• Chris Rock Stopped Performing for Students Because Everything Offends Them
    125 replies, posted
[QUOTE=27X;46669309]There's nothing progressive about it. Progressiveness was founded by rich white old money people who wanted everyone to have an equal shot at realizing happiness and fulfillment in [B]theory[/B]; in practice they were as racist and ideologically slanted as everyone else around them. TR was a casual racist despite having Booker T. Washington eat with him one night; the supposed incorruptible bullmoose bowed and said publically he regretted inviting him, and at the end of his term he discharged a black army unit with dishonor, a unit he knew was falsely accused of a crime they did not commit, a unit that contained a man who [B]shared his rations with him every night during the San Juan campaign[/B] because dumbass teddy refused to take cover and had his pack horse with all his food on it shot out from under him, and he never bothered to go back for it, and in thanks he had this man publicly disgraced and thrown out of his lifelong profession. He was also a rampant Imperialist and thought the dumb brown people needed help from the rich white people to secure meaningful national existence, as evidence by his trickeration to get the panama canal built. FDR wasn't much better, and all the institutionalized sexism and racism under his watch continued rather openly despite his teatime handwaving objections to it. Progressive. The only progressive in that bunch was Eleanor.[/QUOTE] TR =/= modern progressivism. So I'm not sure what you're point is. This mentality of protecting everyone from offense springs from the line of thought that special interest groups (minorities, women, LBGT, etc.) need to be protected from oppression from the majority. It's simply advocating in personal interactions what progressives usually only advocate for governmental and economic interaction. If not progressive, then most definitely leftist. There's just nothing conservative about it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46670659] If not progressive, then most definitely leftist. There's just nothing conservative about it.[/QUOTE] The word conservative has a definition outside of political parlance. You can relax, no one is trying to compare you to the dreaded Progressive.
Also, personal offense seems to be a substitution for moral truth. Instead of saying, "It is morally wrong to think less of someone because of their skin color, therefore I don't like it when people disparage other's based on their skin color," people say, "I'm offended when someone thinks less of another person because of their skin color, therefore I don't like it when people disparage other's based on their skin color." I don't get offended by words, but this doesn't mean that I don't make moral judgements about the words that people use. Offense is not necessary and very rarely useful because of it's inherent subjectivity.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46670649]yeah i think alot of people here take this supposed PC extreme in the opposite direction, where no word can ever be offensive. i think it should be looked at (in this comedian case) like the difference between chris rocks performances (well known shock humour & stuff) and that guy from seinfield that started screaming at black people in the crowd that they were niggers. i think it's not wrong to be offended at the latter but silly to take the former so seriously[/QUOTE] That's why I stated context is important. My worry is people remove the context to feel offended.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46670682]The word conservative has a definition outside of political parlance. You can relax, no one is trying to compare you to the dreaded Progressive.[/QUOTE] Please, tell me how this type of thinking fits with any definition of conservative. I get that you're trying to be witty, but I literally don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46670695]That's why I stated context is important. My worry is people remove the context to feel offended.[/QUOTE] yeah i agree, context is everything
[QUOTE=sgman91;46670702]Please, tell me how this type of thinking fits with any definition of conservative. I get that you're trying to be witty, but I literally don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]2 not excessively showy <dressing in conservative outfits so as to make a good impression at job interviews>[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] 3 having or showing a close attentiveness to avoiding danger or trouble <made conservative investments, and so he wasn't ruined when the market went into a free fall>[/QUOTE] But in terms of speech. Basically he is saying college students don't want to hear what they perceive as "dangerous" or edgy comedy. He outright says it has nothing to do with their political affiliation.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46670759]But in terms of speech. Basically he is saying college students don't want to hear what they perceive as "dangerous" or edgy comedy. He outright says it has nothing to do with their political affiliation.[/QUOTE] I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. We see it fundamentally differently. You see it as them trying to stifle the boldness of his speech and I see it as trying to conform his speech to their ideals. They would be perfectly fine with bold speech that offended the right kind of people (the rich, politicians, etc.) It isn't that they're being conservative with speech, but that they have a dictatorial desire to command speech to be a certain way.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46670820]I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. We see it fundamentally differently. You see it as them trying to stifle the boldness of his speech and I see it as trying to conform his speech to their ideals. They would be perfectly fine with bold speech that offended the right kind of people (the rich, politicians, etc.) It isn't that they're being conservative with speech, but that they have a dictatorial desire to command speech to be a certain way.[/QUOTE] i think the 'pc brigade' would be just as offended over rich people/politicians being called niggers or retarded or something
