Support NeoGAF

[Doctor Ironic]

Why are you so concerned with the opinions of crazy people on the internet?

 

[Earthpainting]

My take on the whole matter is this: You can still say pretty much say as much or as little as before. You're just more likely to be held responsible for your words. Most people that get called out are not being censored, even if it feels like it. If you're evaluating the complaints and choose to avoid such statements in the future, I think deep down you're conceding that they're having a point. I think that's what a lot of this is recent PC-drama is about. Coming to the realisation that your opposition may be right, and being confronted with your ignorance. It's embarrassing, and especially frustrating when you're being dog-piled and harassed when you're in the process of being educated. They'll be more likely to go on the defensive than internalise why some people were upset if the conflict keeps escalating.

That said, the key component to all of this is a willingness to engage in a dialogue. Being offended by itself is meaningless. You need to be able to know why you're offended, and need to be able to explain it. It's also possible that the person you're explaining it to will still not see your point, or will disagree with it. That's obviously going to be the most difficult one to deal with, but there's not a lot you can do about that one, other than to keep trying to find common ground. Just keep in mind that it's just as likely that you could be the one in the "wrong", and the reason you're offended (about other people's offence?) is that you're faced with an uncomfortable truth.

On the matter of professional comedians, I think they can afford a bit more than the average public person. The framework of their statements as intended to be humorous is clear, which makes it easier for them to explore societal taboos and limits.

 

[MMaRsu]

Yeah people are

 

[Zaptruder]

So you feel the burden of educating the ignorant lies with those affected, and the ignorant are absolved of educating themselves because they may not have the interest or intelligence to do so?

I'm sure you have some specific forms of ignorance in mind, but sometimes people just want to swat flies, not lure them

Problem with believing that you're automatically right and that they're automatically wrong... is that those beliefs can be independent on the truth of the situation.

Really it boils down to a judgement call - do you have time to get into a discussion? Do they look like the kind of people with which a discussion can be had?

You don't really owe the other party anything - but you do yourself a disservice by assuming things about others and not testing yourself.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Problem with believing that you're automatically right and that they're automatically wrong... is that those beliefs can be independent on the truth of the situation.

Really it boils down to a judgement call - do you have time to get into a discussion? Do they look like the kind of people with which a discussion can be had?

You don't really owe the other party anything - but you do yourself a disservice by assuming things about others and not testing yourself.

Where did you get this thing about assuming right or wrong? It's pretty easy to tell depending on the context of what's being discussed.

Do you participate in threads on racism/sexism/other forms of bigotry looking to be tested? If so, more power to you but I don't think many people get enjoyment out of swimming through ignorance.

 

[No Life King]

I do think outrage culture has gotten out of hand. For the most part, I believe that no one has a right to not be offended. If it bothers you, change the station/walk away. Especially if you or the person is in no physical danger.

 

[Frog-fu]

Unequivocally, yes. The dramatic rise in cultures of outrage, victimhood and shaming are all phenomenons intrinsically connected as a consequence and we've become more reactionary and bloodthirsty because of it.

Someone fucks up, no matter how small, and it only takes a few people just a few hours to drum up a mob and ruin that person.

In our thirst for that cathartic rush that's serves only as an alternative to social justice, the entry barrier to that world of hurt is only going lower and lower and once mob mentality takes over there is no unringing that bell.

 

[BocoDragon]

Outrage can be informative about injustices.

But if we instantly take the loudest outrage to be our highest mission, we are a new kind of unthinking fool.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I was mainly replying to your last statement about most of the time comedy is called out it is done deservingly so. Maybe I just don't pay enough attention to the outrage, but the majority of the time I see people calling comedy out it is because they are misinterpreting the message.

I never remotely said most of the time. Nothing I said could be interpreted like that in any reasonable way. Stop jumping to obscure conclusions.

And here we have the first example of what I expected. Overly defensive, dismissive and using phrases and intention I never alluded too "weirdo losers"

"It's not as simple as making ab public spectacle" proving my point that this type of response is sadly predictable and they really won't do anything IRL... . Now I either have to get drawn into an argument with this poster becuse I've used his post as an example or le him have the last word thinking he's "won". I'm not going to respond to him as that's not the point I was making.

You proved that people don't do anything IRL. Nowhere in your post did you manage to ever justify this as a "phenomenon of outrage culture." We've had studies about people for decades that talk about how people will often ignore something bad happening because they don't want to get involved - like a case where neighbors wouldn't even call 911 when they heard someone being attacked because they were too nervous. In light of this, you would still act like making even the smallest effort is proof that they're bad or hypocrites, when we all do this kind of shit every single day?

