Yes and no. We white folks are pretty often clowned on for being averse to flavor and spicy things.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are we too easily offended these days?
- Thread starter pgtl_10
- Start date
- Status
Yes and no. We white folks are pretty often clowned on for being averse to flavor and spicy things.
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just Kidding. I'm White!"
Probably like... the whole thing? Getting AIDs solely because they're going to Africa, deflecting by reason of race, and saying it on a public account where they probably have quite a few business contacts are a few reasons it's pretty tasteless.
See, I don't think you understand.
And sometimes they really don't understand, just look at the whole #cancelColbert campaign that happened a year or two
ago.
Maybe if you completely take every situation at face value without the context.
Richards was at a Comedy Club telling jokes when he started getting heckled, got extremely angry and to get his frustration out he started yelling racist slurs at the hecklers. No one in that audience thought he was doing a bit, no one assumed it was satire, everyone knew he was losing his goddamn mind on stage.
With context the Colbert sketch he did was satire.
With context what Richards did was a racist rant.
I don't know enough about Tosh's joke to comment on it.
Because satire is satire and a racist rant is a racist rant. You're trying to draw parallels that don't exist.
it wasnt funny. that was the most offensive thing about that "joke"
GeordieMark
Member
I think we are. Not a day goes by without some overblown outrage against something or someone.
People need to chill out and not be so quick to assume bad intent.
People need to chill out and not be so quick to assume bad intent.
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
I think times are changing. These issues are being brought up because one sect of people doesn't like them. The other sect not being offended by these things, fights against the censorship. One side will win out in the end, and either things will continue the way they were, or everyone will find new ways to indiscriminately discriminate against others.
I land on both sides on various issues, so I don't really care which one wins out. I'm just gonna do my best to not be an asshole and hope for the best.
See I love this shit. These dumb stereotypes of harmless shit. They're fun to poke at sometimes. Do we want to lose our ability to do dumb British voices forever?
I land on both sides on various issues, so I don't really care which one wins out. I'm just gonna do my best to not be an asshole and hope for the best.
See I love this shit. These dumb stereotypes of harmless shit. They're fun to poke at sometimes. Do we want to lose our ability to do dumb British voices forever?
Old whitey eh! can't handle his spicy food!
Suffice to say, satire doesn't need to be funny. This is where you fail to understand.
Winter John
Member
This section of Neogaf has some of the most easily offended posters I have ever seen on the internet. It is cursed with a small but significantly loud coterie of over sensitive wall flowers who cannot stand to read an opposing view point and will do all they can to get posters they don't like banned. I cannot count the number of times I've seen these idiots dog piling and avatar quoting posters in their desperate and juvenile attempts to signal mods that someone has posted an opinion they don't like and don't have the ability to counter. They have been a curse on this forum. They are not interested in debating or examining a subject. They are only interested in point scoring at it's most facile level and being seen to be right.
Well, yes. Satire's not quite clear cut. People unknowing that Colbert is a character took it at face value. Not sure if Colbert on Late Night is still a character though.
But when Michael went to apologise the audience there certainly thought he was doing a bit. People kept laughing at his nervous pauses and the way he articulated his speech, just because he was on a talk show.
I do think you need to watch the video recording of his rant again though. The audience did laugh at what he was saying. The laughing got louder when he stayed to say the n word, and then turned into "ooo" moans. Then as soon as he starts to do the whole "it shocks you" segment people started laughing again. There was a lot of rather low giggling throughout the entire thing too. Lots of people seemed to think he was doing a bit, or at least thought his racist rant was funny itself. You make it out like there was silence, when there wasn't.
See the above.
Anyway, if I can't at least convince you that people thought Michael was funny thanks to the laughter in the recording, I'm not sure anything will. Not really worth continuing.
well, I don't know that I'd go *that* far, but I have seen some posters trying to bait me into arguments where I know what the outcome will be. So I just ignore it and move on.
well if its satire in certainly induces poe's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
the "satire" is indistinguishable from the real thing, It is presented without any sort of context (which is inherently the problem with twitter) so It's easy to see why it can be taken as straight racism.
