Has Cancel Culture Gone too Far?

[Morays]

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I am open to dialogue. Doesn't mean I need to agree with the dialogue if I don't agree with its logic. 

 

I see it like this. I made my opinion on the matter clear. I presented the idea to see whether my views on the matter were wrong or not, and have yet to be presented with logic that showed me it was.

But "gone too far" is a value judgment, not a measurable numerical quantity. Whether you think something has gone "too far" is going to come from a subjective place, because that idea does not have a universally agreed-upon threshold. I can't logically prove or disprove that statement. That's not how logic works. You're bringing in arguments of a highly anecdotal and emotional nature rather than citing data, statistics, or other sources for your claims. For someone who wants logic provided to them, you don't seem to be using an awful lot of it yourself.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I am eluding to common sense o_O

common sense would say that some of us are talking about those who stand up to their oppressors; while someone else is throwing out non-sequiturs.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SocialMorays said:

not a measurable numerical quantity

Not everything can be measured in numerical quantity. Road rage. 

 

Unless you are caught on tape, or in trouble for it, it is very hard to quantify. Common sense stipulates it does exist. Anyone who drives, has witnessed it.

 

This is common sense.

 

Statistics only show the most dire consequences of it. 

 

You could point to reported incidents, but that just skims the surface. 

 

Covid. The infection rate is based on those who get tested. Those numbers as a result, aren't accurate. 

 

I could point to 20 cases of cancel culture, and would be accused of picking isolated events. 

 

It's an actual trend. 

 

Outrage culture is hard to quantify. It's an emotion. People are canceling others for the most part, because they are offended. Being offended, is also hard to quantify. 

 

2 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

Whether you think something has gone "too far" is going to come from a subjective place

Cancel culture for the most part, is highly subjective. 

 

2 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

I can't logically prove or disprove that statement. 

Is being offended reason enough to cancel another? Beyond crime, is cancel culture going too far? 

 

This is easily disapproved or proved. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

common sense would say that some of us are talking about those who stand up to their oppressors

Is being offended by a comedian standing up to an oppressor? 

[Morays]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Is being offended reason enough to cancel another? Beyond crime, is cancel culture going too far? 

 

This is easily disapproved or proved.

I still don't understand what you think is provable or disprovable here.

 

You think the way people currently express anger in public venues is bad, but you haven't clearly defined what means of expressing anger is acceptable to you. What does a reasonable protest or boycott look like to you? What is a reasonable way of holding a public figure accountable if they make dehumanizing, derogatory, and/or verifiably false claims? What is the difference between being reasonably boycotted and being "cancelled"? If you could define these ideas more clearly and concretely, we could have an actual conversation about the ways current discourse has gone "too far" from that ideal, and not just keep making broad, sweeping claims.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are some pretty unhealthy trends in our current discourse, but these trends are multilayered and complex and wrapped up in lots of other issues, including group polarization, our relationship with technology, the inherently reductionist design of social media, for-profit media that relies on controversy to generate ad revenue, and dozens of other things. And that's not even getting into our global political climate. The rise of right-wing populists around the world -- Trump, Bolsonaro, Boris Johnson, Duterte, and Netanyahu, among many others -- is not just intellectually alarming, it's literally destructive. Actual human rights -- actual human lives -- are at stake. Is it unreasonable for people be upset when public figures enable and excuse the kinds of harmful ideologies that allow such leaders to rise to power? Is it reasonable to police those people's behavior more than the behavior of those in positions of power?

 

Just pointing to people being offended and saying "this is bad" doesn't really do justice to any of those issues. People aren't angry for no reason. People are angry because their institutions are failing them, they've lost loved ones to destructive ideologies, and/or in many cases their very humanity is being attacked. Let's talk about why so many people are angry, and not just hand-wave them away as "offended." Understanding the source of the anger will go a long way in figuring out the best way for it to be channeled and dealt with -- socially, culturally, and institutionally.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Is being offended by a comedian standing up to an oppressor? 

You must really worship Bill Cosby.  I actually stopped listening to him long before I knew he was a rapist.  I don't find child abuse to be all that funny.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

I still don't understand what you think is provable or disprovable here.

This is an opinion. I think the outrage culture, is pushing things too far. Outrage culture, is synonymous with cancel culture.