If I'm dismissive, it's because your argument is shit and synthetic. You saw a behaviour that occurs within people who you categorize under outrage culture, and in spite of any specific connection between outrage culture and that particular behaviour, you simply decided that your correlation must equal causation without understanding the psychology of the behaviour and the fact that as long as there has been a situation to overlook, people have been overlooking them.

 

[Surface of Me]

I never remotely said most of the time. Nothing I said could be interpreted like that in any reasonable way. Stop jumping to obscure conclusions.

Yes, it's important to be able to read into the subtext of humour, but really, a lot of the humour that gets called out is justifiably offensive.

.

 

[A Link to the Past]

"A lot"

"Most"

I know that words grow and change, but I never knew that "a good many" and "a majority of" meant the same thing nowadays!

 

[Ikael]

Yes, yes we are. This superb article at The Atlantic does a great description of the reasons behind this increasing, hum, "sensitivity". Victimism is widespread in our culture, for victim status, which used to be reviled, nowadays is seen as an asset for stablishing moral high ground over other people. It is a complex issue with many ramifications.

I would also argue that this is a logical consequence of coddling children and / or a dysfunctional socialization. When you grow up used to not having to deal with any kind of frustration at life, every minor offense, even the small unintentional misunderstandings inherent to every social interaction and personal communication (aka, "microagressions") will be elevated to "societal illness biggest injustice ever" status in no time.

This is why I am vehemently opposed to political correction. Not because of my political instances, but rather because I think that this is a quite toxic attitude that will end up turning you a worse person, irregardless of your political orientationl, and that this will in the long run, end up polarizing society. There are another, far better ways of advancing social causes, I think.

 

[A Link to the Past]

No one considers victimhood a valuable trait. What's happening is that people aren't (as) shamed for having been a victim.

 

[Trey]

For the most part, I believe that no one has a right to not be offended.

What does this mean? Biologically and lawfully, an individual does indeed have the right to be offended. What more than that does a "right" consist?

Edit: ah, read it wrong. My bad.

Yeah, sure.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I think you can get a lot from being offended. It's telling on what your own core values are, and they can help either reinforcing them, or maybe make you disrupt them. And that is a good thing. As such being a victim of outrage culture is usually just a indicator of having your head too far up your own houlier-than-thou ass, just as outrage outrage culture probably is ironically, the same.
When I get offended at something, I think a certain amount of the time, maybe 1/3 of the time, it's due to my own exposure to it. I choose to put my dick in the hornets nest, and then I act surprised when I get the sting.

That's what I feel happens people go into a comedy club and start heckling a performance, trying to turn what is obviously harmless entertainment into a charade about their suffering, or the suffering of the group they belong to.
There is almost always (in those discussions) arguments being put forward about it "trivializing X" but that is horseshit. Comedy and satire at a stand-up show is not some allocate system were select groups should be allowed to make themselves exempt from being made fun of.


I think a bigger problem is that people seem to navigate towards online spaces were they are surrounded by a majority of people who think like themselves, and that is concerning. If you're only navigating with people who share your feelings and philosophies then you're basically talking to a vacuum. A massive part of living in a society is to get along with people you wouldn't normally get along with.
So I don't understand why you would just coin shit in this sort of absolutist semantics. Most people are walking contradictions shaped by their upbringing, lifestyle and a variety of other factors, and the idea that you're just this or that, based on what you feel about X or Y is crazy to me.
It's not a NeoGAF thing, or a internet thing. It's probably always been a human thing to circle around the people who feel like you, so you can be re-affirmed in your beliefs.

But I think this is a disservice to your own growth and your own ability to see the nuances, as well as your own bullshit. Being provoked/offended is a tool you can use to see were your feelings start pressuring you. Being upset at things won't stop people from having those thoughts. Firing someone for saying something ignorant is not going to stop someone for being ignorant, more than beating your child is going to help them be subordinate. It's going to help get what you want in the short term, but down the line it spawns a lot of behaviors which people then repeat on others, and nobody learns anything, other than to check if the coast is clear from trouble before they spew their ignorant/hateful shit.

 

[dity]

I do think outrage culture has gotten out of hand. For the most part, I believe that no one has a right to not be offended. If it bothers you, change the station/walk away. Especially if you or the person is in no physical danger.

Wait, that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your post. Did you put the "not" in there by mistake?

 

[No Life King]

What does this mean? Biologically and lawfully, an individual does indeed have the right to be offended. What more than that does a "right" consist?

Edit: ah, read it wrong. My bad.

Yeah, sure.

I think we agree lol. I know it sort of reads weird.

Oh, nvm then. We cool.