Got any examples? Gaf is usually really open to discussion, there are only a few things that get shut down like you describe and thats usually because it's an opinion has been made that is rather indefensible.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Man, you are always good for a laugh
People will laugh at anything when they're in a place where they're supposed to laugh. When he was apologizing the pretense of what interview wasn't to be funny, it was for him to come out and publicly speak about what happened. Noe one thought he was doing a bit, that's ridiculous. They were laughing because it was awkward and odd.
I mean, come on, you really think some people thought he was going to do a bit after all the controversy that happened? That when he was supposed to apologize (and was doing so) that he was going to say, "HA GOTCHA!" and start riffing?
It had been a while since I'd seen that video so I watched it again and I think you need to rewatch the video.
The video starts with him shitting on hecklers (which audiences love) and that got a few laughs but as soon as he started cursing him out and using the n-word the audience, for the most part, stopped laughing since he went over the line. At this point he was still trying to be somewhat funny but as the argument goes on he stops trying to be amusing and just goes on full rant mode and at this point no one is laughing because with the context they can see this is no longer a comedy act, this is a racist rant.
Shuggananas
Banned
Yep, she should have added a winky to avoid the whole mess.
Winter John
Member
The last time I posted in a thread about gun control I actually put 8 people on my ignore list. That seems like an insane amount to me but I posted my very legitimate reasons why I own guns and was met with snark, avatar quoting and personal attacks. The only reason I stayed in the thread as long as I did was that there were one or two posters who were willing to actually debate the subject reasonably. It is a real shame that all too often these subjects are hijacked or derailed by people who are unable to discuss anything beyond the most base levels.
Pretty much
My favorite are the dudes that are like "this doesn't offend me so it shouldn't offend you". they end up screaming the loudest
teruterubozu
Member
These days? Try the Victorian era.
Michael got concerned about even apologising on the show he did so on because he knew they'd already made a few jokes about the situation and the audience was continuing to laugh at the serious situation. Jerry even asked the audience to not laugh, which no one took seriously.
Considering the incident took place at a little comedy club and probably wouldn't have any evidence unless it was recorded, it's suffice to say that people probably didn't think the situation was true at all. Not everyone is up to date on a situation. It's essentially celeb controversy news - he went to a talk show to apologise, not the news. It seemed like people thought he was doing a bit.
Geh, we're going to get into this loop of "no you watch the video again". Yes people stopped laughing after he said the N word multiple times but as soon as he said that the audience was shocked they snapped out of it and there was still laughs during the rest of the video. It should be noticed they only stopped laughing after he said it multiple times, before starting to laugh again. After that it was about a minute of everyone getting the hell out of there since it turned into a fight.
I think "a few laughs" undersells what was going on honestly.
Really, don't think this is worth continuing. We're going to get into a loop here.
Please post examples, it shouldn't be hard to find a ton (not that I expect you to actually find a ton), given how offen...err, "problematic" you seem to find this behavior and how it is quite specifically terrible in this section of NeoGAF, among the vast expanse of the internet.
Agent Gibbs
Member
Not on other topics, but the other day there was a thread about Anita Sarkessian speaking at the UN, and one poster made some really thought out, polite respectful points for discussion that basically pointed out some of her analysis was flawed, a couple of people tried to discuss, but after a while the 'white knights' came along shutting down discussion - the poster was missing the point, not considering the opposing view, not considering how someone taking it out of context might take it etc, i even saw someone mention that as a white male.....etc
The most ironic part was the first post he made was similar to the one you've quoted, that no discussion can be had on those topics due the topic rules strict guidlines almost preventing discussion, and then posters who seem to not even read posts with a differing opinion and immediately use various methods to shut down discussion or extrapolate them to the point where they claim it boils down to misogyny
Thats just the latest example i can think of, but it is happening on GAF, and i feel it almost looks condoned by the Mods because we never see who is banned and for what reason, so when you see a poster who's been baited banned, it looks like Mods support the view - They obviously don't, i've equally seen 'shit posters' banned from both 'sides' of arguments
I'm forming the view of late, that when a poster is banned their post should contain a link to a reason for the ban, to remove the ability for anyone to say mods favour one side
Winter John
Member
I have posted my own experience above.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You'll have to be more specific when talking about questionable posts in a Sarkeesian-related thread
PdotMichael
Banned
Offended and outrage are two different things I would claim.
