5 ms·

> share a bunch of memes making fun of them Making fun of people is crossing the line? This seems like a dangerous slippery slope to say the least. Suppose I m

by dvt 6y ago

> share a bunch of memes making fun of them Making fun of people is crossing the line? This seems like a dangerous slippery slope to say the least. Suppose I make an entire career out of making fun of (say) Irish people. Jokes and stereotypes like "they drink a lot" and "they get into bar fights" and "they're dumb potato farmers" are my bread and butter. Most people would probably agree that this kind of speech should be protected. However, because trans rights, LGBT, race, etc. has been so profusely politicized, it's become a third rail. Making fun of a trans person and an Irish person are, for whatever reason, not on the same playing field any more. I'm not sure what the solution is, but let's not pretend there's no problem.

newacct583 6y ago
You picked Irish men (note your stereotypes: all male) because they're reasonably elite in modern US society and so this seems harmless. Repeat the analysis with jokes about women ("so emotional"), blacks ("criminal"), mexicans ("rapists" -- I think someone tried this once, even), arabs ("rag heads"), republicans ("nazis"), etc... Tell me you want all that stuff on your website. But because you and your Irish buddies feel immune, everyone else needs thicker skin? I mean, this really should be morally obvious. Laughing with someone (which is how you imagine those Irish drinking jokes) is having fun. Laughing at someone (needless to say there were no welcomed trans users on those banned subreddits) is being an asshole. Reddit banned a bunch of assholes.
- dvt 6y ago
  > You picked Irish men (note your stereotypes: all male) You're obviously not arguing in good faith, as I am quite careful with my words and specifically mentioned people. But I do agree that thick skin is a requirement of a free and open society (this is where I'd usually cite J.S. Mill's On Liberty). Finally, I just want to add that your conclusion is off-base: anti-Irish sentiment (known as Hibernophobia) has a long and storied history.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > anti-Irish sentiment (known as Hibernophobia) has a long and storied history. OK, then let's ban the mean Irish jokes too.
    - dvt 6y ago
      Q.E.D.
      - kbenson 6y ago
        There are times when a rationalist approach to societal and cultural issues (and political issues, as they bleed into that) may be more or less acceptable to the public, and I think we are unfortunately at a time where those approaches don't work very well, and indeed are seen as attacks themselves. I have all sorts of poorly founded ideas on why that might be so, which themselves might be more symptoms than causes, but the bottom line is the same; It's very hard to have a rational discussion between two parties with different points of view these days. I find that one or both will usually have underlying beliefs based on dogma that they refuse to entertain any discussion on, which makes discussing views founded on those beliefs extremely hard to do constructively, if not impossible.
detaro 6y ago
There is a difference in the standing of the groups. Nowadays, even anti-Irish prejudice is probably not that common anymore in the anglosphere, and anti-Irish violence or laws are even less of a problem. That doesn't mean that there isn't an ugly history around that, and doesn't make all jokes ok, but it is a difference from groups where the topic is more sensitive. And given the prevalence of e.g. anti-trans sentiments, it's also more likely that "memes making fun of them" actually has a side-note of "memes suggesting they are mentally ill", "memes suggesting violence against them is ok", ..., which is not justified against any group.
- dvt 6y ago
  This is a bad argument for a few reasons, but I'll cover my main gripe: the sorites wormhole. Is making fun of white straight men OK? Ok good. What about white women? What about white gay women? Black republican gay men? Mexican scientologists? What group takes precedence? Your race? Your religion? Your sexual orientation? Your eye color? Your hair color? It's probably OK to make fun of Christians in the US, but it's not OK to make fun of them in China, right? They're still being persecuted over there, so that makes it not OK. What about content that's shared all over the internet? What about a persecuted Chinese Christian that reads /r/atheism? Your "group standing" theory is clearly not tractable, as you are now stuck in an N-dimensional sorites paradox[1]. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
  - detaro 6y ago
    You seem to be under the impression that there has to be a simple "situation in, binary judgement out" function that always works. I don't think that exists, as for pretty much any large-scale social problem, especially if you expand it globally, and I don't think my comment suggested that. Doesn't mean it isn't a useful heuristic to suggest why people (in the anglospehere, nowadays) are generally less worried about "just jokes" about Irish people than about trans people.
    - dvt 6y ago
      > You seem to be under the impression that there has to be a simple "situation in, binary judgement out" function that always works. There's a huge range between the ad hoc and the binary. For example, I think Mill's Harm Principle is a good place to start. > Doesn't mean it isn't a useful heuristic... I guess that's my point: I don't think it's a useful heuristic at all. Imo, the great majority of people worried about trans jokes and not Irish jokes are primarily on the political left, which makes it a political issue. But it should be (and in fact is) a moral issue: is X being harmed by Y? If so, we ought to punish Y.
fivre 6y ago
> However, because trans rights, LGBT, race, etc. has been so profusely politicized, it's become a third rail. Making fun of a trans person and an Irish person are, for whatever reason, not on the same playing field any more. I'm not sure what the solution is, but let's not pretend there's no problem. No, you're right, they're not on the same playing field, though saying that they are because one issue is "politicized" is, apologies, somewhat laughable. Do you know many people (and for clarification, this is from an American perspective) who have, in recent history, been assaulted out of the blue, pushed out of their homes or jobs, or bullied to the point of self-harm because they're of Irish ancestry? How long ago was it that being of Irish ancestry meant that your employer could come out and say "sorry, no fucken micks in my shop, gtfo" or that the state could deny you basic rights afforded to most citizens with the full force of the law on their side, and how long ago was that the case for the LGBTQ community? These things are different playing fields because they're literally different playing fields: the actual broader issues at hand, in the present, are very different. Losing sight of history isn't the goal here--it's stupid and dangerous to ignore history, full stop--but it's doubly stupid to blind oneself to present.
- dvt 6y ago
  This is a silly argument, because it runs into a wall via a very simple reductio ad absurdum: it's the year 2000, and I made my career making fun of Muslims.. they wear funny things on their heads, do a weird carpet prayer, etc. Uh-oh, now it's 2002. Muslims are being persecuted again in some Southern states because of 9/11. Now, two years later, according to your very own present-day-contextualized-moral-joke-compass, you can't joke about Muslims anymore. When can I resume my comedy career joking about Muslims? 2005? 2006? Before or after Charlie Hebdo? The Holocaust was a pretty big deal, can we joke about Jews yet? Or does comedy have a cooldown period?
  - fivre 6y ago
    Are you Muslim? When you, or your hypothetical strawman comic make fun of them, are you punching up or down? To not mince words here, if your comedy career was wholly dependent on making fun of Muslim cultural practices that have existed for millennia before you were born, in America, a country that totally had no relationship with the Middle East or history of anti-Muslim bigotry prior to 9/11, and you further cannot possibly even conceive of continuing it with some other variety of humor, it probably shouldn't resume. Quit that particular hobby and pick up a history book.