 

[No Life King]

Wait, that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your post. Did you put the "not" in there by mistake?

I'll try to be more specific. You and I, I feel, have a right to offend and be offended. I do not think though that people should feel automatically entitled to be not offended by others. Does that make any more sense? Sorry, it's late over here, dude. I hope this makes more sense.

 

[dity]

People keep mentioning satire, but it seems to come across as a shield to me. Where do you draw the line between something being shitty and something being satire? I mean, the man who played Kramer on Seinfeld, Michael Richards, went on a racist rant and tried to hide behind the defence of "I'm not racist!" Was it satire then? What exactly was his rant supposed to be?

I know it's a very extreme example, but like... Where's the line drawn?

I'll try to be more specific. You and I, I feel, have a right to offend and be offended. I do not think though that people should feel automatically entitled to be not offended by others. Does that make any more sense? Sorry, it's late over here, dude. I hope this makes more sense.

Oh oh, so people shouldn't feel like they need to shoulder their offence? Is that it? It's sweltering hot where I live and I'm quite tired too and double negative territory boggles my brain right now.

 

[Kurita]

People have always been offended by dumb shit, they just have more tools to share their outrage now.

 

[Einchy]

People keep mentioning satire, but it seems to come across as a shield to me. Where do you draw the line between something being shitty and something being satire? I mean, the man who played Kramer on Seinfeld, Michael Richards, went on a racist rant and tried to hide behind the defence of "I'm not racist!" Was it satire then? What exactly was his rant supposed to be?

I know it's a very extreme example, but like... Where's the line drawn?

That is a pretty shitty example because he never claimed what he was doing satire.

He said he wasn't racist, he lost his temper and wanted to say the worst thing possible to the people who made him angry. No lines were drawn there, everyone knows he fucked up and so did he. He even went on letterman and apologized and didn't hide behind anything, he owned up to his mistake.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I'very Trump talk about us being too politically correct. I've heard that comedians avoid college campuses because the stadents get way too offended. Internet outrage happens weekly. Are we just too thin skinned these days?

Yes, we are more offended compared to taking a man's life because he whistled at your wife and happened to be black. Or kicking your daughter out the house and family because she had sex. Those are just mild examples of offense.

All those things are less than an internet topic. Or people complaining at a comedian.

If anything, now we have a better understanding of the word. I'm not sure what my father's generation calls offense.

 

[way more]

People keep mentioning satire, but it seems to come across as a shield to me. Where do you draw the line between something being shitty and something being satire? I mean, the man who played Kramer on Seinfeld, Michael Richards, went on a racist rant and tried to hide behind the defence of "I'm not racist!" Was it satire then? What exactly was his rant supposed to be?

I know it's a very extreme example, but like... Where's the line drawn?

I don't think he hid behind a defense of "I'm not racist." He was quite apologetic and said he was working to figure out where that side of him came from. He never claimed it was satire.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Can Louis CK still make an offensive joke because he does it with the right context? Yes? Then we're not PC.

That's how I measure it. Eddie Murphy's bits about gay people wouldn't have flied today, because the context was "Lol gays are disgusting and weird amirite?".

 

[captainraincoat]

i miss the good ol days when Eddie Murphy was actually funny and we got the RAW and Delirious combo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQMLuXQCtp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvYcAiWcNHU

for those that dont laugh at that....fuck you and go back to your sleeve tattoos/beard/cardigan and soy latte enemas

 

[Kurita]

for those that dont laugh at that....fuck you and go back to your sleeve tattoos/beard/cardigan and soy latte enemas

Yeah that'll teach'em!

 

[tkscz]

i miss the good ol days when Eddie Murphy was actually funny and we got the RAW and Delirious combo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQMLuXQCtp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvYcAiWcNHU

for those that dont laugh at that....fuck you and go back to your sleeve tattoos/beard/cardigan and soy latte enemas

Oh no, these are hilarious. Dated more by his clothes than some of his jokes. Again, the same amount of people who were offended by this are the same now as they were then. The only difference is we now have the internet, so those people who were separate now have a place to shout and we've taken notice. If you honestly look or speak to people off the internet, you'd be surprised how many more people aren't as sensitive as the internet has you believe.

 

[Pankratous]

Yes, definitely.

Over the past few years people have been getting more and more offended at smaller and smaller things. This post will probably offend people.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Complex question

-comedians are having trouble working out their sets
-students not open to opposing points of view on campus
-people being called out for outright disgusting statements more and more (this is good)
-people are losing their jobs over one statement, and then being hounded afterwards (ie that woman who made a horrible joke about aids while flying over Africa)

it kinda feels like people are somewhat more easily offended these days, in both good and bad ways. I'm happy people are getting called out over some of the things they say, but a bit worried about the extent of the blowback some people are getting due to social media.