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;46668578]I can't say I'm surprised George carlin said that.[/QUOTE] George Carlin was ahead of his time... predicted so many things through his comedy routines. IMO smartest comedian to date, understands the truth. (that the government doesn't give a fuck about anybody other than expanding their own power)
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46670826]i think the 'pc brigade' would be just as offended over rich people/politicians being called niggers or retarded or something[/QUOTE] I agree, but I'm talking about saying things that would only offend the rich or those who align with the rich. (monstrous robber barons cracking the whip over the people they treat as slaves, for example) The words you mentioned would still be offensive to other groups that these people like to protect, and they would therefore still not like those words.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46670894]I agree, but I'm talking about saying things that would only offend the rich or those who align with the rich. (monstrous robber barons cracking the whip over the people they treat as slaves, for example) The words you mentioned would still be offensive to other groups that these people like to protect, and they would therefore still not like those words.[/QUOTE] i guess one of the things that people with this mindset believe (and i guess i partially share this mindset just not to such an extreme maybe? some people would probably disagree) is that groups with privilege & power aren't disnenfranchised by stereotypes & slurs & all that
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46670926]i guess one of the things that people with this mindset believe (and i guess i partially share this mindset just not to such an extreme maybe? some people would probably disagree) is that groups with privilege & power aren't disnenfranchised by stereotypes & slurs & all that[/QUOTE] Personally, I think the best place to decide what words are acceptable and what word aren't is in the public forum with honest discussion, not shouting matches and university bans (I'm not saying that you agree with these). I'm up for letting pretty much everyone and anyone speak on a campus where people can analyse and discuss their message afterwards. This allows real freedom of thought which will hopefully lead to correct conclusions. Stifling discussion just tell me that a person is afraid of letting people make up their own mind. My original point was even simpler than that though. I just don't see any connection with any sort of conservative thought in this because, like I said, these people aren't against offensive speech in general (which would be a conservative outlook in the classical usage of the word). They are against offensive speech that relates to certain groups that they look at as protected. They want to control speech in order to conform it to their political ideology instead of allowing people to make up their own mind after hearing it. I see clarity in word usage to be extremely important. It's so easy to slightly misconstrue a word and have others make incorrect conclusions because of it.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46668574]Well its true, Gavin from RT is being crucified for saying retard. People are so fucking sensitive to words now that its insane.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people got to be so damn sensitive. What kills me worse is the people who get offended for other people.
i'm OK with this style of humor as long as it's actually clever and well thought out. if somebody just says something offensive to get a rise out of people, not only is it just straight up bad/lazy comedy, it actually IS kind of offensive. you're just insulting people and there's no punchline, and the only people impressed by that kind of thing are people who think that saying something offensive is automatically funny. if you're making a REAL joke, i at least know not to take it to heart and can respect it. can't really think of specific examples of jokes off the top of my head but i'd say a good example of a comedian with this style is Louis CK and a bad example is Daniel Tosh.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46668698]All you ever do is meaningless passive aggressive crap and then when called out you try to handwave it away and backpedal instead of making an actual argument. Thisispain did it better than you, and it bit him in the ass. Where do you think you're going to go right that he didn't? I never answered your question a while ago about why I tend to treat you like an idiot. Its a simple answer though: you tend to act like one. So do you have an actual argument for the point raised by the article, or are you here to shitpost? If you've got an argument, make it, and then this thread can have an actual debate about it.[/QUOTE] sigmalambda may be gone, but his spirit lives on
Student politics is crap. The left-wing Home Counties SWP shitheads who run the show at every AGM are bad enough, but when I go to the Conservative Society and find everyone reacting to the growth of UKIP by doubling down on the Cameronite crap and decrying what was party policy but a few short years ago, I repeatedly find become astonished that there are people out there more out-of-touch than me.
