Comedians running scared over perceived shift to "political correctness"

[Dextroden]

You realize that generally to be hit with "verbal abuse" you have to have documentation, correct?

That link also goes to civil harassment. Which also includes the last thing I quoted:

"The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it."

But here's another article about it:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/worke...use-17507.html

"If an employee who has been verbally abused is not adequately aided at the company level, she may hire an attorney to take her case to court. Even without precise laws on the books that address the issue, OSHA standards seem to have enough bite to get the attention of courts. For example, the Indiana Supreme Court in 2008 awarded a nurse $325,000 for her claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault after she was screamed at by a surgeon. Once you've heard a hint of abuse occurring within your business, you become part of the problem. You must either address it head on or be prepared to answer for your failure to do so."

For your sake, the person claiming verbal abuse has a recording of a poor joke about them.

Also, since you want to drag in an unrelated case. What kind of screaming? What were they saying? We're they actually "screaming"? And, what did the victim do prior to being screamed at? No one deserves to be yelled at at work, but you'll find scenarios where a jury will roll their eyes to a party seeking damages.

[Incredibale]

/\ Illustrates leftist political correctness. Take away rights under the guise of protecting people's feelings. Pissing down your back with a smile and telling you it rains.

Also fitting because the OP loves to use smily face icons in thread titles.

[spinner981]

So if I tried my damnedest to offend you its your fault that you're offended...that makes sense how again?

I purposely chose words and put them in a particular order because I KNEW that they would offend you but its your fault for being offended?

I think you're confusing someone deserves to being offended because of some fucked up opinion they hold vs choosing to be offended

Because that is how people work. You can try your hardest to offend me, but if I am not listening then it is all for naught. I can control how I feel. Suggesting that you can 'force' me to be offended is like saying you can control my mind by merely speaking certain words in a certain order.

Also, you don't know whether or not somebody will be offended, you can only speculate or guess.

Mind control doesn't exist, which is what it would be if you could force somebody to be offended.

[Vanyali]

For your sake, the person claiming verbal abuse has a recording of a poor joke about them.

Also, since you want to drag in an unrelated case. What kind of screaming? What were they saying? We're they actually "screaming"? And, what did the victim do prior to being screamed at? No one deserves to be yelled at at work, but you'll find scenarios where a jury will roll their eyes to a party seeking damages.

Again: i was just responding to someone saying freedom fo speech should have no limits. That's why I find your attempting to make this into something it never was so bizarre.

[spinner981]

The arbitrariness of language is not a license to duplicate the appearance of a language, but assign its words entirely idiosyncratic meanings and blame everyone else for the misunderstandings that arise.

This is exactly what I am trying to explain to people every time they call me a hater. Like, do they know what the word hate even means?

[Prothynyas]

Next on the list of Tennisace's loaded questions. "Do you still beat your wife?"

i dont get this question ... whats the point in asking if you beat yr wife anyway ?

[PACOX]

But if I don't think what I'm saying is offensive, apologizing only reinforces the idea that what I'm saying is offensive.

If I define Faggots (fags) as people who are lame and annoying, that is my prerogative. If someone who thinks it is a derogatory word for homos gets offended, why would I apologize? That is not what the word means to me. If a British person says fag, they are probably talking about cigarettes. Should the person from before be offended? Should Britain apologize?

If you don't think you're being offensive and didn't mean to come off that way then what does it cost you to apologize. No reasonable person would fault you for not being PC in your words if you didn't mean to be offensive. And again, fuck those who still still try to throw you under the bus after you've established that you didn't mean no harm by what you said. Your personal definition of a word does not supercede the accepted of the word, otherwise we would never be able to effectively communicate with one another.

If everyone calls the sun yellow and you call it green because in your head green = yellow, who looks like the dumbass when you go around calling the sun green?

[Vanyali]

i dont get this question ... whats the point in asking if you beat yr wife anyway ?

Because answering it gives legitimacy to whatever ridiculous stance they've given you, and not answering it "makes you look guilty".

Do you still beat your wife?

Yes, I do <-- can't say that
No, I don't <-- used to beat wife

*doesn't answer* <-- probably beat his wife but won't say

It's a shit tactic by shit people.

[Tennis]

Who gives a rats ass what the "Quebec whatever the fuck it name is" does? nobody that's who

I never said I was a big fan of Quebec but if this alleged comedian is going to perform there, he better be obeying the laws.

[spinner981]

Again: i was just responding to someone saying freedom fo speech should have no limits. That's why I find your attempting to make this into something it never was so bizarre.

We should be able to say whatever we want, content wise. But the context is what matters. I can say the word fire right here right now and nobody bats an eye. But in a movie theater or another crowded public place you could be fined for inciting pandemonium or something.

Limits on free speech are not about content, but rather about context. Which is why somebody can joke and say "Man, I'm gonna kill you!" but when you send dozens of emails to a political figure or actor saying "I'm going to kill you." you might get arrested.

[Vanyali]

We should be able to say whatever we want, content wise. But the context is what matters. I can say the word fire right here right now and nobody bats an eye. But in a movie theater or another crowded public place you could be fined for inciting pandemonium or something.

Limits on free speech are not about content, but rather about context. Which is why somebody can joke and say "Man, I'm gonna kill you!" but when you send dozens of emails to a political figure or actor saying "I'm going to kill you." you might get arrested.

I'm not sure why you're telling me what I've been saying this entire thread.

