• Louis C.K. Is A Moral Detective: What does it mean to be 'offensive'?
    18 replies, posted
[video=youtube;pOO1AX7_jXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOO1AX7_jXw[/video] A few comments: [quote]You're right. We must trust comedians to help navigate us through the abstract, murky, undefined territory of "morality", even if they lead us to places we find uncomfortable or wrong. However, this does not give comedians a free pass or impunity. Bad comedy is still bad comedy, especially, shock humour, in which talentless comedians try to hit the lowest common denominator by provoking shocked reactions by saying radically offensive or insulting statements. Louis CK is not one of these talentless comedians. Notice how he holds our hand and delicately guides us to the logical conclusion that child molesters must really love molesting children, especially if they are putting their lives in danger to do so. This is not a shocking statement. It is an inevitable conclusion to what Louis CK was saying. If we are confounded and offended by a logical conclusion, rather than an outlying statement, it reflects poorly on us as a society; either we've hit an area in which we are very ignorant, hypocritical or both. And this is very true for pedophilia and child molestation. Often when we approach the issue, our first response is to 'kill all child rapists and pedophiles'. This is great for getting rid of the immediate problem, but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding why child molesters do what they do and how they become who they are. Rather than arrogantly condemning all child molesters, we ought to sit them down and try to learn where their behaviour stems from so we can prevent this type of behaviour in the future and reduce harm to children. Is it a mental illness? Is it a sexual orientation? Is it socially constructed? Is it seen throughout anthropological history? We must learn to address and deconstruct child molestation critically and thoroughly rid our ignorance of the issue. And to give credit to Louis CK, we wouldn't even be having this discussion is it wasn't for him. The man is a genius. Those that irrationally struck back against his stand-up fail to look at the bigger picture. At least he has the confidence to make us talk about the problem. Those that were offended would rather us never talk on the issue, inadvertently allowing thousands more children to be put into harm's way.[/quote] [quote]Honestly, I think the rise in PC Police vs Comedians is due to our culture obtaining a more enlightened state. Life isn't really a struggle anymore. We have bad days sure, and there is still a lot of needless human suffering of course; but by and large, we all have enough resources and our standard quality of life is fine (for Western Civ at least - you know what I mean). The problem is pluralism and the deluge of different modes of thought that is now available due to the Internet - which is still a very new phenomenon and unprecedented in history. When Seinfeld says people don't know what they're talking about, I agree. The things social justice warriors rail against seem petty and childish. Real racism and hatred usually involves killing or demeaning, not just poking fun. We all have it so good now that we're just looking for anything at all to complain about. ... [b]A response to the previous comment:[/b] I was about to respond to the video with a message saying basically the same thing. However, I wanted to add that it's now very easy for us to find things which anger us and to complain about due to the internet. The people who are angry at Louis I presume are truly trying to make the world a better place, but I think they lack a broad enough world-view to realize that what they are angry about isn't necessarily a bad thing. And, to a degree, Anger has that quality about it which pushes aside nuance. I think that as we continue to grow as a civilization one of the things we are going to need to adjust to. We as a society need to develop the collective ability to recognize that the new multiplicity of things which make us upset do not always necessitate an angry response.[/quote] [quote]I don't comment often so I may not fit the norm. First of all I am a Stand-up amateur and I am also a proponent of may social justice causes. I find this dichotomy fascinating and like most dichotomies false. I think we need to accept a gradient. I have a story of an example. For instance I have a bit about the death penalty. I pretend to be someone who is proposing our system in a world where there isn't one. I take on a creepy demeanor and describe our normal system in unusual terms to expose some absurdities. During one performance a woman in the front row said "I was the victim of a violent crime" Clearly this bit was disturbing her. Most of the club was comics and didn't hear her and immediately turned on her, like she was a heckler. I was caught like a dear in headlights. I quickly and clumsily turned the focus to myself and my own ideas unimportance as a amateur stand up at an open mic in central Indiana. The crowd turned from her and she quietly left shortly there after. The comedians were so quick to defend because so few people understand comedy like we do. Lious CK said to a heckler in the show that those five minutes might be the only part of the week comics live for and in many cases that's true. So they live in fear someone may try to take that away. In many cases the comics only power are their words. But she was hurt by my bit. I'm not sure of the circumstances of her problem but I am empathic to her reaction. So where on the gradient am I. I still do the