US Journalist fired over cancel culture story

[Flarelaine]

But this is not necessarily always about high profile figures, is it? At least in this case it isn't. It's a nobody journalist undermining some average joe, for no apparent reason.

That's why I talked about public figures. You do not need a high profile - a single post that goes viral does the trick. Too easy. Most are not prepared.

[Elegiac]

Bill Burr is an actual racist towards white people because he makes stereotypical jokes about white people? Dave Chappelle is racist towards black people because he makes stereotypical jokes about black people? Ken Jeong is racist towards asians because he makes stereotypical jokes about asians? This is such a backwards and twisted logic of thought, people end up eating out of their own ass in efforts to try and explain it.

Fortunately, I have an excellent video for you that goes in depth about humour regarding subjects like race. And Nazis!

There's no "expense" at any joke. It's a joke. It's comedy. Nearly all comedy would be offensive if these bizarre standards would be applied. Thank goodness people aren't taking what upper middle-class white people say from the bay area as gospel anymore. If we did then there's really nothing that anyone would be safe from, as this "journalist" has found out via the hard way.

I'll pull an example from the above video since it pretty succinctly demonstrates why you are wrong; there's a reason why, despite Blazing Saddles being extremely dark in a lot of its humour, there are certain lines it never crosses - like showing a black man being lynched. To quote Mel Brooks:

"Definitely. In 1974, I produced the western parody "Blazing Saddles," in which the word 'nigger' was used constantly. But I would never have thought of the idea of showing how a black was lynched. It's only funny when he escapes getting sent to the gallows." - Interview with Der Spiegel, 2006

There is a critical distinction being made here in that a) not all targets for comedy are equal and b) humour that targets marginalized or oppressed demographics and comes at their expense is generally in poor taste and often doesn't have a....you know...point. Regarding making jokes that play off stereotypes - again, what is the point being made, and at whose expense is the joke? Equally as importantly; for what audience is said humor intended?

That a lot of people just don't think about this shit is an indictment of them, not a defense of offensive comedy.

[Elegiac]

That's not really a great example, seeing as how there's not really any "humor" in showing someone being lynched anyway.

Indeed, using that as the bar of "offensive comedy" seems incredibly dishonest.

To which the question posed becomes: why isn't there any "humor" in showing someone being lynched.

Could it be because not all targets for comedy are equal, and that comedy at the expense of the oppressed is inherently unfunny? You know, that exact thing I said?

[Elegiac]

No, it wouldn't be funny to see anyone lynched outside of...I don't know...I can't even think of an example where it'd be funny, honestly.

I'll give you another example, then.

Do you think it's appropriate to have a romantic comedy set in an extermination camp in which they strongly imply people are being gassed and executed in the background?

Has nothing to do with "the oppressed". It's just not a funny thing period. There's plenty of humor aimed at all walks of life - including "the oppressed" that's still funny. Killing someone by hanging really isn't.

Again: why isn't it funny? Saying "because it isn't" isn't an argument.

[Elegiac]

The fact that you can't make a point that's more nuanced than, "Is it funny to gas people? HUH? Then making fun of anyone that isn't white is never funny!!!!" only goes to show how little ground you have to stand on, honestly.

This isn't remotely what I'm saying, but okay then.

Because killing people by hanging them by the neck isn't really full of humor generally? I don't know how else to spell that out for you if you can't see it any other way than some racial issue.

Here's an example of how hanging can be successfully used for comedic intent.

It's almost as if what makes lynchings unfunny is the context surrounding them.

Plenty of comedians poke fun at different racial stereotypes. I can't think of any that say, "Haha boy it's funny when people are killed in horrible ways, right guys?"

Again, the fact that you can only lean on the most extreme examples when comedians everywhere are still doing other jokes only serves to disprove your point, not reinforce it.

We're not talking about "comedians everywhere".

We're talking about comedians who have embraced "triggering the SJWs" as a marketing tactic and do nothing but complain about censorship when there is in fact good reason why their brand of humour is no longer generally appealing. We're also talking about there being some subjects which are non grata as far as comedy goes because they are inherently unfunny due to their social and cultural context.

You aren't actually like, countering my argument that some humour is inherently offensive and the people that find it funny are either ignorant of its meaning or agree with it, by the way.

[eschatological]

To use the example given above: if the overwhelming majority of society, hell, of the world uses a hand gesture to signify the OK sentiment, the use of that symbol by extremists to suggest smth else doesn't erase previous use. It merely adds another layer of meaning to it, one that clearly pertains to a minority.