I 110% agree with him. I don't really know what the fuck happened to my generation (from 25 to 35 years old), when did they feel so entitled to feel offended at absolutely EVERYTHING. It's no coincidence that plenty of SJWs, feminists and pretty much the vast majority of annoying cunts on the internet are around my age (I'm 30). If anything, it makes me feel more bitter and cynical about people my age. [editline]8th December 2014[/editline] [quote]About eight years ago. Probably a couple of tours ago. It was just like, This is not as much fun as it used to be. I remember talking to George Carlin before he died and him saying the exact same thing.[/quote] This is the most important thing - an older comedian, who has grown up with the previous generation, noting that the newer generation was just as annoying and easily offended than the last. That speaks volumes about what kind of people we've turned into.
Sensitivity culture is destroying comedy, especially on twitter. Anyone else see the flak Patton Oswalt gets over literally nothing?
George Carlin said that? Damn. Funny all the legal shit you go through so college kids can laugh at his jokes and now look. I'm all about being sensitive to peoples feelings but I do believe in the whole "time and place" concept. Anyone with half a brain knows Chris Rock isn't some terrible bigot. I don't get why people can't put political correctness aside for like a 45 minute set at a comedy gig. What can we do though? There are so many groups out there scanning media just to find something they can blow up be it for support, money and attention. Chris is still going to be Chris just not around a college and hopefully they'll get the message and try to have a good time. I mean it's college, right?
[QUOTE=RainbowPillows;46671712]George Carlin said that? Damn. Funny all the legal shit you go through so college kids can laugh at his jokes and now look. I'm all about being sensitive to peoples feelings but I do believe in the whole "time and place" concept.[/QUOTE] I disagree. If one goes to a stand-up comedy show, one should be well aware of what that entails - which means that everything said by the performer is said for comedic purposes and under no circumstances it means that the comedian stands by that at all. Here's a little snippet of "Talking Funny", where Louis CK addresses this (at 41:05). [video=youtube;OKY6BGcx37k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKY6BGcx37k&feature=youtu.be&t=41m5s[/video] [editline]8th December 2014[/editline] I insist. Reading about such political correctness and "offendedness" all over reddit, Facebook, even here... it's so damn annoying. I'm not saying we should all turn into disrespectful cunts, but there's a massive difference between being curteous and educated, and being politically correct, with is (IMHO) an exageration of said trait.
[QUOTE=J!NX;46668590]Louis CK has taken his place[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? Louis CK is a funny guy but nowhere near on terms with George Carlin. And I remember hearing Louis CK talk on O&A before when I actually listened to that shit, and Louis CK came off as EXACTLY the overprotective liberal parent that George Carlin talked shit on in his day. I still love louis CK but he can get offended just as easily as these young people as well. Bill Burr comes off more as the guy to bring up uncomfortable and offensive things and actually deal with them on stage and make humor out of them, and in every special he gets a tough crowd because people don't like laughing when things offend them. Louis CK isn't the same kind of humor, he doesn't really bring up anything too political, social, his humor is more a depreciative parody of himself and his own inner dialogue.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;46671976]I disagree. If one goes to a stand-up comedy show, one should be well aware of what that entails - which means that everything said by the performer is said for comedic purposes and under no circumstances it means that the comedian stands by that at all.[/QUOTE] That's literally exactly how I feel though. By "time and place" I meant that people should be able to let go of that hypersensitivity in certain situations like a comedy show. It's written sort of trippy though I get it.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';46674080]Are you kidding me? Louis CK is a funny guy but nowhere near on terms with George Carlin. And I remember hearing Louis CK talk on O&A before when I actually listened to that shit, and Louis CK came off as EXACTLY the overprotective liberal parent that George Carlin talked shit on in his day. I still love louis CK but he can get offended just as easily as these young people as well. Bill Burr comes off more as the guy to bring up uncomfortable and offensive things and actually deal with them on stage and make humor out of them, and in every special he gets a tough crowd because people don't like laughing when things offend them. Louis CK isn't the same kind of humor, he doesn't really bring up anything too political, social, his humor is more a depreciative parody of himself and his own inner dialogue.[/QUOTE] TBH I prefer CK over Carlin because nothing makes me laugh harder than pathetic white dad humor.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;46668565]I am so triggered right now. holy fuck, imagine George Carlin in this day and age? Tumblr would burst into flames[/QUOTE] I only found out about George Carlin like last year. As someone who spent a lot of his childhood on Facepunch, Counter-Strike, and Garry's Mod, so that they were used to everyone being offensive, I found him fucking [I]hilarious.[/I]
