but does that mean that everything anyone could ever saw that could be perceived by anyone to be rude needs to be called out? I once had to write up an employee for their behavior in the workplace. We had several witnesses, including in her defense. I was told by a witness and by the person being written up, that I was being rude for detailing her behavior. I did not feel that way, nor did HR, so was it rude?

You seem determined not to acknowledge some of the good and clear points that OB brings up, imo (e.g. the difference between punching up vs punching down; inclusivity vs exclusivity; etc).

There’s some irony in the fact that, from my perspective, it’s you that’s sheltering behind the meaning of certain words, not OB, just as you’re accusing him of semantic-level obfuscation (e.g. in the subjective-objective distinction).

 

[MeloTheJazzKiller]

If some is making jokes about people who have lost a leg or suffers severe back pain, it's a kindness to point out how rude they are being.

Uhh, suppose the person who lost the leg is telling the joke? Totie Fields used to make many jokes about her lost leg. I guess you think "it's a kindness to point out to her how rude" she is being.

Imagine the nerve of you. You feel it is your right, your duty, to go around pointing out how we all should behave in regards to comedy. You want to tell Totie Fields - a person who lost a leg - that it is rude to tell a joke about losing a leg. How dare she!

 

[NAOS]

I’m not pointing the following comment at anybody:

One of the consistencies I’ve noticed across this whole debate over comedy and it’s role in society is how often the comedians and the people who like their jokes tell other people to have thicker skins... but then seem weirdly triggered or wounded when someone stands up to them and gives their take.

One other note:

As an atheist, I’ve long despaired at how easily the religiously oriented crowd will reach for the “I’m offended” card; and how readily the larger discursive community will pivot around whenever/however they’re offended. In other words, the religious will readily reach for the card, and then the conversation bends around that moment. It’s ridiculous how infrequently I’ve told a religious person how their fables offend me—on the grounds of how they mock the long duration of time and our place in the evolutionary history of life, two things that I hold dearly. Anyway... the point here is that “being offended” is a rhetorical strategy that is disproportionately played by certain members of our society and not others (the religious example is just one axis upon which this disproportion plays out), and I support a more liberal use of this strategy if for no other reason than it will likely shift the terms by which atheists and religious people have their debates.

 

[MeloTheJazzKiller]

I’ve noticed across this whole debate over comedy and it’s role in society is how often the comedians and the people who like their jokes tell other people to have thicker skins... but then seem weirdly triggered or wounded when someone stands up to them and gives their take.

Huh?

How exactly are the tellers of these jokes "triggered or wounded" when someone gives their take? Clearly the person who heard the joke is "triggered and wounded." A joke about miss-prescribed hormone pills is viewed as transphobic. That's some mighty triggering going on there. Well, that wounded person expresses his thoughts and, get this, the teller of that joke is not at all wounded by that person's take. Puzzled by it? Yes. But certainly not wounded in any way.

 

[One Brow]

You are being intellectually dishonest to think that your "three word sentence" was not loaded with implication in regards to both the poster and anyone else who might find the joke funny. Again, hiding behind semantics.

Of course it was loaded with implications. I can imply things without being "up in arms". This was at worst a mild rebuke. There wasn't any anger involved, no boisterousness, nothing like that. I didn't accuse MeloTheJazzzKiller of having any agenda, of trying to oppress anyone, or of having any particular intention. So far, I think I can say that I have not done that for you, either.

So, I'm really starting to wonder what the issue is here. What's going on with you, that you you see this huge amount of anger in such a mild statement? Why do you see me hiding? What dishonesty do you see present? You're one of my favorite posters in here; do you really think I'm enjoying having this conversation with you? That I'm trying to upset you?

Again, being rude is not a universal thing. I am sure most can agree that certain things have a very high probability for being perceived as rude, but does that mean that everything anyone could ever saw that could be perceived by anyone to be rude needs to be called out? I once had to write up an employee for their behavior in the workplace. We had several witnesses, including in her defense. I was told by a witness and by the person being written up, that I was being rude for detailing her behavior. I did not feel that way, nor did HR, so was it rude?

I wasn't there. Most of my bosses, when the need to write me up arose, did so privately. Any public things said negatively were usually very brief, and then they moved on. If that's what you did, then I don't see how it was rude. We all can find room for improvement, no doubt, but I see no reason to think you did anything seriously wrong.

