General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Hammerfestus | 3,824]

With all of this talk of all of the restrictions for comedy to be deemed acceptable, I would really like some examples of comedians who meet these requirements.

[kuriatsu | 65]

Just now, Hammerfestus said:

With all of this talk of all of the restrictions for comedy to be deemed acceptable, I would really like some examples of comedians who meet these requirements.

I wouldn't know, I don't watch comedians because they aren't funny to me. My form of comedy is a bit selective unfortunately

There was one comedian who was really funny but I can't remember their name...

something about 2 kids who were going to church with their mom and they had to say a word in church, and the mom ended up shouting it because she was yelling "YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PLAY THE **** GAME IN CHURCH" and the kids agreed that the mom won that game.

Edited February 22, 2020 by kuriatsu

[m308gunner | 352]

26 minutes ago, kuriatsu said:

The left is the death of comedy huh? Intersectional heirarchy? Bullshit. Its called the right being an asshole. Instead of saying "oh the left is the death of comedy" try to learn from the left so the left can learn from the right, that way we can all learn from each other and laugh and enjoy comedy toghether, all it takes is a little freaking empathy. Whos going to take that first step?

whats compelling to you and compelling to me are different things and your lack of being willing to empathize and be understanding does not speak highly of your capacity of human growth and development. I'm disappointed at your lack of even trying to hold a conversation rather than just repeat the same drivel over and over and over again. Grow up and be empathetic toward your fellow human beings.

But I don't know why I'm bothering to even try because you people never reciprocate, you people never learn, never grow, never change, never mature, never bother to even TRY to see other peoples points of view.

nevermind. Obviously you shits don't care and you never will because you are incapable of it.

Since you are obviously very emotional at the moment (and editing your post) I will give you the time to reflect on your words/arguments and respond in detail to whatever you choose to leave up this evening. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by m308gunner
spelling

[kuriatsu | 65]

Just now, m308gunner said:

Since you are obviously very emotional at the moment (and editing your post) I will give you the time to reflect on your words/arguments and respond in detail to whatever you choose to leave up this evening. 

obviously emotional huh....You people do not care about my emotional state as you've already proven. If you did, we would not be having this conversation.

Either you reply or you don't, good day to you.

[VegHead | 127]

25 minutes ago, kuriatsu said:

But I don't know why I'm bothering to even try because you people never reciprocate, you people never learn, never grow, never change, never mature, never bother to even TRY to see other peoples points of view.

nevermind. Obviously you shits don't care and you never will because you are incapable of it.

This is really venomous and inappropriate.  This is exactly the kind of demeaning language you are railing against, but here you are using it to put down other people.  I thought we were having a decent discussion before this post, but if this is what I should expect when we reach an impasse, I don't really care to continue.  I am sorry that life and people have let you down so much, but going around biting the heads off people that are actually engaging with you seems the wrong move.

[VegHead | 127]

29 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

With all of this talk of all of the restrictions for comedy to be deemed acceptable, I would really like some examples of comedians who meet these requirements.

Jim Gaffigan meets all requirements.  He is an excellent comedian.

[kuriatsu | 65]

5 minutes ago, epiclotus said:

This is really venomous and inappropriate.  This is exactly the kind of demeaning language you are railing against, but here you are using it to put down other people.  I thought we were having a decent discussion before this post, but if this is what I should expect when we reach an impasse, I don't really care to continue.  I am sorry that life and people have let you down so much, but going around biting the heads off people that are actually engaging with you seems the wrong move.

I've seen this entire discussion(nearly) as venomous because all that you(not you specifically) all have been doing is advocating for the KKK, oppression of minorities and racial discrimination in the name of comedy or "this person shouldn't have that opinion" in a controlling complex. I've tried to be civil but that honestly hasn't gotten me anywhere. My previous versions of that particular post were much more venomous and I toned it down as I acknowledged that it was venomous. I'm sorry that my current post is still venomous.

In any case, I'll be taking my leave of this "conversation", if anyone would like to continue it in DMs then thats fine but I sincerely doubt anyone will. I was never welcome in this conversation by anyone anyway save for 1 person.

Edited February 22, 2020 by kuriatsu

[Lincoln | 230]

12 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Since you are obviously very emotional at the moment (and editing your post) I will give you the time to reflect on your words/arguments and respond in detail to whatever you choose to leave up this evening. 

Dismissing someone as emotional when they are forced to defend themselves from a bunch of people arguing it's ok to denigrate them is a pretty shitty thing to do

[VegHead | 127]

1 minute ago, Lincoln said:

Dismissing someone as emotional when they are forced to defend themselves from a bunch of people arguing it's ok to denigrate them is a pretty shitty thing to do

I didn't see that so much as a dismissal as much as a recognition that the conversation had crossed a line, and a break was needed.  He said he would respond to whatever was remaining post-edits later in the day.  That's hardly writing someone off.