 

[IpsoFacto]

Yes. Too easily offended. Even worse, many people seem to have been programmed to proactively search for anything that could be deemed as offensive.

 

[Capitan]

i think plenty of people definitely are. like when i call someone a pussy, and people assume that using such a word to mean "coward" means that you hate women, or something. they should chill out and stop being such pussies.

 

[dity]

That is a pretty shitty example because he never claimed what he was doing satire.

He said he wasn't racist, he lost his temper and wanted to say the worst thing possible to the people who made him angry. No lines were drawn there, everyone knows he fucked up and so did he. He even went on letterman and apologized and didn't hide behind anything, he owned up to his mistake.

Do comedians generally come out and say what they're doing is satire though? Richards admits in his apology that he "pushes the envelope" and "gets in character".

I don't think he hid behind a defense of "I'm not racist." He was quite apologetic and said he was working to figure out where that side of him came from. He never claimed it was satire.

He explicitly said he wasn't racist. "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane this." It's at 4:25 if the skip doesn't work. He also thought that being outrageous and over the top would defuse the situation.

 

[anaron]

a couple years ago I probably would disagree but yeah, honestly, I think we have.

That's not to say "fuck PC!" or any of that gross nonsense but there's a really viscous and active kind of bullying from "progressive" people that are shaping a toxic environment and preventing any sort of meaningful dialogue.

 

[Fuzzery]

absolutely 100% no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I honestly believe people just look for reasons to be "offended" sometimes too. People need thicker skin

However I now see mods have swarmed in so that is all I shall say, I'm watching you bish.

The froggy shit is real

 

[No Life King]

Complex question

-comedians are having trouble working out their sets
-students not open to opposing points of view on campus
-people being called out for disgusting statements more and more
-people are losing their jobs over one statement, and then being hounded afterwards (ie that woman who made a horrible joke about aids while flying over Africa)

it kinda feels like people are somewhat more easily offended these ways, in both good and bad ways. I'm happy people are getting called out over some of the things they say, but a bit worried about the extent of the blowback some people are getting due to social media.

You listed my biggest problem with this entire issue. This sort of knee-jerk reaction silences any potential communication from an opposing viewpoint for fear of being labeled insensitive, a bigot, misogynist etc...

 

[GrantDaNasty]

Everyone has a right to an opinion, doesn't necessarily mean they're right or wrong, or that it even needs to be heard, but that's for the "offending party" to decide.

 

[Keasar]

Complex question

-comedians are having trouble working out their sets
-students not open to opposing points of view on campus
-people being called out for disgusting statements more and more
-people are losing their jobs over one statement, and then being hounded afterwards (ie that woman who made a horrible joke about aids while flying over Africa)

it kinda feels like people are somewhat more easily offended these ways, in both good and bad ways. I'm happy people are getting called out over some of the things they say, but a bit worried about the extent of the blowback some people are getting due to social media.

I agree on that. I think that if someone is actually saying a racist thing with the intent of being racist, they should be called out for it, but the way I see it going down right now is that instead of having a meaningful conversation about it people are being hunted down in social media to be shamed, bullied and thrown in the dirt. This is not a solution for the long term, all this does is create more hate and I just cannot stand on this "politically correct" side if their solution is to ruin peoples lives, bigots/racists/sexists/whatever-bad-thing-ist or not.

That story about the woman who tweeted the aids comment for instance horrified me. The reaction she got for a bad joke on the internet was absolutely appalling coming from a group who wants to "better people".

 

[Einchy]

Do comedians generally come out and say what they're doing is satire though? Richards admits in his apology that he "pushes the envelope" and "gets .

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

But no, most comedians don't have to spell out that what they are doing is satire since everyone can figure it out.

Not sure why you're doubling down on your comparison since what happened with Kramer has nothing to do with satire or "pushing the envelope" of comedy.

 

[Grep]

For me, " the real men" should never be offended about anything. If a person (openly or furtively) speaks bad about you, there is no reason for you to react in bad manner, but just to in the most neutral way possible, you know, poker face all the time.

I do realize that these type of man is not that common, but I respect that as a virtue.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

Sigh. Is already time for our monthly "we're too PC" thread?

To answer your question, no we are not too easily offended these days. People are just as offendable as they always have been. What you are witnessing OP is those people now having the ability to be more vocal about it.

Well, i didn't expect an answer as good as that in the first few posts!

