6 ms·

Pogo wasn't joking though

by zajd 8y ago

jacobush 8y ago
Are you being sarcastic?
sillysaurus3 8y ago
If you have anything to back this up, that would be worth sharing. But I don't think it's fair to say that factually without some pretty strong evidence.
- zajd 8y ago
  https://waxy.org/2017/04/pogos-politics/ https://waxy.org/2017/04/pogos-politics/ you'll note that this is from last year, before the current controversey > “I don’t think feminists ever do what they preach. I think it’s always an ulterior motive. I think it’s a divisive cult that doesn’t achieve much more than a flock of self-entitled narcissists at the end of the day. I’ve never liked them. I’ve always thought that driving a wedge between the genders seems like a funny way to achieve equality.” > “I think the left is bringing about the destruction of Western civilization, personally.” > “I don’t want to make massive generalization or anything, but I think female accountability is a myth. I think under the banner of feminism, females will never be held accountable for anything. You should not critique a woman unless you are prepared for the consequences.”
  - cpmouter 8y ago
    What does that have to do with hating homosexuals? I know of many people who don't like feminists but don't have a problem with homosexuals.
  - sillysaurus3 8y ago
    That's entirely unrelated though. Just because someone dislikes the left doesn't automatically make them more or less likely to dislike gay people. That's an unfortunate association with the republican right, which tends to be more religious than not.
    - zajd 8y ago
      If you think this sort of thing is entirely unrelated you haven't been paying much attention. Those kinds of "unfortunate associations" are why you don't pillory your own career by espousing reprehensible views "as a joke" (the idea that it was a joke was only brought up after the controversy)
      - pliny 8y ago
        Is making jokes and enjoying the benefit of the doubt a privilege reserved for people with the correct political opinions?
        ghaff 8y ago
        Yes? In certain circles you could get off with saying just about anything about the current US administration however in poor taste it might be. In those same circles, I wouldn't recommend off-color criticism of many people on the other end of the political spectrum. ADDED: For those who apparently disagree with me, does anyone seriously dispute that jokes of a certain slant are going to be acceptable in some circles and considered in very poor taste in others?
        pliny 8y ago
        It was a normative question. The social norm exists, but I wish it didn't, so I won't enforce it and I'll encourage other people not to enforce it.
        abritinthebay 8y ago
        Here’s the thing: you don’t get the benefit of the doubt when you hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years. It counts as evidence of your poor judgement and terrible moral compass. Especially when you espouse other opinions that are toxic trash and are highly correlated to the previous ones. The benefit of doubt has been long used up on these topics. If you hold these opinions today as an adult you made a concious choice to be a bigot.
- henearkr 8y ago
  I don't know this Pogo, but the mere fact that his words did not contain anything funny hints towards the absence of a joke... false (or outrageous) statements by themselves do not make sarcasm, you also need humour!!! For example if he was also notoriously gay, that would have made a great joke. This is not the case.
- opencl 8y ago
  Do you have anything to back up that he was joking besides the backtracking statements he made years after the original video and only after getting massive amounts of negative backlash about it? If making a several-minute-long homophobic rant 'as a joke' (a joke so funny that he apparently didn't want the public to see it because the video was unlisted), in a way that is entirely indistinguishable from actually hating gay people, is somehow not 'strong evidence' of being homophobic then I have no idea what is.
  - thinkingemote 8y ago
    the Directors by Mel Brooks would probably be an anti Semitic pro nazi film using that rationale
    - ghaff 8y ago
      The Producers. I have wondered if that film might be a bit too edgy for mainstream audiences today. On the other hand, it had a good Broadway run long after the film, so people would probably be fine for the most part.
    - opencl 8y ago
      Have you actually watched the video in question? These are completely different things. The Producers was clearly satire, it was marketed as satire, everyone knew it was satire. There is generally room for interpretation with satire, but I am finding it extremely difficult to give this particular person the benefit of the doubt. If Mel Brooks filmed himself talking about how Nazis are great in an entirely serious tone, other than the bit where he laughed about how funny it was so many Jews died and calling it fantastic (Pogo did exactly this with the Pulse shooting), never releasing the footage, and then years later somebody found the footage and everyone was mad at him for liking Nazis, and then he said it was a joke and people shouldn't be mad at him, then it would be like this situation. But it isn't, it's completely different. Do you also think the Nixon tapes weren't evidence of Nixon being anti-Semitic? If he had just said he really didn't mean it and he was sorry, it all would have been okay?