[Lincoln | 230]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

It's not just their opinion. 

If you are attacking a group based on their very being, even if you are just joking, you are a bigot. Maybe you are a joking bigot, but you are still a bigot. Full stop.

"I tell jokes because they are funny to some people" doesn't excuse it.

I think this is a bit too hardline. I'd bet most of us made an inappropriate joke at some point, probably out of ignorance. Whether or not a person is willing to reconsider or adjust their behavior is more telling of that person being a bigot or just uninformed.

[Lincoln | 230]

3 minutes ago, epiclotus said:

I didn't see that so much as a dismissal as much as a recognition that the conversation had crossed a line, and a break was needed.  He said he would respond to whatever was remaining post-edits later in the day.  That's hardly writing someone off.

Putting that label on someone else is putting the blame on them for derailing the situation, rather than acknowledging everyone's part in pushing it that direction. 

[VegHead | 127]

2 minutes ago, Lincoln said:

Putting that label on someone else is putting the blame on them for derailing the situation, rather than acknowledging everyone's part in pushing it that direction. 

I agree with you, in so much as it's not a good label.  Still, I also think it was a very measured response given the acidity he was quoting, and apparently I only saw a censored version.

[Hammerfestus | 3,824]

46 minutes ago, epiclotus said:

Jim Gaffigan meets all requirements.  He is an excellent comedian.

He is funny.  But I’m really only getting one G rated comic then?  You guys are gonna have to do better than that if you want to be the arbiters of acceptable comedy.  

Even Dave Coulier is out I guess cuz he made Alanis Morissette mad one time.

[Kguillemette | 1,543]

2 hours ago, kuriatsu said:

  Your guess is as good as mine.....I'm just trying to defend myself and my views.

Hes not arguing that very well...

I'm sorry but I continue to disagree.

Bigotry is bigotry and is unacceptable. A lot of people seem to think that humor should be free of suppression except when it effects them personally, then its "crossed a line" I firmly believe that if you're knowingly an asshat, then you're an asshat.(not you personally) I recommend investigating what exactly these jokes do to people that they harm. I recommend checking out the pinknews.co.uk or go to the asktransgender subreddit and ask, they can explain more eloquently than I can most times.

I think I could excuse 1 time, but any more than that with knowledge of what it is, is the actions of a piece of shit.

I value free speech too, but if a comedian(or anyone else) is going to knowingly participate in things that are damaging to anyone, then they need to stop. period, no exceptions. You don't have any idea how damaging some things are that are "apparently innocuous"

Helicopter jokes for instance are a plague, and they show hatred, I won't hesitate to report them unless they have a damn good punchline and have nothing to do with being trans. (something something swa text to speech)

There are yet worse jokes than those of course.

I don't believe jokes should be told that make fun of disadvantaged people, celebrities? sometimes, banana peel jokes? often, irony? definitely. You need to have internal context for these jokes. there's a difference between someone telling jokes and someone telling jokes that should be told.

If you hurt someone, and someone asks you to stop and you don't or you know exactly what it can be, that's called being an asshole, a bigot, a piece of shit, more and all of the above.

 

Well, I think what you should take into consideration is that in the olympics and most other competitions, testosterone and estrogen levels are tested and if its above a certain point or below a certain point then the participant is disqualified. steroids tend to boost testosterone and as a result they need to make sure this stuff isn't giving an advantage to cheat.

How this relates to trans stuff with athletes, is that when an athlete starts taking estrogen, they are about the same as they normally would be, but as you continue to take estrogen throughout the days, weeks, months, years, it becomes harder and harder and harder to stay physically fit because your muscles are atrophied to an extent unless you keep a certain amount of exercise. At the year mark for most trans people, whether they're MTF or FTM, are basically the same in muscular structure and levels as the biological people. so if a trans woman starts taking estrogen a year in advance and keeps up their strength for a weight lifting competition in a year, enters and wins, then they effectively takes double the effort. Just because she transitioned gives absolutely no benefits whatsoever and if anything gives a detriment for that kind of competition. The same goes for FTM(female to male) taking testosterone to start a competition with men purely for the advantages and if they're not trans, that's going to screw them up mentally and physically, but if a trans man is competing with men, then they will take the appropriate measures to live life normally how they want to and happily.

