Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
658 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rocket;47909119]But you are not affected by institutional racism. You have been annoyed by [B][U]people treating you differently because you're white. That's not racism.[/u][/b]
i really don't know what you people are not getting about this, it's like you're trying to be contrarian[/QUOTE]
holy shit are you for real
there was that other thread [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1468825&p=47873209[/url] where you did the same shit seriously just stop
...
Well, if ANYBODY has a right to comment on political correctness affecting comedy, it'd be Jerry fucking Seinfeld.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47922425]I'm like 100% sure you're just being stubborn as all fuck and it's so obvious it hurts[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I thought it was fine and legitimate. If he's trolling, he's both being really convincing and really interesting to argue against.
Maybe I'm weird but yeah, thisispain is really easy for me to understand.
If you (not referring to the above poster) can't understand someone's posts read them again before accusing them of being obtuse.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47919664]This is a much more convincing argument, but again many are stuck with no real eloquent way to word certain things without resorting to word salad.
(...)
At the same time (this is mostly aimed at Scum), when you criticize people's use of terms like SJW and Extremist, keep in mind that it might be from a lack of linguistic capability and not from the desire to emotionally charge their statements (in this topic I've had to run to an online thesaurus several times to find better words for things when the right ones wouldn't come to mind). I'm not saying not to criticize the use of such terms, but try to offer solutions as well.[/QUOTE]
I think you're totally right in that it's a difficult topic to talk about without painting with a broad brush or engaging in word salad, and that's why although I don't like the use of the term 'SJW' I understand why it's used. I didn't mean to suggest that people use 'SJW' only because it's emotionally charged or because they intend to smear social justice as a concept, but that some people do, and to an outsider it's hard to tell the difference. There will be a point where some ambiguity is inevitable, the idea is to just try to minimize it. If you were to start an article with 'Here's what I would consider an SJW, here's how they're different from regular social justice people, here's the problem' you can deliver a much stronger argument than if you use 'SJW' without definition or context.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919691]You can't out logic emotion. Fear is irrational, it doesn't matter what words you use or how precise you are, people will find a reason to be afraid if they are so inclined.
I know plenty of christians who have no problem separating themselves from extremist christians. I consider myself liberal, but I have no problem separating myself from extremist liberals. I'm atheist, but I know I'm not what most people are referring to when they say extremist atheist. If you can't separate yourself from extremists, even when it's made clear that you aren't the one being referred to, that's your problem.
I mean if you have a reason to believe that when someone says X-extremist they actually mean everyone who falls under X, then yeah of course but otherwise it's just paranoia.[/QUOTE]
The whole point is that it's [I]not[/I] an emotional overreaction. Let me paste the example from the link I gave:
[quote]This is starting to sound a lot like [URL="http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html"]something I wrote on my old blog about superweapons[/URL].
I suggested imagining yourself in the shoes of a Jew in czarist Russia. The big news story is about a Jewish man who killed a Christian child. As far as you can tell the story is true. It’s just disappointing that everyone who tells it is describing it as “A Jew killed a Christian kid today”. You don’t want to make a big deal over this, because no one is saying anything objectionable like “And so all Jews are evil”. Besides you’d hate to inject identity politics into this obvious tragedy. It just sort of makes you uncomfortable.
The next day you hear that the local priest is giving a sermon on how the Jews killed Christ. This statement seems historically plausible, and it’s part of the Christian religion, and no one is implying it says anything about the Jews today. You’d hate to be the guy who barges in and tries to tell the Christians what Biblical facts they can and can’t include in their sermons just because they offend you. It would make you an annoying busybody. So again you just get uncomfortable.
The next day you hear people complain about the greedy Jewish bankers who are ruining the world economy. And really a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish, and bankers really do seem to be the source of a lot of economic problems. It seems kind of pedantic to interrupt every conversation with “But also some bankers are Christian, or Muslim, and even though a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish that doesn’t mean the Jewish bankers are disproportionately active in ruining the world economy compared to their numbers.” So again you stay uncomfortable.
Then the next day you hear people complain about Israeli atrocities in Palestine (what, you thought this was past czarist Russia? This is future czarist Russia, after Putin finally gets the guts to crown himself). You understand that the Israelis really do commit some terrible acts. On the other hand, when people start talking about “Jewish atrocities” and “the need to protect Gentiles from Jewish rapacity” and “laws to stop all this horrible stuff the Jews are doing”, you just feel worried, even though you personally are not doing any horrible stuff and maybe they even have good reasons for phrasing it that way.
Then the next day you get in a business dispute with your neighbor. Maybe you loaned him some money and he doesn’t feel like paying you back. He tells you you’d better just give up, admit he is in the right, and apologize to him – because if the conflict escalated everyone would take his side because he is a Christian and you are a Jew. And everyone knows that Jews victimize Christians and are basically child-murdering Christ-killing economy-ruining atrocity-committing scum.