Ignoring it can work as much as fighting it. Well, frankly it's debatable.
Society at large recognizes its long, established use. If we all just carry on with our lives, dismissing such lunacies, we don't empower them. I'd argue that fighting it may even be counter productive, because a previously innocuous symbol not only gained a minuscule layer of bigotry, but has now been reshaped as one of social struggle, and in the process empowered its bigoted counterpart by making it its adversary in this contest.

So yea, you could go on the streets or organize some sort of discussion panel where your goal is to remind people that its still ok to use the symbol or not let others intimidation induce to fear of repercussion, but one might need to be careful with that as well.

The swastika (which the other poster was referring to when he said "the symbol of peace of a religion") was a holy symbol for the Hindu religion for thousands of years. Hinduism is the oldest of the major religions. It was co-opted in one very short (historically speaking) spat of violence over a decade, and now no one, not even Indians, would argue the swastika being used is anything but indicating what was a very niche use of it. In India, we didn't take down the swastikas in our temples....but we don't use it any more, not really.

This is, of course, the most extreme example because it involves a very old and pervasive symbol being co-opted by one of the worst, most fucking heinous periods of violence in human history. But it has also happened to symbols like the Iron Cross and various Germanic symbols used by the Third Reich, which is why people don't like it when other people adopt a particular kind of cross, since, even though it may be a Christian symbol or a symbol used by another country, its most prominent use is associated with the Third Reich.

So, IOW, symbols tend to represent what the people using them want to represent, combined with the impact of the use intended.

[Elegiac]

I mean, you "countered" a post about racial jokes with, "BUT IS LYNCHING FUNNY? NOPE, THEN YOU'RE WRONG!" so I don't know what conclusions you expect people to draw.

Just another example of someone playing fast and loose with their words and then wanting to paint everyone else as unreasonable when they address those very words.

Yeah, no. You're being ridiculous.

What I said was quite clear: Blazing Saddles is a film full of racially charged humour and yet even then there is subject matter it finds in poor taste owing to its social and cultural context. Like lynching. It's a demonstration how offensive humor existing doesn't make it not offensive.

Because you haven't made the point. All you've done is throw out the most extreme examples you can find and using that to somehow make a point that you can't make jokes about "the oppressed". (Sooo...basically you can only joke about white people.)

Again, if that's not what you meant, then don't throw around the words.

See above. Also, it's ironic how you're bitching about extreme examples in a thread where you're trying to defend people from being cancelled because they make extreme jokes.

[Elegiac]

But that's not what you said.

You were very specific about "the oppressed" and how you can't make jokes about them.

If you wanted to make the point that, "There's a limit, here's an example" then you should have done that. You didn't. If you want to revise your statement, go ahead.

Let's look at what I said.

I'll pull an example from the above video since it pretty succinctly demonstrates why you are wrong; there's a reason why, despite Blazing Saddles being extremely dark in a lot of its humour, there are certain lines it never crosses - like showing a black man being lynched. To quote Mel Brooks:

"Definitely. In 1974, I produced the western parody "Blazing Saddles," in which the word 'nigger' was used constantly. But I would never have thought of the idea of showing how a black was lynched. It's only funny when he escapes getting sent to the gallows." - Interview with Der Spiegel, 2006

There is a critical distinction being made here in that a) not all targets for comedy are equal and b) humour that targets marginalized or oppressed demographics and comes at their expense is generally in poor taste and often doesn't have a....you know...point. Regarding making jokes that play off stereotypes - again, what is the point being made, and at whose expense is the joke? Equally as importantly; for what audience is said humor intended?

That a lot of people just don't think about this shit is an indictment of them, not a defense of offensive comedy.

Sounds a lot like I'm saying there are some subjects that are non grata and comedy that is in bad taste is generally so because it's either thoughtless or actively denigrating already marginalized people.

This "you can only make jokes about white people" nonsense is a construct of your own devising.

[Elegiac]

So who are you talking about in the group of, "Marginalized or oppressed demographics"?

Or perhaps easier: Who isn't in that category? Who do we have your permission to write jokes about?

You know it's entirely possible to write humour about marginalized demographics that doesn't come at their expense, yes?

Or is the water not quite clear enough yet, sis.

[Elegiac]

Got that dodge skill up high, I see. I figured you'd never answer that question.

I did. It isn't my fault you chose to ignore the whole "expense" bit in your effort to try and paint me as saying it's only okay to make jokes about white people, lol.

