Ah yes, the 'well, sorry you got offended' excuse.
Merkel is still anti gay marriage and only conceded to a referendum when polls showed 83% of the population supported it. German's CDU with a big C for Christian is definitely problematic in this area.
Thing is, some jokes are inside/friend jokes. I don't pull punches when it comes to jokes, black,white, purple, yellow, poke-o-dotted, gay, straight, bi, christian, Athiests, muslim, hindu....but I'd never make those jokes if I was in a position of power and/or was speaking to the public.
People get confused and think "oh my gay friend like the joke and chuckled, so every other gay person will like it" No...not everyone thinks the same, and some jokes, while they might not be meant to be taken serious, not everyone is your friend and not everyone will understand you are not like that.
Hell, when I use to shave my head, I looked like a neo-nazi, and most people found it odd that I was into black girls and I was so accepting of other people. But it also
made me realize I can't just make jokes that would be okay within my friend group, but not a stranger.
I do feel people are way to senstive nowadays in some ways, but we also have a lot of shit that is happening and causing a lot of problems, so people's sensitivity to things is justfied in a lot of ways.
I tell off-colour jokes to friends a lot too. Like, I saw a Chinese rocket launch on YouTube and the rocket said 'hySIS' on the side. I said that I'd a very unfortunate name for something you don't want to explode suddenly and unexpectedly. I would avoid this with those I don't know, especially in a public speaking position.
Addressing supporters in the northern town of Demmin on Wednesday
evening, she defended her joke and said she couldn't understand the
response it had provoked. The spirit of Carnival, she said, meant "not
having to weigh your every word."
"If we're so rigid, as has been the case in the past few days, then a piece of tradition and culture in
Germany will be ruined, and we shouldn't allow that," she added. "Right now it's as if we're the tensest people in the world.
This cannot go on."
Ah yes, the "is a joke so is not actually offensive, is only that you are a snowflake" defense, pathetic.
While Kramp-Karrenbauer said the joke was about the relationship
between men and women, critics accused her of making fun of toilets for
intersex people and then using Carnival's frivolity to cover up her
offensive turn of phrase.
"Clumsy jokes against minorities are
the last thing that our society needs," said Social Democrat (SPD)
Justice Minister Katarina Barley in a speech on Wednesday. "Carnival
should take aim at the powerful, at politicians, at companies, at banks
but not at those who already have to fight."
^This * 1000000. Messing with the people from the bottom is a very despicable thing to do.
Kramp-Karrenbauer also used her speech to criticize a campaign by a
Hamburg kindergarten to discourage children from dressing up in what
some view as culturally offensive Carnival costumes. The center in
question had sent a letter to parents saying costumes of Native
Americans, Indians or sheikhs weren't recommended.
The CDU audience applauded when Kramp-Karrenbauer said she wanted a
Germany where children could play cowboys and Indians, and "where
they're allowed to play with dolls or with Legos or what they want
in kindergarten, without you having to tell a 3-year-old that they have
to be culturally sensitive. That's the type of madness we're witnessing
here."
Like above, "I don't understand why people get offended by this so rather than look up for the reason I'm just gonna mock them!"
Merkel have for sure picked up an equal successor to represent the CDU, because wow, just wow.
If we are lucky then maybe for the next elections they might finally lose to the Greens / Die Linke.
How about we let jokes be jokes and find real reasons to decide whether a party/politician is prejudiced against a minority.
" "Clumsy jokes against minorities are
the last thing that our society needs," said Social Democrat (SPD)
Justice Minister Katarina Barley in a speech on Wednesday. "Carnival
should take aim at the powerful, at politicians, at companies, at banks
but not at those who already have to fight."
Carnival is to mock everybody, no exceptions. If we start making rules about who it's okay to mock, you're working against free speech. Carnival jokes are not ill-intended, it's not because a minority is having it worse than another that it's beyond humor, because minorities always have it worse. Quite in the contrary, making fun of someone or a group is a way to acknowledge their place in society.
It's not about not mocking everybody, it's about how you mock them. Her comment was specifically about trans/nonbinary people having access to gender neutral bathrooms, and she referred to them as "men who can't decide if they want to sit or stand when they pee." That 'joke' is inherently based upon the idea that trans and nonbinary identities are invalid and that they're just "confused men" which demonstrates her bigotry.
