7 ms·

I think an article such as this one is a clear example of the generational differences between older and younger people. I'm fairly close to these kids' age and

I think an article such as this one is a clear example of the generational differences between older and younger people. I'm fairly close to these kids' age and I've browsed memes from /r/dankmemes and enjoyed them. The thing is, is that these memes are supposed to be self-aware of how offensive they are. That's the joke. They're meant to be so offensive and ridiculous that reactions can be drawn from outside spectators so they can get offended and you can laugh at them for being a "normie". I have no issue with these jokes unless they've been made in a sincere attempt at racism or sexism, and knowing my experience with the internet, I don't believe this is the case.

Houshalter 9y ago
It's not a new thing. Dead baby jokes have been around forever, and popular comedians often use similar black humor. The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty popular and based on the same premise. I used to really like black humor. I frequently told dead baby jokes and similar stuff. Thank god that wasn't recorded. I'm alarmed to see many of the comments here outraged over the stuff the students said. I guarantee most of them have probably told a similarly offensive joke at some point in time, or at the very least have friends who have. Especially when they were younger.
- ziggysak 9y ago
  I agree, but what is new is that suddenly kids are having their college acceptances revoked for dead baby jokes that the administrators probably also joked about 30 years ago, when they were 18.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty popular and based on the same premise. Except that the premise of Cards Against Humanity is that you are all opting in to the situation where you expect that, and usually an a somewhat private setting. The equivalent to the CAH suggestion would be where some private group of people indicated that to become members, you had to go to a public cafe and play CAH loudly in public. Were that Cafe to get mad at you and ban you from their premises, getting upset at that outcome is rather silly. You either knew that was a possibly outcome, or you should have known. In any case, that Cafe is well within their rights to decide they want nothing to do with you anymore.
  - ziggysak 9y ago
    I wouldn't consider that equivalent at all. This was an invite-only private chat between students. So in other words, it would be like they were playing CAH in a dorm room and somebody in the group decided to tell on them to administration.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      It's actually somewhat unclear exactly what happened. From the article: Some of the group’s members decided to form an offshoot group in which students could share obscene, “R-rated” memes, a student told the Crimson. The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group. But from wording later, the examples given seem to be from the private group? I'm also unclear if the private group some some offshoot of the main group within Facebook (that is, whether it's some Facebook sub-group feature, obviously they are members of the main group). In any case, Harvard says they reserve the right to reject admission based on "honesty, maturity, or moral character" so if this information is brought to their attention, then it falls under what they consider valid acceptance criteria. It's no different than if they Google searched the applicant initially and found verifiable information that put the student in the same light.
throwanem 9y ago
Justine Sacco went out the same way.
mlrtime 9y ago
poe's law?
bjl 9y ago
'Ironic' racism is still racism.
- ziggysak 9y ago
  Actually, it isn't. Racism is based in the belief that one group is superior to the other. If one is making an ironic joke, it does not imply any intent of racism on their part.
  - bjl 9y ago
    Racism is not simply about belief, otherwise there could be no such thing as racist action. Personally, I couldn't care less what people believe, I care what people do. And in this case what they did was clearly racist.
    - ziggysak 9y ago
      So should black comedians be jailed for their jokes when they generalize about other groups? Should Dave Chapelle be in prison for making jokes about white people, since that's what you're implying? Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. What these kids did was not racist.
      - bjl 9y ago
        First of all, where did I say anything about prison? Second, this was clearly antagonism directed against someone of a different race, and is therefore racist.
        ziggysak 9y ago
        Antagonism is hostility. You're actually the one who even mentioned this being black humor, so this can't be antagonism if we both agree these are jokes. Trying to make people laugh using taboo subjects is not antagonism. As for prison, I'm implying what consequences you would assume for individuals who would be so vocal about what you would call their racist acts.
jcburns 9y ago
Evaluating the sincerity of racism and sexism? You're overcomplicating it. The mere expression of it fouls the air and puts a world where people love and respect each other just a little further out of reach. It's like evaluating the motivations of a belching coal smokestack.
Trill-I-Am 9y ago
How does that dynamic work in this situation in which there was not intended to be an outside audience?
- ziggysak 9y ago
  That's a very fair point. I've made plenty of these jokes before to my friends and sent memes that are blatantly offensive because of the taboo factor. It's black comedy. Similarly to how Aristophanes made fun of Socrates and basically created the genre of dark humor.
nxrabl 9y ago
I'm probably around the same age you are, and I have to disagree with you that these kinds of jokes are harmless. For one thing, cultures like this do provide safe havens to people who actually hold bigoted views 'sincerely'. I've been in IRL conversations that ran along these norms, and it was a really uncomfortable experience, especially as a member of a favorite 4Chan target group. It became fairly obvious over the course of the evening that one of the guys there really had drunk a fair bit of the 4Chan kool-aid, but how can you call him out when everyone is cracking the same jokes? Few things shut down open exchange of ideas faster than than the thought that the person you're talking to fundamentally doesn't respect you, because of who you are. But that's not even the real problem I have with this kind of in-group offense culture - the real problem is that no one is ever as self-aware as they think they are. What you say shapes how you think, and then how you act, in ways we may never be consciously aware of. The students Harvard produces are going to end up in board rooms, courtrooms, and halls of power of all kinds all over the country; I expect them to be disciplined thinkers both academically and socially, who take these kinds of issues with the seriousness they deserve, not trollface memesters hiding their intellectual laziness behind image macros.
- ziggysak 9y ago
  To your first point: It's certainly immoral to be a true bigot, but it's more immoral to silence dark humor simply because of the one individual who believes it. In fact, I would argue that attempting to stifle these individuals is what amplifies their tendency to hold bigoted views. For example, if you're in an in-real-life group conversation and you're all friends and you're roasting another friend for something he did, it's completely fine. But once someone goes too far and begins insulting him sincerely, you punish the person who made the insult, not the group. As to your second point, I don't know why you think people who enjoy memes are somehow intellectually lazy. I don't really see how your logic works here as memes are simply jokes transmitted via the internet. Are you implying that anyone who makes jokes or enjoys dark comedy has to be intellectually lazy?
  - nxrabl 9y ago
    More immoral to silence bigotry than to be a bigot? I find that hard to accept. At the legal level, sure, no one should be prosecuted for being a dick. But that isn't what we're discussing here, we're talking about setting the tone of a community of people, in a way that maximizes both everyone's enjoyment and the amount of stuff they can get done. Tolerating bigotry fatally undermines both of those. As for the bad apples, certainly vilifying an individual for their opinions is way more likely to make them double down in righteous indignation, and ideally there'd be a more compassionate way to engage people like that in conversation, but at the very least we can prevent them spreading their ideas in fora we control. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good meme as much as the next millenial. But there are memes and there are memes. You seem to be implying that "beep beep lettuce" and Pepe wearing a Nazi uniform are equivalent to one another. And yes, by the definition of "dark comedy" we're using here, it is lazy. Everyone knows where the boundaries of generally accepted good taste are. There's no skill or wit involved in breaching them. You mention Dave Chappelle elsewhere in this thread; if you look at him, or Mel Brooks, or other 'great' dark comedians, all of the shock there is in the service of making some larger point about society. And sure it doesn't always work, but by your own argument there's not even a semblance of that kind of intent in 'dark meme comedy'. If all a joke is trying to do is give its audience a fleeting thrill of transgression, that's a pretty low form of humor.