And ultimately, the fact of the matter is there's no real 'line' anyway. Culture and taste shift, and if its shifting in a direction *away* from humor that is based entirely on punching down and you find yourself being left behind, well...

Maybe there's a reason for that.

[wunksta]

Who do we have your permission to write jokes about?

It seems like this is completely missing the point Elegiac was making. For example, go back and check out the Lindsay Ellis video that was posted. It goes over how Mel Brooks makes comedy movies regarding the treatment of Jews during WW2 and the Inquisition. No one is saying he can't make jokes about Jews (a marginalized and oppressed demographic). Try to look into why the humor is different in that situation though. Brooks isn't making fun of Jews specifically, he's satirizing the situation and making it ridiculous. Does that make sense? Going back to the lynching, I'd say most people wouldn't find humor in someone just being hanged. But there are other instances that have used lynching and hanging, like the Boondocks and Buster Scruggs. Again, the focus isn't on finding humor in the person being hurt but the situation itself.

[Zython]

I personally feel very little tribal obligation, but it would be a foolish move to discount the effects of symbolism in society. I don't defend nor attack the effects of the United States, I am merely pointing out that if you were to attack the feeling of unity, a good place to start is to initiate a hate group hiding behind the countries flag. It's basic strategy to give yourself a position where if you are attacked that it instantly brings reinforcements. If you attack white supremacists use of the flag, it is easy for them to deflect it to involve normal patriotic citizens that don't hold the same beliefs. Eventually you end up fighting a war with people you never meant to fight, much like the whole situation in the middle east where we started fighting the tiny group of Al Qaeda and ended up in an extended conflict with ISIS.

Honestly, that sounds like the fault of the people who choose to ally with white supremacists, then.

[Elegiac]

It seems like this is completely missing the point Elegiac was making. For example, go back and check out the Lindsay Ellis video that was posted. It goes over how Mel Brooks makes comedy movies regarding the treatment of Jews during WW2 and the Inquisition. No one is saying he can't make jokes about Jews (a marginalized and oppressed demographic). Try to look into why the humor is different in that situation though. Brooks isn't making fun of Jews specifically, he's satirizing the situation and making it ridiculous. Does that make sense? Going back to the lynching, I'd say most people wouldn't find humor in someone just being hanged. But there are other instances that have used lynching and hanging, like the Boondocks and Buster Scruggs. Again, the focus isn't on finding humor in the person being hurt but the situation itself.

Yep. Again: "at who's expense is the joke?"

[Theodarzna]

So who are you talking about in the group of, "Marginalized or oppressed demographics"?

Or perhaps easier: Who isn't in that category? Who do we have your permission to write jokes about?

But since identity is totally socially constructed why can't they all identify as different groups?

[Elegiac]

Namely because saying "why can't they just identify as another group" is kinda illogical when the whole thing about demographics being social constructs is that they are....social....and that the ability of individuals to opt in and out of X group is both limited and shouldn't be a decision anyone makes under duress in the first place, Miss "Welsh and Other Cultural Minorities are being destroyed through forced assimilation by the one size fits all policies of European technocrats".

Hint: Complaining about forced assimilation and then mocking the idea that identity is constructed and thus mutable is contradictory.

[Zython]

So how come "cancel culture" is only a problem when it affects rich white men?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Jessica Price?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Kathy Griffin?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Allison Rapp?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Zoe Quinn?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Trayvon Martin?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Anita Sarkeesian?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Jeremiah Wright?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Janeane Garofolo?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Jade Raymond?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to The Dixie Chicks?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Sinead O'Connor?

And that's just off the top of my head.

- - - Updated - - -

But since identity is totally socially constructed why can't they all identify as different groups?

The same reason that money being a social construct doesn't make you a billionaire.

- - - Updated - - -

Tremendous equivalence there.

How so?

A judgement is an assessment external to the person who made the original remark. You are the one casting judgement, I, however, am not responsible for the way you choose to interpret what I said. Hell, framing the matter in this way reinforces my point. If anything, you, the one passing judgement, the one making the accusation, are the needing to prove that an innocuous remark, a joke was made with ill intent. You need to demonstrate that said comment is sufficient to frame me as a bigot. No, hold on, according to this thread's framework, not only do you have to prove that said remark framed as a bigot at the time it was made, but you ALSO need to prove that, based on it, I remain a big, who knows how long it has passed after it was made.

Yes we do need facts. Go ahead and provide them. You laid the accusation, now substantiate that it.