by dvt 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago

You picked Irish men (note your stereotypes: all male) because they're reasonably elite in modern US society and so this seems harmless. Repeat the analysis with jokes about women ("so emotional"), blacks ("criminal"), mexicans ("rapists" -- I think someone tried this once, even), arabs ("rag heads"), republicans ("nazis"), etc... Tell me you want all that stuff on your website. But because you and your Irish buddies feel immune, everyone else needs thicker skin? I mean, this really should be morally obvious. Laughing with someone (which is how you imagine those Irish drinking jokes) is having fun. Laughing at someone (needless to say there were no welcomed trans users on those banned subreddits) is being an asshole. Reddit banned a bunch of assholes.

dvt 6y ago
> You picked Irish men (note your stereotypes: all male) You're obviously not arguing in good faith, as I am quite careful with my words and specifically mentioned people. But I do agree that thick skin is a requirement of a free and open society (this is where I'd usually cite J.S. Mill's On Liberty). Finally, I just want to add that your conclusion is off-base: anti-Irish sentiment (known as Hibernophobia) has a long and storied history.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > anti-Irish sentiment (known as Hibernophobia) has a long and storied history. OK, then let's ban the mean Irish jokes too.
  - dvt 6y ago
    Q.E.D.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      There are times when a rationalist approach to societal and cultural issues (and political issues, as they bleed into that) may be more or less acceptable to the public, and I think we are unfortunately at a time where those approaches don't work very well, and indeed are seen as attacks themselves. I have all sorts of poorly founded ideas on why that might be so, which themselves might be more symptoms than causes, but the bottom line is the same; It's very hard to have a rational discussion between two parties with different points of view these days. I find that one or both will usually have underlying beliefs based on dogma that they refuse to entertain any discussion on, which makes discussing views founded on those beliefs extremely hard to do constructively, if not impossible.