People have always been offended, i think to add to the above, because people can easily be more vocal about it, they are vocal about anything and everything that even slightly offends
In times before the internet and sound bite social media, if you wanted to make a song and dance about something, the barrier of having to write a complaint made people actually think before complaining and come to the realisation that perhaps their minor offence was just that, and not worth trying to impose your world view on others

Now as said, you can easily type out how offended you are on the internet in seconds, and get gratification from a small but vocal minority in seconds

*obligatory this thread offends me joke*

 

[Chozolore]

Complex question

-comedians are having trouble working out their sets
-students not open to opposing points of view on campus
-people being called out for disgusting statements more and more
-people are losing their jobs over one statement, and then being hounded afterwards (ie that woman who made a horrible joke about aids while flying over Africa)

it kinda feels like people are somewhat more easily offended these ways, in both good and bad ways. I'm happy people are getting called out over some of the things they say, but a bit worried about the extent of the blowback some people are getting due to social media.

That one is bizarre, because the tweet was clearly satire, the Righteous indignation from those that dog piled.... Deliberately misconstrued or they are actually not at all that bright.

The thought police will quite happily throw someone under a bus, possibly literally.

 

[DrBo42]

What does froggy mean? Should I be offended? I think not being able to laugh it off when you order super mild curry as a white man (I'm a white man that can't handle very spicy things too) and your receipt says "white ppl" is a little ridiculous. I mean fuck, that's hilarious.

 

[dity]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

But no, most comedians don't have to spell out that what they are doing is satire since everyone can figure it out.

Not sure why you're doubling down on your comparison since what happened with Kramer has nothing to do with satire or "pushing the envelope".

What I'm getting at is when challenged, fans or the offender will claim satire and just put forth that you don't understand.

I honestly don't think everyone can figure out if something's satire. I mean, Michael was at a comedy club and he's a Seinfeld funny man. Surely he was just doing satire, right? Or Daniel Tosh and his rape joke? Surely satire as he's a comedian right?

And how does it have nothing to do with satire or pushing the envelope when he admitted it in his own words? He didn't explicitly say "satire" but he did think making it into a big kerfuffle would defuse everything. I don't know how, but he did.

That one is bizarre, because the tweet was clearly satire, the Righteous indignation from those that dog piled.... Deliberately misconstrued or they are actually not at all that bright.

The thought police will quite happily throw someone under a bus, possibly literally.

This is what I mean. It was "clearly satire" and not just a god awful joke?

 

[Chozolore]

What does froggy mean? Should I be offended? I think not being able to laugh it off when you order super mild curry as a white man (I'm a white man that can't handle very spicy things too) and your receipt says "white ppl" is a little ridiculous. I mean fuck, that's hilarious.

I don't think race has anything to do with spicy preference. It's cultural and individual.

 

[Chozolore]

What I'm getting at is when challenged, fans or the offender will claim satire and just put forth that you don't understand.

I honestly don't think everyone can figure out if something's satire. I mean, Michael was at a comedy club and he's a Seinfeld funny man. Surely he was just doing satire, right? Or Daniel Tosh and his rape joke? Surely satire as he's a comedian right?

And how does it have nothing to do with satire or pushing the envelope when he admitted it in his own words? He didn't explicitly say "satire" but he did think making it into a big kerfuffle would defuse everything. I don't know how, but he did.



This is what I mean. It was "clearly satire" and not just a god awful joke?

State what was awful about the joke?

If you're not sure about the intent or don't understand, give the benefit of the doubt. I understand some find it hard to comprehend humour.

 

[Henkka]

People have always been offended and had moral panics etc... I guess the difference now is that the people panicking are really young. Instead of parents panicking over D&D and rock music, it's college students panicking over microaggressions.

 

[Mechazawa]

Someone post that Stewart Lee bit.

Ah, fuck it, I'll do it.

 

[hodgy100]

Yup.

It's funny how often the people accusing others of overreacting or being too easily offended are the ones that are actually overreacting.

this happened with the MGS5 quiet stuff. People were jsut pointing out how her attire / behaviour in gameplay is at complete odds to how the story was trying to present her and it made her character arc worse as a result. and people got up in arms about it like people were going round saying "ban this sick filth" all of a sudden people are anti-sex and prudes because they was their characters to be better XD

 

[Trokil]

Yes, because most people want to be inside their little bubbles, where they only hear what the like to hear. That's why they surround themselfs with people with similar views and are very aggressiv against other ideas.

The build their own communities, their own TV channels, internet boards and even shops. And this is not a conservative thing anymore, the "liberals" also build their little bubbles for quite some time.

 

[Jake.]

how is trump formed?
how stadent get pragnent?