[B]You have been boxed in by a serious of individually harmless but collectively dangerous statements. None of them individually referred to you – you weren’t murdering children or killing Christ or owning a bank. But they ended up getting you in the end anyway.[/B]
Depending on how likely you think this is, this kind of forces Jews together, makes them become strange bedfellows. You might not like what the Jews in Israel are doing in Palestine. But if you think someone’s trying to build a superweapon against you, and you don’t think you can differentiate yourself from the Israelis reliably, it’s in your best interest to defend them anyway.[/quote]
People are not 100% rational actors, and not everyone has honest intentions. Perceived guilt by association can be a powerful motivator even when the subject [I]knows[/I] that they aren't being targeted. It's not a matter of trying to 'out logic emotion', it's about clarifying who your targets are and clearly separating them from the reasonable people who share some part of their identity, because in a world where people do partake in guilt by association and guilt by label you are implicitly forcing people who share part of those labels to fight you.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919144]the word extremist is stupid. same as radical.
they're words that are only useful when describing gnarly skateboard tricks.
a lot of the time, 'racist' pocs are so due to their experiences and cultural history of being shat on by white people and white driven institutions. same with 'sexist' women who are anti-men.
like is the hatred of the master towards the slave the same as the hatred of the slave towards the master??
both, in a black and white frame of reference are bad, but i think it's pretty stupid and disregarding of the real problems to say "ah but blacks can be racist too" like ok? the abused can abuse.[/QUOTE]
does this explain racism between different poc? like a black man calling mexicans spics or something of the like
no it won't
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47921257]While I agree with Seinfeld, you're way, way wrong. People need to stop believing that intent is what matters. Intent is only a third of the battle, and what really matters are [B]actions[/B]. It doesn't matter if you're trying to do something great - you can still cause tremendous pain while trying to do something good. That's a universal rule.[/QUOTE]
Intent is all that matters to morality, and racism is purely a moral issue when it comes to individuals.
Action is definitely vital when it comes to actually improving things, but morally speaking, personal racism is only based on intent.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47924709]does this explain racism between different poc? like a black man calling mexicans spics or something of the like[/QUOTE]
nah i guess it's more of just an explanation of anti-white, anti-men attitudes among poc and woman communities.
[QUOTE=Scum;47925305]nah i guess it's more of just an explanation of anti-white, anti-men attitudes among poc communities.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that they have a negative experience with someone from a certain group of people, and quite naturally, ascribe that behavior to everyone in that group of people?
[QUOTE=sgman91;47924792]Intent is all that matters to morality, and racism is purely a moral issue when it comes to individuals.
Action is definitely vital when it comes to actually improving things, but morally speaking, personal racism is only based on intent.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying people can only be racist if they're intending to be? Because that's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;47926021]Are you saying people can only be racist if they're intending to be? Because that's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Note that there are two types of racism:
1) Factual racism, example: black people naturally have a "greater fat-free body density" than white people. This is technically racist because it points to a genetic difference between races, but it's not morally bad. It's just a scientific fact. ([URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full[/URL])
2) Moral racism, example: that guy's black so he must be a criminal. There's no amount of scientific proof for this statement. It's based on nothing more than one person falsely conflating statistical generalities with individual being (in other words, the correlation =/= causation fallacy). This would be morally bad racism.
You can't do the latter on accident. Either you "know" that your statement is provable, or you don't "know" that it's provable. If you actually believe that's it provable (the first type of racism I listed), then you are acting rationally to believe it. The way to fix that would be to correct them. They would then change their conclusion. I'm not sure how you can morally critique someone for having false information and making conclusions based on it.
So the only kind of people we're talking about are people who know that their assumptions aren't provable, but still believe it anyway because of personal pride, bias, block-headedness, malicious intent, etc. That's moral racism.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;47925782]So what you're saying is that they have a negative experience with someone from a certain group of people, and quite naturally, ascribe that behavior to everyone in that group of people?[/QUOTE]
i'm saying that a history of oppression from white men and white male run institutions builds up a shared narrative and cultural viewpoint which results in groups who are bias. personal experiences then serve to justify the shared narratives - a girl getting groped or a black teen getting shot by police. obviously you have black groups and feminist groups that attempt to transcend this which is good but that social transcendence can be pretty difficult for people still weighed down from the oppression.
IMO a member of the black panther has a much more reasonable motive for outrage against white people than a kkk member has for black people.
what is this thread even about anymore hahaha
there was one page which was basically dedicated to my superiority complex (which made me feel pretty important tbh)
[QUOTE=Scum;47926277]
what is this thread even about anymore hahaha
there was one page which was basically dedicated to my superiority complex (which made me feel pretty important tbh)[/QUOTE]
Yeah this thread has shifted pretty bad.