 

There are TV censors for a reason. Censorship. Social media is not a place where individuals should be able to dictate what is offensive or not, if the TOS are respected. Same as for this website. I've been flagged for offensive content many times, but what happened to "if you don't like, skip it". If you don't agree, this is where you put forth your opinion.

 

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

but you haven't clearly defined what means of expressing anger is acceptable to you.

No need. Common sense dictates, that anything beyond what is deemed unacceptable that is within the law, is fair game.

 

Outrage culture, breeds a culture of people just straight up whining over being offended. This is unacceptable to me.

 

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

What does a reasonable protest or boycott look like to you?

Our ancestors fought for their rights. Cancel culture, far too often have people fighting companies because they were told they were too fat to wear stretchy fabric. A comedian's joke that set of people couldn't take. Its a JOKE!  'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.' - George Carlin.

 

A difference in opinion, isn't a reason to cancel or boycott.

 

What happened to protesting human rights violations, vs entitled and whiny people wanting to bring "justice" for their first world problems?

 

Just the sheer entitlement, behind one going to a comedy show as an example, and being offended--and due to this, feeling the need to cancel a comedian, because they don't have a sense of humor is ridiculous to me.

 

Critique, is a critical component of comedy. Its why Donald Trump's presidency was best covered by comedians. The news took sides. Comedians just straight up roasted him. It was often so on point and factual, that it was hilarious.

 

Now, we can't critique some groups? Have we become that sensitive, that we can't look in a mirror?

 

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

What is a reasonable way of holding a public figure accountable if they make dehumanizing, derogatory, and/or verifiably false claims?

Not canceling them.

 

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

but these trends are multilayered and complex

Cancel culture is pretty straight forward.

 

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

People aren't angry for no reason.

I would have to disagree. If you would like, I could post a good dozen links when I have time, of an example of what cancel culture has become. People being angry for what they believe is just reason, but in proper perspective--over nothing.

 

Again. Creating an environment where comedians are afraid to take chances and grow their material and styles, isn't healthy. That is the epitome of fascism.

 

Keeping celebrities accountable? Like, really? Unless they are blurting highly racist things, let them be. What those critiquing them never made a spelling mistake, or misquoted something before? They are human. Spending hours trying to drudge up a celebrity like Eddy Murphy saying homophobic things, is crazy. Delirious was a hilarious set.

 

He has since grown from that era. An inability to let a past go, isn't getting angry for a reason. Its done. Get over it. Move on.

 

6 hours ago, SocialMorays said:

Understanding the source of the anger

I agree, but when the anger is based on entitled whining, I stop listening.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

Trump supporters might cancel themselves.  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-arizona-gop-asks-supporters-if-they-re-willing-to-die-to-overturn-trump-s-election-loss/ar-BB1bKoNU?ocid=msedgdhp🏴

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

Trump supporters might cancel themselves

That's not cancel culture. That's stupidity.

[Tetus]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This is an opinion. I think the outrage culture, is pushing things too far. Outrage culture, is synonymous with cancel culture.

 

There are TV censors for a reason. Censorship. Social media is not a place where individuals should be able to dictate what is offensive or not, if the TOS are respected. Same as for this website. I've been flagged for offensive content many times, but what happened to "if you don't like, skip it". If you don't agree, this is where you put forth your opinion.

It is incredibly bizarre that you're here saying that we don't need any kind of social pressure because you think that there exists a system to handle bad speech: Government Censorship. What? Isn't this whole thread predicated on the mistaken assumption that people disagreeing with you means they are trying to censor you, implying that you think censorship is bad? I mean, I'm practically a communist, and I think government censorship is bad. I don't think we should try solving problems with government censorship except in the most extreme cases.

 

Then, let's take these two statements, which are literally next to each other in your post:

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

No need. Common sense dictates, that anything beyond what is deemed unacceptable that is within the law, is fair game.

followed immediately by:

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Outrage culture, breeds a culture of people just straight up whining over being offended. This is unacceptable to me.

But, whatever you believe 'outrage culture' to be, it doesn't seem to be something that has been deemed unacceptable within the law - so this would make it fair game. Which means that if you are complaining about it, despite it being fair game...you are participating in whining about being offended?

