6 ms·

Borat made some very racist and inaccurate remarks about country (Kazakhstan) who did nothing to deserve such humiliation. As a foreigner I did not appreciate t

Borat made some very racist and inaccurate remarks about country (Kazakhstan) who did nothing to deserve such humiliation. As a foreigner I did not appreciate the crass of the movie at the time, but I understand completely why there is so much backlash against it. Calling something “satire” doesn’t give you a free license to be rude, especially towards other cultures who don’t share your form of self degrading humor that sometimes us in the West laugh and enjoy. Source: My partner is Kazakh.

StavrosK 6y ago
Yeah, while the movie made me laugh, the old "people from abroad are stupid because they don't speak English well" stereotype is really tired. The one redeeming quality the movie had was that it usually got its laughs from people's reactions to Borat, not from Borat actually being a dumb foreigner.
- willis936 6y ago
  The stereotype is tired because xenophobia is tiring. By taking on that stereotype to a ridiculous extreme it shows the difference between people who are willing and able to discern a prank when it fits their xenophobic worldviews and those who are not (or do not have xenophobic worldviews). It’s a direct attack against prejudiced people by making an example of them in a Hollywood movie.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Most of it was, but some of it was just "aren't foreigners weird", like the scene where they ran naked through the hotel.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    No, Borat wasn’t always unmasking xenophobia, but often just playing for pure laughs. Think of the old Borat sketches where Borat asks if he can squeeze an Americans man’s testicles to see how large they are compared to his own. Are we to assume that anyone who would go along with that, who wouldn’t identify the prank, is xenophobic? Not at all. I think that many people who were actually appreciative of the diversity of the cultures of the world (and who maybe grew up reading National Geographic with its discussions of things like Papuan New Guinea penis sheaths) might think, well, maybe that is considered normal in Kazakhstan.
burrows 6y ago
So you don’t believe in the absolute freedom of expression in artistic works?
- ivalm 6y ago
  They can be free to express and others can be free to be offended.
  - burrows 6y ago
    Agreed. But being offended and pressuring someone to stop doing the thing that offends you are different.
- drdeca 6y ago
  Just because it should be a protected right for someone do do something, doesn't mean that it is right for them to do it. For some actions, expressions of verbal disapproval are appropriate, but stronger forms of rebuke might not be.
- some-guy 6y ago
  Critique != suppression of speech
  - burrows 6y ago
    But he isn’t critiquing the content only, he’s also questioning whether it should exist or not. He says, “Calling something “satire” doesn’t give you a free license to be rude...”
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      His freely-expressed speech is being upvoted, while yours is being downvoted. Perhaps it is because he is addressing the topic at hand, while you're not?
- dang 6y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
bleeding 6y ago
I think that the subject of the satire for most of the movie is intended to be American's perception of foreigners, and not foreigners themselves. I do agree that some of the depictions of Kazakhstan (the village in the movie is not actually even in Kazakhstan) do veer away from this toward something that at least feels like it is poking fun at the depicted culture and not Americans.
- klodolph 6y ago
  Satire is nice and all but most people will not really engage with satire enough to understand that it is satire.
jmull 6y ago
If it makes you or your partner happier: Cohen (in both films) is a lot harder on real America than fake Kazakhstan.
mmglr 6y ago
> Source: My partner is Kazakh. This isn't reddit. You don't need to defend your opinion.

StavrosK 6y ago

Yeah, while the movie made me laugh, the old "people from abroad are stupid because they don't speak English well" stereotype is really tired. The one redeeming quality the movie had was that it usually got its laughs from people's reactions to Borat, not from Borat actually being a dumb foreigner.

willis936 6y ago
The stereotype is tired because xenophobia is tiring. By taking on that stereotype to a ridiculous extreme it shows the difference between people who are willing and able to discern a prank when it fits their xenophobic worldviews and those who are not (or do not have xenophobic worldviews). It’s a direct attack against prejudiced people by making an example of them in a Hollywood movie.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Most of it was, but some of it was just "aren't foreigners weird", like the scene where they ran naked through the hotel.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  No, Borat wasn’t always unmasking xenophobia, but often just playing for pure laughs. Think of the old Borat sketches where Borat asks if he can squeeze an Americans man’s testicles to see how large they are compared to his own. Are we to assume that anyone who would go along with that, who wouldn’t identify the prank, is xenophobic? Not at all. I think that many people who were actually appreciative of the diversity of the cultures of the world (and who maybe grew up reading National Geographic with its discussions of things like Papuan New Guinea penis sheaths) might think, well, maybe that is considered normal in Kazakhstan.

burrows 6y ago

So you don’t believe in the absolute freedom of expression in artistic works?

ivalm 6y ago
They can be free to express and others can be free to be offended.
- burrows 6y ago
  Agreed. But being offended and pressuring someone to stop doing the thing that offends you are different.
drdeca 6y ago
Just because it should be a protected right for someone do do something, doesn't mean that it is right for them to do it. For some actions, expressions of verbal disapproval are appropriate, but stronger forms of rebuke might not be.
some-guy 6y ago
Critique != suppression of speech
- burrows 6y ago
  But he isn’t critiquing the content only, he’s also questioning whether it should exist or not. He says, “Calling something “satire” doesn’t give you a free license to be rude...”
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    His freely-expressed speech is being upvoted, while yours is being downvoted. Perhaps it is because he is addressing the topic at hand, while you're not?
dang 6y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bleeding 6y ago

I think that the subject of the satire for most of the movie is intended to be American's perception of foreigners, and not foreigners themselves. I do agree that some of the depictions of Kazakhstan (the village in the movie is not actually even in Kazakhstan) do veer away from this toward something that at least feels like it is poking fun at the depicted culture and not Americans.

klodolph 6y ago
Satire is nice and all but most people will not really engage with satire enough to understand that it is satire.

jmull 6y ago

If it makes you or your partner happier: Cohen (in both films) is a lot harder on real America than fake Kazakhstan.

mmglr 6y ago

> Source: My partner is Kazakh. This isn't reddit. You don't need to defend your opinion.