[RickJamesLich]

He talked about some writer that tried to throw shade his way because of something he said. He slayed that incident on stage. Fake outrage won't deter a good comedian. Fucking Louis CK did told one his most controversial jokes like on SNL and as a whole no one gave a shit (except for your usual struggle writers).

IMO this is a much better example of Louis CK being edgy:



That being said my gripe with the left and comedy is that they are slowly painting themselves into a corner where too many comedians won't discuss anything that could be deemed offensive or edgy. Unless you do nothing but self deprecation (which gets old) you sooner or later are going to run out of material to discuss. IMO this is a big part of why you see all the spawns of the Daily Show bombing. Even with a guy like Stewart himself, it can be funny, but his fan base is mostly young people because by the time you get to your mid 20's, you've seen him do the same act over and over so many times.

Comedy is a sacred art with lots of avenues, but almost all of them can be deemed offensive if you view them from certain perspectives. The left's whole "social awareness" thing has contaminated this shit, even with the SNL skit, Louie CK could've gone a lot further and probably wanted too lol. I understand that it's not just the whole PC thing from the left, but also the fact that he was on live TV, that probably interfered here.

[Dextroden]

Again: i was just responding to someone saying freedom fo speech should have no limits. That's why I find your attempting to make this into something it never was so bizarre.

And my initial arrival was airing out the massive fucking issue in the government handing out fines for offending, a very vague thing. If you'll notice, I have said zero about free speech. Because free speech laws would only really come up if the government fines you for insulting THEM.

Then you talked about how Verbal Abuse was bad. I asked who defines it and then you sharted.

[PACOX]

Because that is how people work. You can try your hardest to offend me, but if I am not listening then it is all for naught. I can control how I feel. Suggesting that you can 'force' me to be offended is like saying you can control my mind by merely speaking certain words in a certain order.

Also, you don't know whether or not somebody will be offended, you can only speculate or guess.

Mind control doesn't exist, which is what it would be if you could force somebody to be offended.

You control your physical reaction to my words, doesn't mean that you weren't offended.

And don't act you don't know when you're being offensive. If you didn't know then you apologize because you didn't mean to, otherwise you knew exactly what you were doing.

[spinner981]

"Hater" in that context is not utilizing an idiosyncratic meaning. It's a newer, but widespread and well documented meaning.

That just doesn't exist in the dictionary apparently, and isn't really written down anywhere at all except in memes on tumblr. Furthermore, it very much is an idiosyncratic meaning when you take a word, give it an entirely different meaning, and expect this 'new meaning word' to carry the same weight as the old meaning did.

Also, for how widespread and well documented it is, I don't think I've ever seen anyone give me a solid definition of it, apart from me linking dictionary.com.

[Vanyali]

And my initial arrival was airing out the massive fucking issue in the government handing out fines for offending, a very vague thing. If you'll notice, I have said zero about free speech. Because free speech laws would only really come up if the government fines you for insulting THEM.

Then you talked about how Verbal Abuse was bad. I asked who defines it and then you sharted.

Given that I was talking about being jailed, it's pretty damn clear I was talking about the law, which is defined by the government. You not understanding that and throwing a fit is really not my problem.

nor was I talking about a guy fined in CANADA given it was someone saying American Free Speech is the only Free Speech.

Which goes back to: you jumped into a conversation, threw your toys everywhere, and now for some reason keep insisting it's something it wasn't because you don't want to admit you didn't know what was being talked about.

[spinner981]

You control your physical reaction to my words, doesn't mean that you weren't offended.

And don't act you don't know when you're being offensive. If you didn't know then you apologize because you didn't mean to, otherwise you knew exactly what you were doing.

Believe it or not humans are capable of controlling themselves mentally too. Sometimes it takes some training to not instantly form a snap judgement, but its worth your time to do so.

Also no, I am not obligated to apologize just because somebody else decided to be offended by my words, and just because I don't feel obligated to do that doesn't mean I was trying to offend them. That isn't how the world works. You can't just trap every human being in this box, telling them that they either do X or they are undoubtedly Y according to your petty opinion.

Though of course, I do get offended every once in a while. But that is because of who I am, not because of who said it.

I'm not sure why you're telling me what I've been saying this entire thread.

I dunno. I haven't been watching the entire thread.

[Dextroden]

Given that I was talking about being jailed, it's pretty damn clear I was talking about the law, which is defined by the government. You not understanding that and throwing a fit is really not my problem.

nor was I talking about a guy fined in CANADA given it was someone saying American Free Speech is the only Free Speech.

Which goes back to: you jumped into a conversation, threw your toys everywhere, and now for some reason keep insisting it's something it wasn't because you don't want to admit you didn't know what was being talked about.

I knew. It's still a vague term.

[Vanyali]

I knew. It's still a vague term.

Non-legally, perhaps. But that's not what anything was about, at all. Legally it's as clear as physical abuse.

And before you try to go back to it "he verbally abused me!" isn't going to get anyone jailed unless supported by evidence, via witness or recording. Said recording won't be valid in all states either, given the variance of recording laws and many instances where all-party consent is required.

[PACOX]

IMO this is a much better example of Louis CK being edgy:

The reason why I posted the clip that I did was because he took a subject that a lot of comedians wouldn't even touch and joked about on basic television on live TV and crafted it in such a way that they couldn't just dump him for language (swearing or whatever). He found a way to make people feel uncomfortable without going the obvious route. Making fun of people on Opie and Andy is easy, getting away with making jokes about being a predator on basic TV is genius.