Telling that people shouldn't be offended by something is quite silly. But the dynamics of some the outrage is often quite crazy.
Telling that people shouldn't be offended by something is quite silly. But the dynamics of some the outrage is often quite crazy.
I wonder if you see the irony of mentioning "indefensible opinions" and being "open to discussion" in the same breath.
Relativ9
Member
About the Africa tweet; you guys realize that not only does satire not have to be funny, the "awfulness" of something can have great comedic value on its own. This is where dead baby jokes come from, or the Auschwitz guard tower joke.
The people telling these jokes don't hate babies or jews. They find the "taboo" nature of the joke to be disarming and endearing, and yes..."shock value" is real.
The people telling these jokes don't hate babies or jews. They find the "taboo" nature of the joke to be disarming and endearing, and yes..."shock value" is real.
I think I know what you mean. But with the anita stuff specifically a lot of the "you can't criticize her without getting shat on" tends to just come from people that want a pedestal to spew their shit from they use their criticism on her to discredit her plight as a whole. which is jsut a bit shitty really. As Even though I disagree with Anita on tonnes of points. I don't then use that to work against her anti-abuse / sex equality work as I agree with her core ideals.
People have gotten caught in the crossfire. but it's not some organised conspiracy of users and mods preventing discussion on the topic. it's more that a topic has been marred by the same tired disproven arguments and I think the users and moderation team are tired of it, so there has ended up being a much harsher line on certain topics.
"zoe quinn slept with people to bribe the games media" is an indefensible opinion. there is no need to be open to discussion on that point, because you would be discussing something that isn't true?
its not ironic at-all.
L.B. Jeffries
Member
It's hard for me to not associate this culture with youth and confirm my growing belief that the internet is highschool. The amount of time and energy I see people putting into being offended or conversely arguing with them is always baffling to me.
Not caring about what other people think is an important part of becoming an adult.
Not caring about what other people think is an important part of becoming an adult.
It's really easy to cut down a post, quote it without complete context, and then just rail on it in an only slightly related way. People that have a militant posting style tend to do that quite a bit. There is very little discussion in some threads as a result. It looks more like congratulatory consensus, with only a few willing to post anything that looks like a nuanced opinion. Those posts end up chopped up as previously mentioned. People say stupid shit at times and they don't have a right to not be called out on it or to hide behind "sorry I'm not PC bro", but moderate opinions are often drowned by the same crowd over and over again.
Some of it is self selection. It's really easy to nail someone for saying heinous, stupid shit. There isn't a lot of reason (or rather it is simply harder) to ban someone for the opposite, even if it derails or shouts down someone.
If I were to say "Hitler did nothing wrong" and was serious, you would agree that that is an indefensible opinion, no?
Agent Gibbs
Member
Touché a very good point
If people are interested the thread is easy to find, the relevant pages are the last 3/4 (i suppose depends on your posts per page settings) before it was locked (probably because it had reached saturation point of shit posting) - but digging up old threads and quoting them is surely against rules so i'd not recommend that
In all honesty i think the worst issue is that people and companies take instances of internet outrage seriously! take the joke remarks made by Sir Tim Hunt in a conference, where he made a sexist joke remark about women colleagues crying all the time. It was part of a scripted joke, he used the joke to set up how that wasn't the case and times changed. however a journalist and another academic immediately tweeted that he'd been sexist it was uncomfortable etc all the while he was on a flight to the UK, by the time he returned he was sacked.