Pogo wasn't joking though

by zajd 8y ago

Pogo wasn't joking though

jacobush 8y ago

Are you being sarcastic?

sillysaurus3 8y ago

If you have anything to back this up, that would be worth sharing. But I don't think it's fair to say that factually without some pretty strong evidence.

zajd 8y ago
https://waxy.org/2017/04/pogos-politics/ https://waxy.org/2017/04/pogos-politics/ you'll note that this is from last year, before the current controversey > “I don’t think feminists ever do what they preach. I think it’s always an ulterior motive. I think it’s a divisive cult that doesn’t achieve much more than a flock of self-entitled narcissists at the end of the day. I’ve never liked them. I’ve always thought that driving a wedge between the genders seems like a funny way to achieve equality.” > “I think the left is bringing about the destruction of Western civilization, personally.” > “I don’t want to make massive generalization or anything, but I think female accountability is a myth. I think under the banner of feminism, females will never be held accountable for anything. You should not critique a woman unless you are prepared for the consequences.”
- cpmouter 8y ago
  What does that have to do with hating homosexuals? I know of many people who don't like feminists but don't have a problem with homosexuals.
- sillysaurus3 8y ago
  That's entirely unrelated though. Just because someone dislikes the left doesn't automatically make them more or less likely to dislike gay people. That's an unfortunate association with the republican right, which tends to be more religious than not.
  - zajd 8y ago
    If you think this sort of thing is entirely unrelated you haven't been paying much attention. Those kinds of "unfortunate associations" are why you don't pillory your own career by espousing reprehensible views "as a joke" (the idea that it was a joke was only brought up after the controversy)
    - pliny 8y ago
      Is making jokes and enjoying the benefit of the doubt a privilege reserved for people with the correct political opinions?
      - ghaff 8y ago
        Yes? In certain circles you could get off with saying just about anything about the current US administration however in poor taste it might be. In those same circles, I wouldn't recommend off-color criticism of many people on the other end of the political spectrum. ADDED: For those who apparently disagree with me, does anyone seriously dispute that jokes of a certain slant are going to be acceptable in some circles and considered in very poor taste in others?
        pliny 8y ago
        It was a normative question. The social norm exists, but I wish it didn't, so I won't enforce it and I'll encourage other people not to enforce it.
      - abritinthebay 8y ago
        Here’s the thing: you don’t get the benefit of the doubt when you hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years. It counts as evidence of your poor judgement and terrible moral compass. Especially when you espouse other opinions that are toxic trash and are highly correlated to the previous ones. The benefit of doubt has been long used up on these topics. If you hold these opinions today as an adult you made a concious choice to be a bigot.
henearkr 8y ago
I don't know this Pogo, but the mere fact that his words did not contain anything funny hints towards the absence of a joke... false (or outrageous) statements by themselves do not make sarcasm, you also need humour!!! For example if he was also notoriously gay, that would have made a great joke. This is not the case.
opencl 8y ago
Do you have anything to back up that he was joking besides the backtracking statements he made years after the original video and only after getting massive amounts of negative backlash about it? If making a several-minute-long homophobic rant 'as a joke' (a joke so funny that he apparently didn't want the public to see it because the video was unlisted), in a way that is entirely indistinguishable from actually hating gay people, is somehow not 'strong evidence' of being homophobic then I have no idea what is.
- thinkingemote 8y ago
  the Directors by Mel Brooks would probably be an anti Semitic pro nazi film using that rationale
  - ghaff 8y ago
    The Producers. I have wondered if that film might be a bit too edgy for mainstream audiences today. On the other hand, it had a good Broadway run long after the film, so people would probably be fine for the most part.
  - opencl 8y ago
    Have you actually watched the video in question? These are completely different things. The Producers was clearly satire, it was marketed as satire, everyone knew it was satire. There is generally room for interpretation with satire, but I am finding it extremely difficult to give this particular person the benefit of the doubt. If Mel Brooks filmed himself talking about how Nazis are great in an entirely serious tone, other than the bit where he laughed about how funny it was so many Jews died and calling it fantastic (Pogo did exactly this with the Pulse shooting), never releasing the footage, and then years later somebody found the footage and everyone was mad at him for liking Nazis, and then he said it was a joke and people shouldn't be mad at him, then it would be like this situation. But it isn't, it's completely different. Do you also think the Nixon tapes weren't evidence of Nixon being anti-Semitic? If he had just said he really didn't mean it and he was sorry, it all would have been okay?