Houshalter 9y ago

It's not a new thing. Dead baby jokes have been around forever, and popular comedians often use similar black humor. The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty popular and based on the same premise. I used to really like black humor. I frequently told dead baby jokes and similar stuff. Thank god that wasn't recorded. I'm alarmed to see many of the comments here outraged over the stuff the students said. I guarantee most of them have probably told a similarly offensive joke at some point in time, or at the very least have friends who have. Especially when they were younger.

ziggysak 9y ago
I agree, but what is new is that suddenly kids are having their college acceptances revoked for dead baby jokes that the administrators probably also joked about 30 years ago, when they were 18.
kbenson 9y ago
> The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty popular and based on the same premise. Except that the premise of Cards Against Humanity is that you are all opting in to the situation where you expect that, and usually an a somewhat private setting. The equivalent to the CAH suggestion would be where some private group of people indicated that to become members, you had to go to a public cafe and play CAH loudly in public. Were that Cafe to get mad at you and ban you from their premises, getting upset at that outcome is rather silly. You either knew that was a possibly outcome, or you should have known. In any case, that Cafe is well within their rights to decide they want nothing to do with you anymore.
- ziggysak 9y ago
  I wouldn't consider that equivalent at all. This was an invite-only private chat between students. So in other words, it would be like they were playing CAH in a dorm room and somebody in the group decided to tell on them to administration.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    It's actually somewhat unclear exactly what happened. From the article: Some of the group’s members decided to form an offshoot group in which students could share obscene, “R-rated” memes, a student told the Crimson. The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group. But from wording later, the examples given seem to be from the private group? I'm also unclear if the private group some some offshoot of the main group within Facebook (that is, whether it's some Facebook sub-group feature, obviously they are members of the main group). In any case, Harvard says they reserve the right to reject admission based on "honesty, maturity, or moral character" so if this information is brought to their attention, then it falls under what they consider valid acceptance criteria. It's no different than if they Google searched the applicant initially and found verifiable information that put the student in the same light.

throwanem 9y ago

Justine Sacco went out the same way.

mlrtime 9y ago

poe's law?