It later turned came out they exaggerated, and one was massively discredited (the academic) but he remained sacked and despite widespread opposition within the university he remained sacked as they still felt he'd brought them negative attention.
Its the most prominent example i can think of recently, and the faux outrage was ridiculous, but the fact the university took it seriously and made a knee jerk reaction based on it was the real issue.
It happens more and more, out of fear of litigation, and that fear also creates odd decisions based on health and safety and other things - perhaps its too easy to litigate and succeed or settle out of court now
……forgetit
Member
You know, I don't think so. I think everyone just has an outlet to express their offence now. I've been researching 30 Rock and all I can think sometimes is how much shit they would have caught today with some of the jokes they made.
A Link to the Past
Banned
?
These are not mutually exclusive. You can be open to discussion without having to entertain the ramblings of a white supremacist, for instance.
Is 30 Rock really considered so old now that it's out of the public consciousness? :v
John Kowalski
Banned
You know it would take like thirty seconds to fix the aspect ratio of your avatar right?
pants
Member
Grow your ignore list friend, it's done wonders for my last year of posting here.
no. you conform to his narrow point of view, not vice versa.
SomedayTheFire
Member
No. People just aren't taking others insults or shit anymore. It wasn't funny in the past and its not funny now.
Sexually Aggressive Uncle
Member
Well said.
Perhaps the target of the jokes has simply shifted. People have always been offended. Do you honestly think saying a racist joke to someone who is the subject of said joke only just recently became offended by it. Nope, they'll always have been. But now the tables have turned and now we make fun of those who can't cope with the recent change in attitudes. Those who told the non-PC jokes are now the subject of jokes so of course they'll now be more offended.
Then there's the fact you should always know your audience. I can make a bald joke at the expense of my father because we're family and he knows it's all tongue in cheek. I'm not going to say the same joke to someone I don't know because even if it is funny, the context is still rude. Or to put it in Internet terms, the jokes you can crack on 4chan willy nilly aren't necessarily going to go down too well here. Society has come together but some people have forgotten that the joke you can tell your mates down at the pub might not work with the rest of us.
Finally, some people don't see it as enough to simply ignore a joke made in bad taste but to inform the joke teller it was in bad taste, especially on the Internet where any form of confrontation is completely removed. It's not that we've become more offended, it's just we tell people more that we're offended. Perhaps this is simply because communication changes have allowed this, ergo they would have done this just as much before if they could have. Maybe it's a need to be seen on the correct side amongst ones peers, since society has become closer together appearance seems to have become much more important. We have seen how easily the Internet can ostracise a person deemed in the wrong, so maybe we are scared to not anger and thus feel a need to remind others that we find politically incorrect things bad, even if we don't.
Then there's the fact you should always know your audience. I can make a bald joke at the expense of my father because we're family and he knows it's all tongue in cheek. I'm not going to say the same joke to someone I don't know because even if it is funny, the context is still rude. Or to put it in Internet terms, the jokes you can crack on 4chan willy nilly aren't necessarily going to go down too well here. Society has come together but some people have forgotten that the joke you can tell your mates down at the pub might not work with the rest of us.
Finally, some people don't see it as enough to simply ignore a joke made in bad taste but to inform the joke teller it was in bad taste, especially on the Internet where any form of confrontation is completely removed. It's not that we've become more offended, it's just we tell people more that we're offended. Perhaps this is simply because communication changes have allowed this, ergo they would have done this just as much before if they could have. Maybe it's a need to be seen on the correct side amongst ones peers, since society has become closer together appearance seems to have become much more important. We have seen how easily the Internet can ostracise a person deemed in the wrong, so maybe we are scared to not anger and thus feel a need to remind others that we find politically incorrect things bad, even if we don't.
- Status