However, and more importantly, it was likely necessary. The person I know from your posting likely did their very best to keep this employee on track, and wrote them up because it was necessary. That's very different from making a joke to say such a person is so weird that they deserve derision.

 

[One Brow]

Again, your perception is not reality for all others. And that was not my perception. Therefore it is not objective at all. It is subjective. By definition.

If I sleep through a rainstorm, and therefore don't perceive it, it still rained. Perception does not define objectivity. If person A make a joke that some socially-marginalized person B is so weird that they deserve to be laughed at, person A is adding to person B's marginalization, even when person C doesn't see it.

And you are right people are so quick to take offense that they make assumptions and position themselves as the arbiter of offensiveness when they could have just ignored the joke, since they personally find it offensive, but they feel the need to point out their personal offense and ascribe it to others as well.

That certainly happens. Sometimes other people are so quick to take offense that they make assumptions and position themselves as the arbiter of what criticisms can be and can not be allowed regarding a joke, when they could have just ignored the criticism, but since they personally find the criticism offensive, they feel the need to point out their personal offense and ascribe it to others as well.

And the arguing comes about from your implication that only people who find transphobic humor funny could find that joke funny, and that is simply not true, and so that implication is, interestingly enough, offensive.

So, what you are saying is that you found the joke funny, but you are sure you are completely free from transphobia, so there is no way you would find a transphobic joke funny? Therefore, the error must be in my understanding of the joke?

Do you understand that the very nature of humor is subjective? Beauty, and humor, is in the eye of the beholder.

Humor is subjective, marginalization is measurable.

 

[One Brow]

Uhh, suppose the person who lost the leg is telling the joke?

Already discussed. One of the key differences is inclusive versus exclusive story-telling.

Imagine the nerve of you.

Yawn. You starting to melt, snowflake?

 

[One Brow]

Huh?

How exactly are the tellers of these jokes "triggered or wounded" when someone gives their take?

One of the ways is to imply that the person offering the criticism has a deficiency, sometimes calling them things like "snowflake".

Clearly the person who heard the joke is "triggered and wounded." A joke about miss-prescribed hormone pills is viewed as transphobic.

Another method is to pretend the joke said something it didn't. For example, claiming a joke about a woman having balls is one about wrong hormone pills instead (otherwise, you would have started with "a person").

That's some mighty triggering going on there. Well, that wounded person expresses his thoughts and, get this, the teller of that joke is not at all wounded by that person's take.

A third method is for the joke teller to say the criticism does not matter in the middle of a conversation where they are complaining about the criticism.

So, the joke tellers tend to show their woundedness in a few ways.

 

[infection]

Have ignored this thread but I see it's at 8 pages. What are we discussing?

 

[One Brow]

Have ignored this thread but I see it's at 8 pages. What are we discussing?

Transphobia and humor at this point. I'm hoping that done soon.

 

[NAOS]

Have ignored this thread but I see it's at 8 pages. What are we discussing?

We’re certainly NOT derailing a thread that was started with non-troll intentions, I think you’ll be forced to agree.

 

[LogGrad98]

You seem determined not to acknowledge some of the good and clear points that OB brings up, imo (e.g. the difference between punching up vs punching down; inclusivity vs exclusivity; etc).

There’s some irony in the fact that, from my perspective, it’s you that’s sheltering behind the meaning of certain words, not OB, just as you’re accusing him of semantic-level obfuscation (e.g. in the subjective-objective distinction).

I fully acknowledge the below points bring made. I just disagree with the assessment in this singular instance and stand by my opinion that it can be interpreted different ways. It is not the same as the rain, in that the is still subjectivity as to the point. I took exception to the implication that anyone who found this particular joke funny is automatically transphobic. I probably overreacted as I have been in discussion about similar topics with my daughter, who came out in high school, and her friends recently. I just feel that often people, both religious (to your other post) and liberals (for lack of a better all-encompassing term) tend to make statements of "fact" intending entirely to manipulate and squash the discussion rather than just admitting it's their opinion. I apologize to you @One Brow if I came across hostile, that was not my intent. I'll just bow out.