Translation/TLDR: men cheat by taking testosterone boosting supplements such as steroids, they do not cheat by taking a years worth of estrogen to compete in the womens section. MTF and FTM people have absolutely no advantages past a certain point(usually about 3 months from my understanding, but I'm not an athlete) of active cross-sex hormone treatments.(meaning MTF is male to female taking estrogen for a few months, and female to male taking testosterone after a few months)

What people almost always fail to take into consideration is the other side. If taking cross sex hormones for a year doesn't do anything to even the playing field, then why are the objectors not also objecting to the FTM competitors, with the same objection and they may hurt?

 

Hmm. Perhaps I need to do a bit of research, but I believe it stands to reason that any trans woman (or man, for that matter) is unequivocally equal emotionally, spiritually, and most important legally to their identified gender. I believe that this is without question.

Biologically and physiologically, however, there is more convincing to do. People see a more masculine, built body on a trans woman and they immediately think about unfairness in athletic competition. Especially when the select few trans athletes that there are and allowed to compete tend to outwardly dominate the competition. I think back to a few years ago with the female state wrestling champion in Texas as an example. Or was it that as a minor, she just wasn't far enough along in her transition to truly be balanced as you say? Like I'm not sure if she had completed her hormone therapy , etc.

 

On a side note, I have been following these instance for the last few years, as I love sports and am fascinated by the subject of where trans fit in to it. I have not, however, heard of and trans males outwardly dominating athletics like females have.

[m308gunner | 352]

45 minutes ago, Lincoln said:

Dismissing someone as emotional when they are forced to defend themselves from a bunch of people arguing it's ok to denigrate them is a pretty shitty thing to do

Dismissing would be applying the label (not that it is a label), waving away their argument, and abandoning the conversation or never addressing them again. None of that has happened (yet). Usually when a situation escalates into a highly agitated emotional state, the mature/responsible thing to do by all parties is to give some distance and re-engage with a more level headed approach. And given the nature of the original post, emotional would be the tamest possible word to use to describe the contents of said message.

[PineappleLawnchair | 88]

Shit, i just woke up and it looks like a nuclear warhead went off in the thread. Oh well, i'm giving my 2 cents anyways.

 

Judging by the comments from the last two pages, it seems the problem here is a certain person is just unable to laugh at themselves, or perhaps, it's more like they take themselves so seriously that they can only process certain types of humor as a personal attack on themselves, and the people who enjoy such things as evil.

 

[VegHead | 127]

3 hours ago, kuriatsu said:

I was never welcome in this conversation by anyone anyway save for 1 person.

This may be a fruitless reply, but I think it bears stating.  I'm not sure to whom you are referring, but I welcomed your input into this conversation until the fecal matter hit the fan in your one post.  That said, I have re-read the last several pages through to now, and over the course of just one day, you went from saying we shouldn't call people names to actually calling people names and abandoning the conversation.  I don't know what you expected, but people do not change that fast unless they have very little grounding with which to begin.  I was largely in agreement with you that comedy can be hurtful and that there are better ways to have a laugh, but I also recognize that the concerns over censorship that other people have put forth also bear consideration.  That isn't me (or them, I suspect) saying they support racism or the KKK, but that sensitivity to words is at an all time high.  This wasn't always the case, and I personally haven't given it enough thought to decide where I fall on the spectrum of "shouldn't say" versus "cannot say."  I have a strong aversion to telling people that cannot say something, even if it's offensive, because my words may be the next ones shut down; therefore, I will tolerate those words and take their pain to preserve my own freedoms.

As for our own disagreement over "bigotry is bigotry", I was trying to point out that it is not self-evident.  I don't think bigotry is nearly so cut and dry a subject as racism, and this thread alone is proof positive that racism isn't self-evident as much as I thought, either.  Also, for the purposes of proving a point, "bigotry is bigotry" is a circular reasoning fallacy.  Stating it strongly or repeatedly doesn't make anyone understand your point any better.  You yelled at all of us for not being able to learn or grow, but your argument is clear as mud to me.  I stated earlier that I think communicating over a message board takes extra open-mindedness because much of the nuance of conversation is lost in a purely textual environment.  I still think that, and provided you agree to be more civil, I don't see why you should leave the conversation if you still feel you have points to contribute.

[m308gunner | 352]

5 hours ago, kuriatsu said:

The left is the death of comedy huh? Intersectional heirarchy? Bullshit. Its called the right being an asshole. Instead of saying "oh the left is the death of comedy" try to learn from the left so the left can learn from the right, that way we can all learn from each other and laugh and enjoy comedy toghether, all it takes is a little freaking empathy. Whos going to take that first step?

whats compelling to you and compelling to me are different things and your lack of being willing to empathize and be understanding does not speak highly of your capacity of human growth and development. I'm disappointed at your lack of even trying to hold a conversation rather than just repeat the same drivel over and over and over again. Grow up and be empathetic toward your fellow human beings.