 

I just - 1984 has been invoked a couple of times, and I can't really handle the irony here. It's like someone described the basic premise of the novel as being 'Goverment gone wild, force people to think the same - JUST LIKE LIBERALS", and that's the understanding of the text we're working with here. I legitimately think I've already quoted the book in this thread, so sorry if this is the same exact passage, but:

 

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. "

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Our ancestors fought for their rights. Cancel culture, far too often have people fighting companies because they were told they were too fat to wear stretchy fabric. A comedian's joke that set of people couldn't take. Its a JOKE!  'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.' - George Carlin.

 

A difference in opinion, isn't a reason to cancel or boycott.

Isn't a difference of opinion the ONLY reason to boycott? What other possible reason could there be?

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

What happened to protesting human rights violations, vs entitled and whiny people wanting to bring "justice" for their first world problems?

Why bother addressing human rights violations, when we still haven't solved the problem of the heat death of the universe? There's always a bigger problem, that's not an argument against addressing smaller ones.

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Now, we can't critique some groups? Have we become that sensitive, that we can't look in a mirror?

It feels like this entire thread has been a sustained argument that we should NOT critique certain groups - comedians, public figures, corporations - these are groups YOU are saying shouldn't be critiqued.

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I would have to disagree. If you would like, I could post a good dozen links when I have time, of an example of what cancel culture has become. People being angry for what they believe is just reason, but in proper perspective--over nothing.

This would definitely be a start! Then we could examine the sources you're using. Definitely part of the issue is that I haven't actually seen evidence that 'cancel culture' really affects anyone outside of the greater Tumblr blogosphere. No one else is being actually harmed because the 'cancel culture' people are in a froth about is comprised almost entirely of a vast group of like a couple thousand angsty teenagers. Not exactly an existential threat to freedom of speech.

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Again. Creating an environment where comedians are afraid to take chances and grow their material and styles, isn't healthy. That is the epitome of fascism.

Is it though? That's the epitome of fascism? It seems like there might be worse things.

 

Also, show me a comedian who actually is afraid to take chances in today's environment. Mostly I hear them talking about how they don't care and won't change their material.

 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Keeping celebrities accountable? Like, really? Unless they are blurting highly racist things, let them be. What those critiquing them never made a spelling mistake, or misquoted something before? They are human. Spending hours trying to drudge up a celebrity like Eddy Murphy saying homophobic things, is crazy. Delirious was a hilarious set.

I mean, first, equating a misquote or a spelling mistake to a homophobic comment is exactly the reason that we should call out homophobic comments as being more serious than typos.

 

Second, you're here saying that random people online are out of line for saying what they think about celebrities - but you don't think the celebrities should be held to at least the same standard? Can't have it both ways - either you believe in freedom of speech, in which case, the celebrities can say whatever they want and so can their detractors, or you don't in which case, stop invoking freedom of speech.

 

The pattern I see here is one in which you try to use the concept of freedom of speech to stop speech you don't like. I'm not really blaming you personally - this is the playbook that has been in use for decades, so the fact that you've internalized it is unsurprising. I'd encourage you to think about why you believe it's acceptable for a public figure to insult, ridicule, or malign groups of people for their statements, actions, or beliefs, but NOT acceptable for people to insult, ridicule, or malign those public figures right back for THEIR statements, actions, or beliefs.

[Homer]

Here's an article about a study on victim olympics: Researchers identify a new personality construct that describes the tendency to see oneself as a victim

[Tetus]

27 minutes ago, Homer said:

Here's an article about a study on victim olympics: Researchers identify a new personality construct that describes the tendency to see oneself as a victim

I think my favorite type of confusion is when people see a word that they associate with someone they don't like, so they assume that the thing they found is about those people.

 

It's always very funny when it turns out that the thing they found is actually about people feeling victimized by friends, family, or coworkers who make them do more than their fair share of planning vacations or... wait for it... speak badly about them in public.

 

Whoops!

[Guest]

Per that article, describing those who cannot brush off even the smallest slights and paint themselves as victims:

 

"a consistent and stable trait that involves four dimensions: moral elitism, a lack of empathy, the need for recognition, and rumination."

 

The bulk of those pretty much describes cancel culture, or those entitled enough to participate in it when no crime has been committed (including hate crime).

 

I remember someone I know, going on the news regarding their kids who donated toys every year to toy drives. 

 

What they didn't anticipate, was the sheer wave of people calling them horrible parents (on social media, and calling into the news station).

 

Cruel, for robbing their kids of their childhood (even though the kids looked forward to this and already had an advanced understanding of how lucky that they were that they had so many toys--they got bored of most).

