• Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
    658 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910361]What David Foster Wallace called the academic style of English that they make you learn in school. It's a variant of a Midwestern-style of English that is [i]now[/i] associated with being literate and official. I've heard my professor call it "job search-speak," which I guess is her way of staying in tune with the black youth even though she's a professor. David Foster Wallace argued that teaching SWE is an appeal to dominant power-structures, and that teaching it has within it its own implications regarding how we place the way we speak into hierarchies. Linguists tend to agree that black people who speak AAVE and SWE do much better in socio-economic terms than people who are mono-dialectal in just AAVE.[/QUOTE] is this kind of like how people look down on poor people language? like when people say, "it be here" rather than "it is here" and people look down on them for it?
[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;47909669]Aziz Ansari is pretty funny, but for some reason he comes off to me as a PC cocksucker who just appeals to people who are overly PC.[/QUOTE] It might be because that's what his last few standup sets have been.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47910372]except the term "sjw" is a generalized term in itself. it's completely subjective to whoever's using it. you're calling people hypocrites for using generalizations while making a massive one yourself[/QUOTE] yeah it's like he's arguing against a figment of his imagination which is pretty fuckt
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910311]Sjw's think its the worst thing to use generalized terms but proudly do it themselves. I don't think its the worst thing.[/QUOTE] ah yes! "sjws". that vague title used specifically to discredit people for daring to try defending minorities or, god forbid, actually being a minority
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910315]There's argot, and then there's jargon. Sometimes it's important to implement labels such as "SJW" or "MRA," even though we may personally hate them, in order to communicate expediently. People aren't gonna sit down and say "Person who does this and that or the other thing under this context," whenever they wish to discuss a specific group of people or a concept. Jargon such "SJW" or "MRA" or whatever can be a useful tool provided that the people conversing can agree upon a definition and understand that it's alluding to concepts that are more complicated than merely a singular label. For example, we use the terms Republican and Democratic while understanding that individual members of each group can have wildly opposing opinions on many topics. We understand that it's not one homogenous group, but we use them anyway because it's an expedient way to refer to complex ideas.[/QUOTE] I don't think "MRA" can be conflated with "SJW" because many people do actually call themselves "MRA," and in fact there are forums and representatives who are held-up as figure-heads. To illustrate this, I'd point out that the "MRA" reddit is filled with people who are sympathetic while the SJW reddits are very clearly not. And like I pointed out, it's only expedient when you're already part of the group which agrees with the notion implicit in the argument; I'm already repeating myself though at this point.
[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910394]ah yes! "sjws". that vague title used specifically to discredit people for daring to try defending minorities or, god forbid, actually being a minority[/QUOTE] Or being a shithead. Hell, look at MaxofS2D.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910336]Video games?[/QUOTE] There was some talk of doing linguistics research into video-games but then that whole Gamersgate thing happens and now no-one here wants to do it anymore except me. Someone in Stockholm did an analysis of language in online games and it ended up with death threats or something because some weird YouTube dude brought it up in some video about feminism or something. Weird shit.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47910411]Or being a shithead. Hell, look at MaxofS2D.[/QUOTE] yeah that guy has feminist ideals, what a shithead!!! you tell'em
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910335]Take a guess at what I study.[/QUOTE] That explains everything.
Is a joke made with malicious intent? No? Then what the hell are you so upset about? I'll never understand this typical North American behavior. It's like some people [i]want[/i] to be upset. They [i]want[/i] to be offended. So they start to look for reasons to be offended. It's like a big race to see who can be the most offended. Why? Who the hell knows. Maybe it's to collect fake empathy points from the other perpetually offended. Even in the fucking Dark Ages they had this shit figured out. Court Jesters were able to say anything they wanted, no matter how offensive or inappropriate. You don't write rules on what people can or cannot make jokes about. That road leads straight to censorship and the death of free speech.