But I don't know why I'm bothering to even try because you people never reciprocate, you people never learn, never grow, never change, never mature, never bother to even TRY to see other peoples points of view.

nevermind. Obviously you shits don't care and you never will because you are incapable of it, feel free to prove me wrong.

After reflecting for some hours I don't believe I am the target of your frustration/pain, just the most recent and easily accessible avenue through which you felt the need to vent. Seeing as how this post of yours was the very first interaction we have ever had (to my knowledge) it would be very difficult to take most, if not all, of what you say personally, as much of it is objectively false. 

I do have this to say about empathy/compassion. It is not the highest ideal, nor the loftiest virtue and should not be the end goal when navigating your way through the world. It might be fine and good when dealing with infants or injured people, but stunting and a cause for resentment when dealing with adults. In other words, you don't treat adults like children and expect good results in the long run. A mother grizzly (or any mother in fact) has compassion/empathy for her cub, but get between them and you will feel the full brunt of said compassion regardless of your intentions.

[Californication | 1,477]

Can't wait to see the final numbers in Iowa. I hope this reflects the expectations for highly ethnic states.

[Tabonga | 2,314]

I like how these heroic warriors for truth, justice and the American way cleverly used snap chat videos to trumpet (as it were) their deeds for all the world to see - including the police.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-hobart-couple-trump-charges-st-0222-20200221-deiunjol55evfceexmaejpjry4-story.html

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Tabonga

[fcgamer | 4,719]

On 2/22/2020 at 12:14 AM, epiclotus said:

It's not a political statement because it has nothing to do with politics in the sense of governance.  It's inappropriate because, as we learn more about our history and the ways different cultures have been treated through the actions of our predecessors, we should leave behind those kinds of activities which violate the dictum of respecting our fellow human beings.  So, when we recognize that the current population of America greatly benefits from wiping out the majority of the original population that inhabited these lands, it stands to reason that dressing up as a caricature of them for the purposes of play is unkind.  We can do better than disrespecting another people so that our children might have fun.  

People do take appropriation claims too far in some instances, and a person's intent has a lot to do with whether they are exploring and celebrating another culture, or if they are appropriating it for their own ends.  For example, I attended a play at a college that was in the kabuki style.  The actors were not Japanese, and yet they dressed as them and acted out the methods of another culture.  I see no problem with that, as participation in a culture can be highly education and personally rewarding.  Contrast this with a comedian who puts on blackface to get a laugh out of an audience for his/her own career advancement, and you can see the difference.  

So let's replace this scenario to one where the actors were teaching about African American culture, teaching about the culture and not for a cheap laugh. And if the actors were white? Would this be acceptable? How about same situation and the actors were Asian, Hispanic, etc?

[fcgamer | 4,719]

Let's all take a step back and hold hands. I think all active participants should share their race, biological sex, age, and times they've been discriminated against personally. Who wants to  go first? 

[Kguillemette | 1,543]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

Let's all take a step back and hold hands. I think all active participants should share their race, biological sex, age, and times they've been discriminated against personally. Who wants to  go first? 

Im not sure the point, but if it helps with context, maybe?

 

White, Male, 34, and 0. White privilege is real.

Subtext, when with my wife (Black and Mexican mixed) probably discriminated a dozen times. Mostly getting ignored in restaurants because "Black people dont tip" or harassed in places like shopping malls making sure we don't steal anything. It's happened much less since having kids and going places with them.

[fcgamer | 4,719]

25 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Im not sure the point, but if it helps with context, maybe?

 

White, Male, 34, and 0. White privilege is real.

Subtext, when with my wife (Black and Mexican mixed) probably discriminated a dozen times. Mostly getting ignored in restaurants because "Black people dont tip" or harassed in places like shopping malls making sure we don't steal anything. It's happened much less since having kids and going places with them.

@Kguillemette Thanks, let's keep them coming

[VegHead | 127]

3 hours ago, fcgamer said:

So let's replace this scenario to one where the actors were teaching about African American culture, teaching about the culture and not for a cheap laugh. And if the actors were white? Would this be acceptable? How about same situation and the actors were Asian, Hispanic, etc?

Yeah, totally different.  Teaching about a culture through costume and props is a great way to learn.  I would still avoid the use of makeup to change the racial color of one's face, though, given the historical problems associated with that.  A teacher could even have a small aside as to why it's inappropriate to use blackface, yellowface, etc. in the reenactment of historical/cultural events.

2 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Let's all take a step back and hold hands. I think all active participants should share their race, biological sex, age, and times they've been discriminated against personally. Who wants to  go first? 

I have dropped enough information throughout my posts for someone to infer the answers to those.  I don't see the usefulness of stating it outright, except as a way to highlight or dismiss different participants.  Valid points should stand on their own, regardless of the person putting them forward.