 

Even threats and disgusting comments about the character of this person, who was rendered to tears and even questioned her parenting. 

 

She regretted even allowing herself to be interviewed, as was humiliated on national TV for it. 

 

This is where I have an issue with this.

 

It is fine to disagree with her parenting. But to me, the threats, bordering on doxxing someone just because you disagree with them or they offended you.

 

Far too often when someone is being canceled, or their employers are pressured to terminate them, there is almost this perverse level of satisfaction from the now herd mentality saturating the movement, of totally ruining someone's life. 

 

Kind of like the many who stormed into interviews to say "**** her in the p****".

 

I remember a couple got doxxed, terminated and just harassed for quite some time, for an otherwise dumb comment. 

 

I just can't wrap my head around it. 

 

I just shook my head and felt he was a moron. 

 

But the entitlement behind demanding to know where he works, because he must lose his job, his freedom and everything he has because you're offended by his dumb attempt at humor.

 

Like the Starbucks fiasco when they called the police on two black males because they wanted to wait inside for a friend prior to ordering. 

 

Out came these "violated" black people, threatening to shut down the Cafe chain and forcing the chain to implement emergency closures and training we all know would just get tossed in the trash, just to avoid any hemorrhaging of money. 

 

What happened to asking for a manager, and getting the person in question disciplined?

 

Its just that "the whole world has to know!" entilement that bothers me about the movement when the slight in question, is more often than not, idiotic at best.

 

I see it like a Karen I saw at a Staples threatening to bring in the legal cavalry, because they refused to refund her ink cartridge, she had zero receipt for. 

 

"I bought it just a day ago"

 

She eventually admits she bought it at another location o_O

 

Just the entitlement makes me sick.

[Pandark]

On 12/8/2020 at 1:31 PM, Perspektiv said:

One is mad at Apple's treatment of plant workers? Why not boycott Nike, too. Walmart, Loblaw, Nestlé and the many others who employ people in rickety factories and in some cases where suicide rates are or were high due to over work and under pay. 

I bet many of the people who are mad at Apple (or any other popular brand) love their cheap imported sweatshop produced clothing. On the other hand, if a few big companies are forced to treat their people more ethically, others will naturally follow. This means labor wages will increase and eventually the low end of the market becomes more expensive too. Despite the hypocrisy, it can be effective at achieving a more fair market without government interference.

 

20 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

People are offended a CEO voted for Trump, so must boycott their brand or you're a fascist. 

People are sometimes even fired for their political beliefs. This seems to go against freedom. But freedom for who? The employee or the employer? One seems to always go at the expense of another. Why do people find it selfish or even unacceptable if someone votes republican? Someone once told me politics are directly correlated to people's most primal emotions, love and fear, want/accept vs avoid/resist. Some people are naturally more social and tolerant of change, others are more keen on protecting their familiar surroundings from potentially unfavorable influences.

 

What would people imagine happened if the other side just disappeared? Decisions would still have to be made. There would still be the need for consensus. There would be a new center and a new left and right. People naturally divide and unite.

 

49 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Far too often when someone is being canceled, or their employers are pressured to terminate them, there is almost this perverse level of satisfaction from the now herd mentality saturating the movement, of totally ruining someone's life. 

Once a mob has formed there is almost no stopping it. Someone at some point has made up their mind, others have made up their mind that their leader is right and duty and pride prevent them from attaining any further insight. Mobs cannot have blood, so they settle for psychological carnage. Humanity has changed little over the centuries. Mob mentality is even older than that. I've seen it in a pen of chickens too, singling out the odd one and making them bleed.

 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I remember someone I know, going on the news regarding their kids who donated toys every year to toy drives. 

 

What they didn't anticipate, was the sheer wave of people calling them horrible parents (on social media, and calling into the news station).

 

Cruel, for robbing their kids of their childhood (even though the kids looked forward to this and already had an advanced understanding of how lucky that they were that they had so many toys--they got bored of most).

 

Even threats and disgusting comments about the character of this person, who was rendered to tears and even questioned her parenting. 

 

She regretted even allowing herself to be interviewed, as was humiliated on national TV for it. 

What these parents teach is a beautiful thing, to be generous and put into perspective materialistic attachments. Of course our culture, dominated by materialism, has no room for such ideals.