bjl 9y ago

'Ironic' racism is still racism.

ziggysak 9y ago
Actually, it isn't. Racism is based in the belief that one group is superior to the other. If one is making an ironic joke, it does not imply any intent of racism on their part.
- bjl 9y ago
  Racism is not simply about belief, otherwise there could be no such thing as racist action. Personally, I couldn't care less what people believe, I care what people do. And in this case what they did was clearly racist.
  - ziggysak 9y ago
    So should black comedians be jailed for their jokes when they generalize about other groups? Should Dave Chapelle be in prison for making jokes about white people, since that's what you're implying? Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. What these kids did was not racist.
    - bjl 9y ago
      First of all, where did I say anything about prison? Second, this was clearly antagonism directed against someone of a different race, and is therefore racist.
      - ziggysak 9y ago
        Antagonism is hostility. You're actually the one who even mentioned this being black humor, so this can't be antagonism if we both agree these are jokes. Trying to make people laugh using taboo subjects is not antagonism. As for prison, I'm implying what consequences you would assume for individuals who would be so vocal about what you would call their racist acts.

jcburns 9y ago

Evaluating the sincerity of racism and sexism? You're overcomplicating it. The mere expression of it fouls the air and puts a world where people love and respect each other just a little further out of reach. It's like evaluating the motivations of a belching coal smokestack.

Trill-I-Am 9y ago

How does that dynamic work in this situation in which there was not intended to be an outside audience?

ziggysak 9y ago
That's a very fair point. I've made plenty of these jokes before to my friends and sent memes that are blatantly offensive because of the taboo factor. It's black comedy. Similarly to how Aristophanes made fun of Socrates and basically created the genre of dark humor.

nxrabl 9y ago

I'm probably around the same age you are, and I have to disagree with you that these kinds of jokes are harmless. For one thing, cultures like this do provide safe havens to people who actually hold bigoted views 'sincerely'. I've been in IRL conversations that ran along these norms, and it was a really uncomfortable experience, especially as a member of a favorite 4Chan target group. It became fairly obvious over the course of the evening that one of the guys there really had drunk a fair bit of the 4Chan kool-aid, but how can you call him out when everyone is cracking the same jokes? Few things shut down open exchange of ideas faster than than the thought that the person you're talking to fundamentally doesn't respect you, because of who you are. But that's not even the real problem I have with this kind of in-group offense culture - the real problem is that no one is ever as self-aware as they think they are. What you say shapes how you think, and then how you act, in ways we may never be consciously aware of. The students Harvard produces are going to end up in board rooms, courtrooms, and halls of power of all kinds all over the country; I expect them to be disciplined thinkers both academically and socially, who take these kinds of issues with the seriousness they deserve, not trollface memesters hiding their intellectual laziness behind image macros.

ziggysak 9y ago
To your first point: It's certainly immoral to be a true bigot, but it's more immoral to silence dark humor simply because of the one individual who believes it. In fact, I would argue that attempting to stifle these individuals is what amplifies their tendency to hold bigoted views. For example, if you're in an in-real-life group conversation and you're all friends and you're roasting another friend for something he did, it's completely fine. But once someone goes too far and begins insulting him sincerely, you punish the person who made the insult, not the group. As to your second point, I don't know why you think people who enjoy memes are somehow intellectually lazy. I don't really see how your logic works here as memes are simply jokes transmitted via the internet. Are you implying that anyone who makes jokes or enjoys dark comedy has to be intellectually lazy?
- nxrabl 9y ago
  More immoral to silence bigotry than to be a bigot? I find that hard to accept. At the legal level, sure, no one should be prosecuted for being a dick. But that isn't what we're discussing here, we're talking about setting the tone of a community of people, in a way that maximizes both everyone's enjoyment and the amount of stuff they can get done. Tolerating bigotry fatally undermines both of those. As for the bad apples, certainly vilifying an individual for their opinions is way more likely to make them double down in righteous indignation, and ideally there'd be a more compassionate way to engage people like that in conversation, but at the very least we can prevent them spreading their ideas in fora we control. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good meme as much as the next millenial. But there are memes and there are memes. You seem to be implying that "beep beep lettuce" and Pepe wearing a Nazi uniform are equivalent to one another. And yes, by the definition of "dark comedy" we're using here, it is lazy. Everyone knows where the boundaries of generally accepted good taste are. There's no skill or wit involved in breaching them. You mention Dave Chappelle elsewhere in this thread; if you look at him, or Mel Brooks, or other 'great' dark comedians, all of the shock there is in the service of making some larger point about society. And sure it doesn't always work, but by your own argument there's not even a semblance of that kind of intent in 'dark meme comedy'. If all a joke is trying to do is give its audience a fleeting thrill of transgression, that's a pretty low form of humor.