bit. It may be my best one. But if something like this happens again, I will try to use my stage time to work through the audience reaction, try to learn something, try to be funny and communicate it. A little self indulgent but I felt the need to share. A little long and polite for a YouTube comment...anybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi. ... Your empathy towards your audience members who feel agitated by your "death penalty" bit is admiring. However, I think the perception of the recipient of the message is as important as much as the content of the message. The limitations of that perceptions speak more of the recipient than the message itself. In the case of a victim of child molestation, or violent crime she/he may feel their that trauma is made fun of. But that was not the message, or the intent. The message asks how absurd it is that a child molester goes to molest a child despite the legal and social implications of such an act, that they are willing to risk their freedom to commit such a crime. It is an important insight I think to see parts of the problem of child molestation than the default reaction which is to point fingers and throw convicts in long-term jail sentences. The effects of the joke itself can be argued, but no one can truly gauge all the range of reactions that all people can have. Some get offended, some don't, some don't care. That is true for all kinds of jokes, is it not? I think it really is up to the audience to decide through discourse if it is offensive, yet we have to settle that what we find offensive may not be found offensive by others in a different time. I personally find the bit interesting. His intent was not to make fun of victims, but the perpetrators by pointing out the absurdities. No one really discusses why pedophiles are attracted to children. The discussion starts and ends with the easy and comfortable default, pedophiles should be given harshest punishment be it death, solitary jail, life term, etc. We can accept and make fun of death in itself. It is even shown as comedy to children-daffy duck, rabbits, etc. It became acceptable and used in all media. Perhaps because we settled with the idea that death can happen for many different reasons, yet we don't make fun of all kinds of death, not all the time. So perhaps we are just not ready yet to have a comfortable discussion about pedophilia as a society and that is why so many of us don't like to be surprised to confront a topic we avoid by one of our most popular comedian when we expect to have a fun time.[/quote]
That was a really interesting video, kinda great to see a take on that kinda thing that isn't just extreme anger and outrage and stuff and more of an actual analysis
Basically the age old moral discussion of is it good because the gods like it or do the gods like it because it is good. In other words morality can either be defined by the consequences, usually in the form of utilitarianism, or otherwise it falls into some sort of virtue/abstract morality where goodness of intent is taken into consideration.
I definitely like this video because it does take on the issue from a more analytic perspective. I love Louis CK, and I thought the joke was funny, but at the end of the day the critics of the joke were also just as right to me. This is an issue that I struggle with sometimes because while the jokes are funny, and in fact I take part of my world outlook from people like Hicks and Carlin and Louis CK, and at the same time I'm generally very much in the social justice camp who understands that speech can be extremely harmful and indeed "offensive" when used recklessly. The road to hell was paved by good intentions and all that. Not really taking a stance either way, but this was a great video because is summed up the discussion in a way that's not really typical.
I believe, when it comes to comedy especially, that if you are offended by something unless it was a direct personal attack, then you're at fault for being offended. Not the offenders fault.
Those "The Talk" ladies pissed me off beyond belief. all morning talk shows are just idiot enablers. I mean Oprah enabled Jenny McCarthy to kill 9,000 (and counting) innocent children.
In the end, I feel its always the "I'm going to Hell for this, but..."
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48332463]Those "The Talk" ladies pissed me off beyond belief. all morning talk shows are just idiot enablers. I mean Opera enable Jenny McCarthy to kill 9,000 (and counting) innocent children.[/QUOTE] Clearly they'd never laugh at people who've had to undergo sexual trauma that left them disfigured for life, though. Surely they've shown in the past how above that they are.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48332564]"I know someone who" "I know someone who" "I know someone who" Yes, but you didn't go through it.[/QUOTE] They basically use someone else's suffering to boost their moral appearance. Sort of in the sense of "I'm a better person than you because I reached out to know this person who is suffering." The frustrating thing is how they only look at it from one dimension. The point of the joke actually went over their heads it hurts to watch, and even worse it turns into an echo chamber of confirming each others ideas on the subject. But then again it's no surprise because these are the kind of people who assume everyone has 100% control of their minds and actions and shame people for their weaknesses. Just because you are leading a perfect life doesn't mean it's because other people aren't trying. They don't understand the influences of psychology or sociology at all and it shows.