On topic: IMO it's hilarious that a comedian is complaining about audiences potentially not being receptive to some comedian's routines. And here I thought that thick skin was a requirement to be a comedian
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926223]Note that there are two types of racism:
1) Factual racism, example: black people naturally have a "greater fat-free body density" than white people. This is technically racist because it points to a genetic difference between races, but it's not morally bad. It's just a scientific fact. ([URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full[/URL])
2) Moral racism, example: that guy's black so he must be a criminal. There's no amount of scientific proof for this statement. It's based on nothing more than one person falsely conflating statistical generalities with individual being (in other words, the correlation =/= causation fallacy). This would be morally bad racism.
You can't do the latter on accident. Either you know that your statement is provable, or you know it isn't. If you actually believe that's it provable (the first type of racism I listed), then you are acting rationally to believe it. The way to fix that would be to correct them. They would then change their conclusion. I'm not sure how you can morally critique someone for having false information and making conclusions based on it.
So the only kind of people we're talking about are people who know that their assumptions aren't provable, but still believe it anyway because of personal pride, bias, block-headedness, malicious intent, etc. That's moral racism.[/QUOTE]
"what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us?"
i agree that people can say and do racist and sexist stuff without themselves being a racist or sexist. like they're just misinformed by racist/sexist propaganda and stuff like that. it's just how some people are brought up but yeah when called out on the stuff the intent doesn't really matter. what really matters is what the unintentional hitler then proceeds to do. does he apologize and work on his awareness in regards to how his actions impact others or does he just write a blog saying that political correctness has gone too far??
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926223]Note that there are two types of racism:
1) Factual racism, example: black people naturally have a "greater fat-free body density" than white people. This is technically racist because it points to a genetic difference between races, but it's not morally bad. It's just a scientific fact. ([URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full[/URL])
2) Moral racism, example: that guy's black so he must be a criminal. There's no amount of scientific proof for this statement. It's based on nothing more than one person falsely conflating statistical generalities with individual being (in other words, the correlation =/= causation fallacy). This would be morally bad racism.
You can't do the latter on accident. Either you know that your statement is provable, or you know it isn't. If you actually believe that's it provable (the first type of racism I listed), then you are acting rationally to believe it. The way to fix that would be to correct them. They would then change their conclusion. I'm not sure how you can morally critique someone for having false information and making conclusions based on it.
So the only kind of people we're talking about are people who know that their assumptions aren't provable, but still believe it anyway because of personal pride, bias, block-headedness, malicious intent, etc. That's moral racism.[/QUOTE]
You can still be aware that you're being racist (pointing out false or unverifiable differences between races) without realizing you're being "racist" (intentionally criticizing races or perpetuating stereotypes about them) though. For example, if I say that black people dance better or that asians are smart, I know I'm being racist by saying stuff that isn't inherently true, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm aware that those notions are harmful (because they set higher expectations for those races). My intent isn't to be harmful but what I'm saying is.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47926613]You can still be aware that you're being racist (pointing out false or unverifiable differences between races) without realizing you're being "racist" (intentionally criticizing races or perpetuating stereotypes about them) though. For example, if I say that black people dance better or that asians are smart, I know I'm being racist by saying stuff that isn't inherently true, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm aware that those notions are harmful (because they set higher expectations for those races). My intent isn't to be harmful but what I'm saying is.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about actual belief, not just words, since moral racism is defined by being a racist, not just saying "racist" things. (everyone would acknowledge that [B]saying[/B] something that might be racist doesn't mean that you [B]are[/B] a racist, like comedians)
On the topic of not being harmful: I would define moral racism as wrong on it's face. Anything that you believe and know are unjustified, even if it doesn't hurt anyone, would apply. I would apply to this all other topics as well. It just so happens that we have a specific name for this type of thinking when it's about differences in racial groups. In my opinion, believing any fact while knowing that the belief is unjustified is a moral wrong.
I love this quote.