detaro 6y ago

There is a difference in the standing of the groups. Nowadays, even anti-Irish prejudice is probably not that common anymore in the anglosphere, and anti-Irish violence or laws are even less of a problem. That doesn't mean that there isn't an ugly history around that, and doesn't make all jokes ok, but it is a difference from groups where the topic is more sensitive. And given the prevalence of e.g. anti-trans sentiments, it's also more likely that "memes making fun of them" actually has a side-note of "memes suggesting they are mentally ill", "memes suggesting violence against them is ok", ..., which is not justified against any group.

dvt 6y ago
This is a bad argument for a few reasons, but I'll cover my main gripe: the sorites wormhole. Is making fun of white straight men OK? Ok good. What about white women? What about white gay women? Black republican gay men? Mexican scientologists? What group takes precedence? Your race? Your religion? Your sexual orientation? Your eye color? Your hair color? It's probably OK to make fun of Christians in the US, but it's not OK to make fun of them in China, right? They're still being persecuted over there, so that makes it not OK. What about content that's shared all over the internet? What about a persecuted Chinese Christian that reads /r/atheism? Your "group standing" theory is clearly not tractable, as you are now stuck in an N-dimensional sorites paradox[1]. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
- detaro 6y ago
  You seem to be under the impression that there has to be a simple "situation in, binary judgement out" function that always works. I don't think that exists, as for pretty much any large-scale social problem, especially if you expand it globally, and I don't think my comment suggested that. Doesn't mean it isn't a useful heuristic to suggest why people (in the anglospehere, nowadays) are generally less worried about "just jokes" about Irish people than about trans people.
  - dvt 6y ago
    > You seem to be under the impression that there has to be a simple "situation in, binary judgement out" function that always works. There's a huge range between the ad hoc and the binary. For example, I think Mill's Harm Principle is a good place to start. > Doesn't mean it isn't a useful heuristic... I guess that's my point: I don't think it's a useful heuristic at all. Imo, the great majority of people worried about trans jokes and not Irish jokes are primarily on the political left, which makes it a political issue. But it should be (and in fact is) a moral issue: is X being harmed by Y? If so, we ought to punish Y.

fivre 6y ago

> However, because trans rights, LGBT, race, etc. has been so profusely politicized, it's become a third rail. Making fun of a trans person and an Irish person are, for whatever reason, not on the same playing field any more. I'm not sure what the solution is, but let's not pretend there's no problem. No, you're right, they're not on the same playing field, though saying that they are because one issue is "politicized" is, apologies, somewhat laughable. Do you know many people (and for clarification, this is from an American perspective) who have, in recent history, been assaulted out of the blue, pushed out of their homes or jobs, or bullied to the point of self-harm because they're of Irish ancestry? How long ago was it that being of Irish ancestry meant that your employer could come out and say "sorry, no fucken micks in my shop, gtfo" or that the state could deny you basic rights afforded to most citizens with the full force of the law on their side, and how long ago was that the case for the LGBTQ community? These things are different playing fields because they're literally different playing fields: the actual broader issues at hand, in the present, are very different. Losing sight of history isn't the goal here--it's stupid and dangerous to ignore history, full stop--but it's doubly stupid to blind oneself to present.

dvt 6y ago
This is a silly argument, because it runs into a wall via a very simple reductio ad absurdum: it's the year 2000, and I made my career making fun of Muslims.. they wear funny things on their heads, do a weird carpet prayer, etc. Uh-oh, now it's 2002. Muslims are being persecuted again in some Southern states because of 9/11. Now, two years later, according to your very own present-day-contextualized-moral-joke-compass, you can't joke about Muslims anymore. When can I resume my comedy career joking about Muslims? 2005? 2006? Before or after Charlie Hebdo? The Holocaust was a pretty big deal, can we joke about Jews yet? Or does comedy have a cooldown period?
- fivre 6y ago
  Are you Muslim? When you, or your hypothetical strawman comic make fun of them, are you punching up or down? To not mince words here, if your comedy career was wholly dependent on making fun of Muslim cultural practices that have existed for millennia before you were born, in America, a country that totally had no relationship with the Middle East or history of anti-Muslim bigotry prior to 9/11, and you further cannot possibly even conceive of continuing it with some other variety of humor, it probably shouldn't resume. Quit that particular hobby and pick up a history book.