I hate "The Talk" I was getting my car fixed and it was one and they all started crying going "hurting people it bad and why do people hurt people, can we get some clarity here" Its like, uuuuuuugh kill me. Its so obvious that they're appealing to the weak minded people.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48332564]"I know someone who" "I know someone who" "I know someone who" Yes, but you didn't go through it.[/QUOTE] I did go through it, twice, and I laughed. In the era of "progressive" nannyism and an absolutely biblical deluge of upper middle-class white people who've never had a day of life-endangering harm or soul crushing destitution/poverty known to them telling me how to live my life because they know better, people and situations like Louis CK are absolutely vital to maintaining sanity and reason. Fervently wringing your hands on someone else's behalf, whom doesn't want your goddamn help to begin with has never ever solved anything. Ever. Communication, confrontation, clarity, and closure beget understanding and healing. Faux outrage and making your [i]theoretical[/i] opinion the law of the land does not.
To be honest it seems like most people who have gone through trauma actually do laugh at these "offensive" jokes.
The best kind of comedy is the comedy that he talked about. The kind of humor that sneaks little ideas into your head when you've previously never given them a single thought. I love Louis CK because his type of humor is what I like to call realist humor. George Carlin had the same style. Essentially an entire social commentary lined up in a nice, neat little or long joke. And not really even a joke per se, more like a funny story or an interesting thought process. My absolute favorite bit that Louis CK has ever done is when he talks about the internal conflicts he has between his rational and irrational mind. About how it's obvious that we need to take steps to prevent kids with allergic reactions to food from eating things that can kill them...but maybe if we just let it happen food allergies could leave our gene pool forever. It's comedy that if you're a logical person, you can't really disagree with. It makes sense. And it's that disconnect between the two that makes it so damn funny. Comedians like Louis CK and George Carlin have done a better job at "discussing" sensitive topics with the masses than full-blown news outlets with the manpower to do their own reporting and journalism. There is no swindling, there is no spinning. It's just comedy, and that's what makes it so great.
I got molested as a kid, and the best thing for it was definitely to learn to laugh about it. Gotta love those people using it as a device to make themselves look so ~compassionate~ and ~progressive~ not giving a single thought to the real life people. Honestly makes me feel more objectified than I do now about being molested :v:
This guy is a good writer and speaker
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48332463]Those "The Talk" ladies pissed me off beyond belief. all morning talk shows are just idiot enablers. I mean Oprah enabled Jenny McCarthy to kill 9,000 (and counting) innocent children.[/QUOTE] They didn't piss me off until they said "there is no forum in which this discussion is acceptable" (or something to that effect), which is some ignorant shit to say. Like shit, let's just not talk about it at all, that will solve the problem!
[QUOTE=haloguy234;48335349]The best kind of comedy is the comedy that he talked about. The kind of humor that sneaks little ideas into your head when you've previously never given them a single thought. I love Louis CK because his type of humor is what I like to call realist humor. George Carlin had the same style. Essentially an entire social commentary lined up in a nice, neat little or long joke. And not really even a joke per se, more like a funny story or an interesting thought process. My absolute favorite bit that Louis CK has ever done is when he talks about the internal conflicts he has between his rational and irrational mind. About how it's obvious that we need to take steps to prevent kids with allergic reactions to food from eating things that can kill them...but maybe if we just let it happen food allergies could leave our gene pool forever. It's comedy that if you're a logical person, you can't really disagree with. It makes sense. And it's that disconnect between the two that makes it so damn funny. Comedians like Louis CK and George Carlin have done a better job at "discussing" sensitive topics with the masses than full-blown news outlets with the manpower to do their own reporting and journalism. There is no swindling, there is no spinning. It's just comedy, and that's what makes it so great.[/QUOTE] I really liked the standup he did about spanking children. I was spanked as a child and am completely fine with it on occasion, but he helped to but the real issue into perspective for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.