[Guest]

I remember Britney Spears almost getting canceled for allowing her child to be on her lap, driving on a back road. 

 

Or Kim Kardashian weathering a social media storm for letting her young daughter wear makeup. Disgusting, I know. 

 

Dave Chapelle made a trans joke, and did they ever try canceling him. The joke wasn't even direct. He was laughing at the predicament. 

 

He even articulated his point to avoid offending! 

 

I could go on forever at people outraged over nothing. 

[LeChat]

I thought this article was interesting; it points out how comedians, politicians, etc. aren't really "cancelled," permanently, and how those who become negatively affected by racist, trans "jokes," etc. (e.g. trans people, especially trans women, are the ones still being murdered each year) are the ones actually being punished more, threatened, etc. for speaking out against those celebrities' "jokes."  

Cancel Culture Is Not Real—At Least Not in the Way You Think | Time

 

I saw exactly what the article mentioned, where a gay, cis, comedian's past racist and transphobic "jokes," slurs, etc. were pointed out (they had been put up and stayed there for several years, by the comedian, himself).

 

Others, even trans people, had tried pointing out that his current "jokes" weren't funny for trans people, but instead of apologizing, he'd just either delete those "jokes" or keep them up and mock their comments, so that his fans could mock or laugh at them, too (which they did).

 

He only decided to write an apology letter once more people showed his past tweets and news sites wrote articles about his "jokes," only because it could've negatively affected his career. It didn't really feel like an apology to most POC, trans people, LGBT+ people, etc., since he just kept offering excuses about how other comedians at the time were making those type of "jokes," too; that he was being purposely "targeted," since others found his past "jokes."

 

His fans, most of whom were cis and white (and who weren't the ones being targeted or affected by those racist and transphobic "jokes") readily accepted his apology and kept telling POC and trans people who used to be fans of the comedian that they didn't think they should hold a grudge against the comedian; those fans were refusing to empathize or understand how painful and how much it hurt them to read those past "jokes," which stereotyped and mocked them based on their race, being trans, etc. They actually were more concerned about the comedian's feelings and worried that he might be "cancelled," sending him heartfelt messages, rather than POC and trans people (who were being criticized for feeling hurt, bothered and upset).

 

His career wasn't "cancelled" by POC or trans people who were upset; they were a small amount. All it did, though, was continue a culture where POC and trans people were mocked, ridiculed for speaking up, etc.

 

Studies have shown that those from minority groups are still being negatively being bullied, murdered, etc., more than others; that's why others' racist, transphobic "jokes," etc. still matter, a lot. It's not just about "hurt feelings;" it, literally, affects how they're still being attacked, murdered, etc. because others still view them as less than, not human, etc. Racist and transphobic "jokes" don't really seem to be helping.

[Homer]

Doesn't matter what you do - the moment you put it on Twatter or Faecesbook is the moment somebody will act offended about it. People give "social media" way too much importance and impact.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

[Guest]

4 hours ago, LeChat said:

but instead of apologizing

Why should he have to apologize, for someone not accepting or able to accept that what he was doing was a joke? If the humor isn't for one, what happened to attending another club? I just don't understand how if one can't take a joke, that nobody should hear those jokes.

 

My fiancee hates combat sports. She hates seeing someone getting beaten up. Know what she does? She just doesn't watch combat sports. She understands she doesn't like the sport. She doesn't try canceling the sport, or questioning my integrity because I enjoy it.

 

I'm a black male, and can take a barrage of black jokes. I'm Canadian and can take a Canadian joke.

 

I don't understand how any groups should be shielded from humor or critique.

 

I can assure you that the violence I grew up around, wasn't sparked by comedians. That's blaming the gun. Not the environment conducive to those very murders. The poverty.

 

A comedian is an easy scapegoat, from a society being forced to look at itself.

 

4 hours ago, LeChat said:

It's not just about "hurt feelings

Why can most minority groups laugh at themselves? Why are only a couple off limits? How is that a comedian's fault someone can't take a joke?

 

4 hours ago, LeChat said:

because others still view them as less than, not human, etc

Isn't that like blaming Trump for the racism in the United States? A country with a history plagued with just that?

 

Jokes are harmless with the right context.