[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910394]ah yes! "sjws". that vague title used specifically to discredit people for daring to try defending minorities or, god forbid, actually being a minority[/QUOTE] Alright, can i just step in here and ask you what exactly it is you're trying to do? I can just FEEL the smug sense of superiority coming off of your posts because you feel as though you're doing the right thing saying stupid shit people keep pointing out to you as being either wrong, stupid, or just making no sense whatsoever. You barely even respond to any of the posts actually putting a good argument up against you. Could it be because you dont actually have anything to back up [i]anything[/i] you're saying other than "well IM just trying to be a beacon of moral hope in this land of degenerates"? The SJW term might be dumb to some people, but you cant honestly sit here, typing on your computer, actually say that the people the term was made for dont exist.
[QUOTE=Scum;47910379]is this kind of like how people look down on poor people language? like when people say, "it be here" rather than "it is here" and people look down on them for it?[/QUOTE] Pretty much. "SWE" is the language people who go to school speak, and schools in the United States are associated with privilege and wealth. It's analogous to North English dialects being lesser than Received Pronunciation and upper-class Southern English which is why it's now considered quite stuffy and elitist.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910403]I don't think "MRA" can be conflated with "SJW" because many people do actually call themselves "MRA," and in fact there are forums and representatives who are held-up as figure-heads. To illustrate this, I'd point out that the "MRA" reddit is filled with people who are sympathetic while the SJW reddits are very clearly not. And like I pointed out, it's only expedient when you're already part of the group which agrees with the notion implicit in the argument; I'm already repeating myself though at this point.[/QUOTE] But people call themselves SJW as well. It was originally a term made up not to disparage, but to extol. In both instances people tend use it to ridicule the other "side." In both cases they were terms turned into generalizations of a group that holds different ideologies.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47910372]except the term "sjw" is a generalized term in itself. it's completely subjective to whoever's using it. you're calling people hypocrites for using generalizations while making a massive one yourself[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure he knows sjw is a generalization, he isn't really a hypocrite if he accepts that he uses generalizations. he's saying people who say generalizations are bad, whom he is knowingly generalizing as "SJWs", while generalizing other groups such as "MRAs" and conservatives are themselves hypocrites. he doesn't seem to believe that generalizations are necessarily bad, so by him generalizing he isn't being a hypocrite, but someone who does believe generalizations are bad while still generalizing people would be a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47910449] The SJW term might be dumb to some people, but you cant honestly sit here, typing on your computer, actually say that the people the term was made for dont exist.[/QUOTE] It doesn't even matter if they exist or don't exist. As other people have said, it's simply a convenient word for an idea. At this point you have to reconsider the idea of "exist" entirely, because due to the internet literally everything exists.
[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910431]yeah that guy has feminist ideals, what a shithead!!! you tell'em[/QUOTE] He was a corrupt power abuser who banned people who disagreed with him and didn't fit his notion of a good person. He was a hypocrite who ignored arguments that refuted his claims and felt he was an untouchable amongst the common masses. He was an actively terrible person who used his claim to feminism as an excuse to abuse the powers he was given and put others down.
Terms like "sjw" refer to specific attitudes and behaviors. Being a left wing doesn't make you an sjw. Being overoffended doesn't make you an sjw either. You can be an overoffended conservative or just be a progressive. Sjw can mean many different things but in general it refers to progressive-minded people who want to censor to preserve peoples feelings or people who support "reverse racism/sexism". [QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910394]that vague title used specifically to discredit people for daring to try defending minorities or, god forbid, actually [B]being a minority[/B][/QUOTE] I don't consider myself an sjw.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910451]But people call themselves SJW as well. It was originally a term made up not to disparage, but to extol. In both instances people tend use it to ridicule the other "side." In both cases they were terms turned into generalizations of a group that holds different ideologies.[/QUOTE] Nah it's always been to disparage. It was made to mock those that took activism way too far to the point that they felt they were fighting a war over social justice. Calling them Social Justice Warriors was a way to denote that there's a crusade or jihad like fervor over their shit.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910451]But people call themselves SJW as well. It was originally a term made up not to disparage, but to extol. In both instances people tend use it to ridicule the other "side." In both cases they were terms turned into generalizations of a group that holds different ideologies.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty suspicious of the folk-etymology of "SJW," but in my experience no-one who calls themselves an SJW does it without extreme irony; irony of course being intentionally confusing.