Interesting how I'm the only one ever required to provide facts and citation. I don't mind it. I just want you to tell me why.

[Ooid]

So how come "cancel culture" is only a problem when it affects rich white men?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Jessica Price?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Kathy Griffin?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Allison Rapp?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Zoe Quinn?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Trayvon Martin?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Anita Sarkeesian?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Jeremiah Wright?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Janeane Garofolo?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Jade Raymond?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to The Dixie Chicks?

Where were the cries of "cancel culture" in regards to Sinead O'Connor?

And that's just off the top of my head.

Jessica Price: Shit talked the people who messaged her politely and made a general ass of herself on twitter.
Kathy Griffin: Held up an effigy of the president's severed head.
Allison Rapp: Holy fuck that's a messy situation I can't make heads or tails of. Officially Nintendo claims it's because she had a second job "in conflict with company culture". I think she was doing modeling or was working as an escort if I remember right.
Zoe Quinn: You're going to have to tell me how she got canceled because as far as I can tell she's doing just fine. Aside from you know, driving a guy to kill himself.
Trayvon Martin: I don't see how getting into a fight with someone and then getting shot is cancel culture.
Anita Sarkeesian: There has never been any proof that the threats she claimed to have gotten were legitimate. The FBI investigated some of them and they found nothing.
Jeremiah Wright: First one I see as legitimately wrong. The crazy shit he said in his sermons was used to attack President Obama. I doubt many really cared about the content of the sermons they just found a new way to attack Obama as un-American. I don't like the excerpts I found but he's free to say it since it was his church.
Janeane Garofolo: I never heard of this one. It looks like she asked people to ease off Louis CK when everyone found out about the weird shit he pressured women into doing with him? People were out for blood so I'm not surprised they set their sights on her when she dared to defend him.
Jade Raymond: Wait she got canceled? When? I can't find anything on it.
The Dixie Chicks: I think the reaction was dumb but come on, bashing the US a few years after 9/11? There was going to be blow back from that given how crazy everyone was at the time.
Sinead O'Connor: Haha oh wow that quote on Wikipedia

After her conversion to Islam, O'Connor called those who were not Muslims “disgusting” and criticised Christian and Jewish theologians on Twitter in November 2018. She wrote: "What I'm about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that's what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting."[73][74]

Later that month, O'Connor stated that her remarks were made in an attempt to force Twitter to close down her account.[75] In September 2019, she apologised for the remarks, saying "They were not true at the time and they are not true now. I was triggered as a result of islamophobia dumped on me. I apologize for hurt caused. That was one of many crazy tweets lord knows."[76]

I can only speak for myself but I'm all for anyone saying what they want even if I find it horrifying. I don't like this current trend of trying to ruin someone because they said something now or years ago that they look back on now and are like "shit I was a fucking idiot".

You want something really mind-boggling?
Conor Daly, a race car driver, lost his sponsorship deals because his father used an ethnic slur for blacks on the radio in the 80's. He was punished for something his father did BEFORE HE WAS BORN.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/s...cial-slur.html

[melodramocracy]

No. We won't. You're stating things that are flatly incorrect.

You can refuse to change your tune when confronted with the facts, and insist on continuing to be wrong, but that's not "agreeing to disagree". We're not having a difference of opinion, here. You're objectively wrong. Your hypothetical Person B did nothing but engage in protected free speech.

I am not objectively wrong in the slightest. Hypothetical person B took active steps to ensure that the message he didn't like was distributed to those who had financial influence over the speaker in an attempt to damage and or silence that individual.

That is not any sort of equivalent statement, and that is not simply engaging in protected free speech, and you know it.

[Endus]

I am not objectively wrong in the slightest. Hypothetical person B took active steps to ensure that the message he didn't like was distributed to those who had financial influence over the speaker. That is not simply engaging in protected free speech, and you know it.

The only "action" Person B took was to engage in speech.

You keep pretending that speech is action when it's convenient for your argument, and insisting it's not when it's inconvenient.

And yes; telling an employer that one of their employees has been saying racist things is absolutely protected speech. Where the hell did you get the impression it wasn't?

[melodramocracy]

The only "action" Person B took was to engage in speech.

You keep pretending that speech is action when it's convenient for your argument, and insisting it's not when it's inconvenient.

And yes; telling an employer that one of their employees has been saying racist things is absolutely protected speech. Where the hell did you get the impression it wasn't?

Let's try this a different way. Are you ok with doxxing someone who's statements are found to be offensive?