[Media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=qNYNMC68kq4[/media]
I for one am tired of all this offensive stuff that those kikes and darkies in the comedy industry put out.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46670465] The college mindset lately is pushing for try to never push your boundries if it might offend someone. Everything needs to be a hugbox where no one can criticize because you might hurt their feelings while hiding behind trigger words that are beyond ridiculous to justify it. If you don't fall in line, the everyone else will attack you personally to stop you.[/QUOTE] I'm actually a college student that can be "defined" as such into the whole hug-box mentality in trying to push for disabled students representation and welfare, and I definitely agree with this. There's a huge problem within activist groups, and even as an LGBT+ person, I have been typed at by angry keyboard warriors for getting one terminology wrong. That is where a huge problem lies when you get people not wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, or when you apologise and ask for clarification, you are told to 'educate yourself'. I think the fallacy revolves around attempts to 'No Platform' indiscriminately - one example was I was asked to vote on allowinig all political parties onto campus or not at all, yet was both personally aware and alerted by disabled students about one of the parties poor track record with treatment of disabled people. I voted against the parties, but I also acknowledge that political debate is important, and feeling 'triggered' is not an excuse to disenfranchise from the political scene. Censoring political debate (especially in a time of a General Election) is not fair on students that want to get engaged, especially as voting apathy is what causes problems in our own systems.
[QUOTE=Alex Rider;46682443]I'm actually a college student that can be "defined" as such into the whole hug-box mentality in trying to push for disabled students representation and welfare, and I definitely agree with this. There's a huge problem within activist groups, and even as an LGBT+ person, I have been typed at by angry keyboard warriors for getting one terminology wrong. That is where a huge problem lies when you get people not wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, or when you apologise and ask for clarification, you are told to 'educate yourself'. I think the fallacy revolves around attempts to 'No Platform' indiscriminately - one example was I was asked to vote on allowinig all political parties onto campus or not at all, yet was both personally aware and alerted by disabled students about one of the parties poor track record with treatment of disabled people. I voted against the parties, but I also acknowledge that political debate is important, and feeling 'triggered' is not an excuse to disenfranchise from the political scene. Censoring political debate (especially in a time of a General Election) is not fair on students that want to get engaged, especially as voting apathy is what causes problems in our own systems.[/QUOTE] The whole concept of "no platform" just seems like a hollow excuse for censoring differing opinions and perspectives. Everything, especially the things you think are hateful and vile, should have a platform. A hateful idea can't be argued against unless it's addressed, and it can't be addressed if no one is allowed to say what it is. Prejudice and phobia thrives in the ignorance bred by censorship.
You need platforms. You need somewhere where everything and anything is okay. That's one of the most important things that art offers the world. Imagine if things had continued to be censored in the same way it was in the 50's. And art that gradually exposed people to taboo things eventually helped destroy the harmfully rigid social expectations in the 50's. Do I want people to walk around saying "nigger" like they have Tourette Syndrome? Obviously not. But what if there is a problem in our society that isn't being addressed that needs to be? On the flip side, calling you an asshole for calling the president a monkey is not the same thing as censorship. And you probably shouldn't be harassing people; that's shitty behavior against a person.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.