 

4 hours ago, LeChat said:

Others, even trans people, had tried pointing out that his current "jokes" weren't funny for trans people

I really hate when people tell me that something is intolerable for black people, like them being offended forces me to follow suit. I see that comment, as those in question stating transgendered people being unable to laugh at their own expense, or having a sense of humor. Both to me, being false.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

I know tons of minorities, even my friends from India that loved the Simpsons. Again, being able to laugh at one's own expense isn't a bad thing.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

  

Quote

@Perspektiv  said:

Jokes are harmless with the right context.

When is it right to attack those who are weaker than you?

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

When is it right to attack those who are weaker than you?

In the right context, there is no attack. 

 

Humor is a beautiful thing just like art, when one is allowed to experiment with their craft.

[Homer]

Wait, Apu is offensive now?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Homer said:

Wait, Apu is offensive now?

I grew up around a lot of people who were from Pakistan and India. 

 

All my friends from India loved the Simpsons, too. 

 

The problem truly is a tiny group of overly sensitive people want to speak for the entire group.

 

Like someone banning playgrounds because at certain heights its too dangerous (to them).

[Lord Jade Cross]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Wait, Apu is offensive now?

Wouldn't be surprised if people were triggered by Jinx and Blaziken's design caused a shit storm when parents said that it's feathers were simulating a penis or how Lowpunny was alluring to some sort of sexual figure (even though there's a male version that looks exactly the same basically) 

[Pandark]

19 hours ago, LeChat said:

hose fans were refusing to empathize or understand how painful and how much it hurt them to read those past "jokes," which stereotyped and mocked them based on their race, being trans, etc. They actually were more concerned about the comedian's feelings and worried that he might be "cancelled," sending him heartfelt messages, rather than POC and trans people (who were being criticized for feeling hurt, bothered and upset).

Unfortunately mockery is an essential part of the process of the majority becoming familiar and accepting a minority. People laugh, but they are also shocked. They will take home what was said and ponder on it. Yes, hurtful things are said. You are free to distance yourself from it.

 

19 hours ago, LeChat said:

Studies have shown that those from minority groups are still being negatively being bullied, murdered, etc., more than others; that's why others' racist, transphobic "jokes," etc. still matter, a lot. It's not just about "hurt feelings;" it, literally, affects how they're still being attacked, murdered, etc. because others still view them as less than, not human, etc. Racist and transphobic "jokes" don't really seem to be helping.

Having been spat on myself, I do not think physical bullying can be fairly compared to making jokes. Even psychological bullying usually involves a scenario which the target is unable to avoid, for example at school. A comedian's show is completely optional. Jokes can be tasteless, sure. Joking at another's expense, ridicule, is not promoting violence. I don't think it is evident whether this positively or negatively impacts the acceptance of a minority. I do think shocking statements will provoke thought, not dictate opinion. This might as well speed up the process of normalization and public acceptance. There will always be jerks who will use a joke in a personal way against a member of a minority, which can be considered bullying. But on the whole, people need to be able to joke about anything. If there are topics that cannot be joked about, those topics are in my opinion a danger to freedom.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Pandark said:

A comedian's show is completely optional. 

This is what bothers me about the PC police. You don't like Bill Burr, don't pay the 19.95$ to attend his show.

 

If you can't handle his take on feminism, you are not forced to agree with it. But the entitlement behind silencing it?

 

The beauty with many great comedians, is they challenge you to think. They challenge hypocritical lines of thinking. Just overall, stupid stuff that we do.

 

To me, stating you can't make a joke about any given demographic, has and will have the adverse effect of turning them into the butt of jokes. 

 

Best way to approach a tough subject is with humor.

 

To my death, I will always be outspoken and unafraid to speak my mind. 

 

I think the ability to think for oneself is critical. 

 

You're otherwise raising a generation of people who do as they are told. Afraid to do or think for themselves.

[Tetus]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

This is what bothers me about the PC police. You don't like Bill Burr, don't pay the 19.95$ to attend his show.

I'm legitimately curious what you think a boycott is.

[Pandark]

55 minutes ago, Epic Tetus said:

I'm legitimately curious what you think a boycott is.

It's about silencing comedians, or cartoonists for example. Yes it's done. Governments even take part in it.

[Morays]

1 hour ago, Epic Tetus said:

I'm legitimately curious what you think a boycott is.

 

12 minutes ago, Pandark said:

It's about silencing comedians, or cartoonists for example. Yes it's done. Governments even take part in it.

"Government censorship" and "private citizens choosing who they want to financially support" are two pretty different things.