[QUOTE=V12US;47910441]Is a joke made with malicious intent? No? Then what the hell are you so upset about? I'll never understand this typical North American behavior. It's like some people [i]want[/i] to be upset. They [i]want[/i] to be offended. So they start to look for reasons to be offended. It's like a big race to see who can be the most offended. Why? Who the hell knows. Maybe it's to collect fake empathy points from the other perpetually offended. Even in the fucking Dark Ages they had this shit figured out. Court Jesters were able to say anything they wanted, no matter how offensive or inappropriate. You don't write rules on what people can or cannot make jokes about. That road leads straight to censorship and the death of free speech.[/QUOTE] why is intent that important? if your grandma refers to gay people as fags because it was normal in her time, does that make it any less homophobic? i'm sure you can excuse her for being a product of her generation, but that's not the point, the point is that a lack of malicious (or serious) intent doesn't exclude a statement from having a real impact
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47910468]He was a corrupt power abuser who banned people who disagreed with him and didn't fit his notion of a good person. He was a hypocrite who ignored arguments that refuted his claims and felt he was an untouchable amongst the common masses. He was an actively terrible person who used his claim to feminism as an excuse to abuse the powers he was given and put others down.[/QUOTE] the feminist illuminati boogeyman is out to put us all down for saying bigoted shit! how cruel
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910471] Sjw can mean many different things but in general it refers to progressive-minded people who want to censor to preserve peoples feelings or people who support "reverse racism/sexism". [/QUOTE] Just to unpack this statement alone you have to disregard the dictionary definition of censor, analyze what "peoples feelings" means, and figure out what reverse racism/sexism is and why it's in scare-quotes. Totally argot-irrific. It's only that I've been on the internet for a long time that I can actually decode the sentence, to my mother it would be incomprehensible.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910451]But people call themselves SJW as well. It was originally a term made up not to disparage, but to extol. In both instances people tend use it to ridicule the other "side." In both cases they were terms turned into generalizations of a group that holds different ideologies.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure people have been called MRAs when they don't identify as one, they're both pejorative terms. They make sense in the context where you're trying to prescribe individual characteristics onto somebody, which is the general use of the term. There are various terms in common use today that take on relative meaning depending on the context they're used in. For example, what's the qualitative justification for calling someone a douchebag? What specific criteria does someone have to meet before every person around the world can call them a douche? [QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910508]the feminist illuminati boogeyman is out to put us all down for saying bigoted shit! how cruel[/QUOTE] So we should ban people simply for having different political views than us? Do you even read what you type?
[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910508]the feminist illuminati boogeyman is out to put us all down for saying bigoted shit! how cruel[/QUOTE] Shitposting doesn't change reality or history.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47910522]Shitposting doesn't change reality or history.[/QUOTE] what the fuck are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47910522]Shitposting doesn't change reality or history.[/QUOTE] this is objectively wrong but ok
actually my horrible posting abilities are capable of altering the past
Jerry Seinfeld does almost nothing but PC comedy. I cant even think of any Seinfield episodes that were racist or anything like that. When this fucking guy has to tell you its too PC then its way too PC. Whats wrong with some people, if they have kids they would probably be the parents who have them on a leash and chaperon every field trip and be the worst one. I mean holy shit, this is fucking Seinfield were talking about.
[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47910536]actually my horrible posting abilities are capable of altering the past[/QUOTE] Then keep at it, maybe you can stop the tide from coming in.
I think Max is still an idiot but did he really ever ban people for disagreeing?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.