[QUOTE]Seinfeld said college students don't understand racism and sexism. "They just want to use these words: 'That’s racist;' 'That’s sexist;' 'That’s prejudice.' They don’t even know what the f—k they’re talking about.”[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926656]I'm talking about actual belief, not just words, since moral racism is defined by being a racist, not just saying "racist" things. (everyone would acknowledge that [B]saying[/B] something that might be racist doesn't mean that you [B]are[/B] a racist, like comedians)
On the topic of not being harmful: I would define moral racism as wrong on it's face. Anything that you believe and know are unjustified, even if it doesn't hurt anyone, would apply. I would apply to this all other topics as well. It just so happens that we have a specific name for this type of thinking when it's about differences in racial groups. In my opinion, believing any fact while knowing that the belief is unjustified is a moral wrong.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but at what point do words extend to beliefs? Maybe the people who say that black people are "louder" and more outgoing know that's not a fact, but more than likely they haven't thought about whether it's societal trends that push African-Americans (I say this because this sort of racial divide seems to be a lot stronger in the US) to be more socially active and confident, rather than them being inherently more social. I guess what I'm trying to say is that casual racism is a thing, and a lot of people use it without acknowledging it
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47926948]Yeah, but at what point do words extend to beliefs? Maybe the people who say that black people are "louder" and more outgoing [B]know that's not a fact[/B], [B]but more than likely they haven't thought about whether it's societal trends [/B]that push African-Americans (I say this because this sort of racial divide seems to be a lot stronger in the US) to be more socially active and confident, rather than them being inherently more social. I guess what I'm trying to say is that casual racism is a thing, and a lot of people use it without acknowledging it[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure I understand. If they know that it's not a fact, then why does the reason for something they know to not be true matter?
The two parts I bolded seem to be unrelated. Why would they think about it if they already know it's not true?
[QUOTE=sgman91;47927008]I'm not quite sure I understand. If they know that it's not a fact, then why does the reason for something they know to not be true matter?
The two parts I bolded seem to be unrelated. Why would they think about it if they already know it's not true?[/QUOTE]
I'm making two different points in those posts, in the first one I was talking about a hypothetical somoene who knows what he's saying isn't exactly a fact, but also doesn't think he's REALLY being racist. That was an example of someone knowing they're being racist but not by how much, and my last post was about people being racist [I]without[/I] knowing it, which is, I think, what happens more often
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47926613]You can still be aware that you're being racist (pointing out false or unverifiable differences between races) without realizing you're being "racist" (intentionally criticizing races or perpetuating stereotypes about them) though. For example, if I say that black people dance better or that asians are smart, I know I'm being racist by saying stuff that isn't inherently true, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm aware that those notions are harmful (because they set higher expectations for those races). My intent isn't to be harmful but what I'm saying is.[/QUOTE]
There's also cyclical thinking, which usually not intentional.
I can give a pretty simple example: say I believe that asians are the best at math, and I'm a teacher. I grade with lenience with the asians and harsh with everyone else. At the end of the day, I see that all the asians in my class have a higher score, and therefore reinforce my false belief that asians are superior at math.
The intent in that scenario isn't necessarily to put anyone down - it's just a bias I would have and cater to. The unfortunate result is grading others harsh and creating racial discrimination on accident.
In the real world, this happens all the time as a [I]result[/I] of the actual racism that happened in the past. People will see that white people live in better houses, and black people live in poorer conditions with little wealth. This usually leads to misconceptions, like "black people aren't working as hard as the white people", or, worse, completely ignoring that there was and is a problem. This often feeds into people's cyclical thinking and can lead to some nasty frames of mind which then causes their own problems down the road when interacting with black people and their lives. This is even the case when the original intent isn't defaulting to racism. You can be accidentally racist and cause problems.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47927098]I'm making two different points in those posts, in the first one I was talking about a hypothetical somoene who knows what he's saying isn't exactly a fact, but also doesn't think he's REALLY being racist. That was an example of someone knowing they're being racist but not by how much, and my last post was about people being racist [I]without[/I] knowing it, which is, I think, what happens more often[/QUOTE]
Got it, the comma made me think they were part of the same point.
On the first point: I don't care if he thinks he's REALLY being a racist. He either is or he isn't.
On the second point: If someone knows they're being racist, then they're being racist. If someone is OK with a little racism, then they're probably Ok with a lot more racism. Once you become used to believing things that you know are unjustified there's no reason you won't do it more.
On the third point: This is where the differentiating between saying racist words and actually being racist comes in. If a person says racist words without know those words are racist I wouldn't define that person as a racist. I would just say that they are ignorant and need some correction on their facts.
Well, I think there's a difference. You can ask someone if they think people are equal, and that in itself is one form of racism. But actions can be racist and make someone unintentionally racist. It doesn't make them a bad person by default, it's just something that is worked on through confrontation and education. We, as a society, are only getting better with this.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47928121]Well, I think there's a difference. You can ask someone if they think people are equal, and that in itself is one form of racism. But actions can be racist and make someone unintentionally racist. It doesn't make them a bad person by default, it's just something that is worked on through confrontation and education. We, as a society, are only getting better with this.[/QUOTE]
So you don't see being a racist as an inherently bad thing? How do you draw the line between a bad racist and a non-bad racist?
What I meant was that we can learn to do things that are racist while also believing that racism is bad. We shouldn't damn people for accidental racism, but we should work to correct them. This goes along with my mentality that not knowing better or being wrong should be stigmatized as much as it is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.