I wish there was a way to double rate, cause that made me chuckle, plus I agree. People nowadays seems to forget not everyone is their friend, and to separate public life from personal life.
She knows what she's doing. Don't give her the benefit of the doubt. This is just another instance of "muh free spech" sprinkled with homophobia and transphobia.
A friendly reminder that in regards to gay marriage she compared it to incest and polygamy.
I really don't see the joke as that insulting, and I think you might be reading too much into it. If she had said that in any other context, I would have agreed. But in the context of carnival, it's a harmless joke that was only meant to amuse and have no weight of its own. I really don't want to feel offended about a little joke made at Carnival, even if I know people here might be more sensitive to it.
You may or may not. Do trans/nonbinary people see that joke as 'that insulting'? I don't think we get to determine how a group we're not in feels about a particular thing.
I really don't want to feel offended about little harmless jokes made in Disney cartoons. However, other people do get offended - a lot of people - because the joke isn't a character flaw, the joke is 'har har, they're different'.
And even though I don't want to feel offended about little harmless jokes made in Disney cartoons, that doesn't justify my covering for them when those jokes go beyond the pale.
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/dumboracist1.jpg
So, this is a group of crows who can sing in a jazzy manner with horrible grammar. They're poor. They're uneducated. They're constantly smoking. They're black. You know what that Crow in the middle is called? Jim Crow. They teach Dumbo how to fly, sure, but the subtext is pretty in your face. Would you say 'you don't want people to be offended about the little joke that they're a metaphor for black people'?
How about King Louie?
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/jbracist1.jpg
Every animal in the Jungle Book as depicted in the Disney film speaks in good, Queen's, english. Except the monkeys. They speak in jive, are constantly hooping and hollering, do no work in the jungle except for thievery, and are ruled by a lazy monkey who wants 'to be like you'. Would you say 'you don't want to be offended about this little joke where haha these monkeys are a metaphor for black people'?
But maybe this is just a modern problem. Maybe we're just seeing this from a modern perspective and are overly sensi-
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/add07f6e-57ec-4f2b-ab42-fdce16369f9d/image.png
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about Fantasia where the black centaurs are literally pink-lipped shoe-shiners for the white, pretty, centaurs. 'But Firgof I don't recall ever seeing black centaurs in Fantasia': yeah, that's because they scrubbed Sunflower from existence in the 1960 re-release. But surely it's just that we're too culturally sensitive that Disney felt they had to leave the joke out because of a 'little joke character' right?
But maybe we're just reading into it too much and it was an incidental thing, there just happened to be a character who was black-colored in a Disney picture where she did 'stereotypical black things as interpreted by white people' in that time period, it's wholly coincidental and surely if Mickey himself were involved then--
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/thursracist1.jpg
"Let me see. A genuine African native," Mickey murmured. "Perhaps I should start showing him off."
"Poor little guy! He just makes mistakes. He doesn't know any better. I'll just have to be patient and teach him the right way to do things," said Mickey.
So about your statement: "Carnival is to mock everybody, no exceptions."
Would you show the above films at Carnival because it's "there to mock everybody, no exceptions" and they're "just jokes, man"?
I think this is a concerted effort on the part of the CDU to win over some of the right 'own the left' AFD crowd. By appearing to have no political correctness or sensitivity they're sniping a large portion of that base.
Yes. Absolutely, yes. In my opinion humor has no bounds, and that's okay if you disagree. At the end of the day, anything must be taken in context. You make a good point, but there's making a joke about a group, and then there's making a joke about a group in a context where it's usual to do so. But I won't defend her if you tell me she means to be actually transphobic, as it has been stated. The intention matters to me.
And yet you say
So I don't believe you mean that. I think you believe that even if it were poorly intentioned that it should 'still be allowed' because you think you can put it into a 'harmless context'. I think you're defending her right now and intend to defend her secretly even if you might admit 'ok, that was transphobic'.
Also 'humor has no bounds' as an absolute maxim is pretty saddening to hear you hold. It means you think that someone standing over a black man's casket to toss some dirt in while saying 'it's a real shame n***ers are so damn stupid, otherwise he'd not be dead' while ensuring the widow is in ear-shot because, come on, it's so hilarious as a prank -- just so long as this is a 'context in where it's usual for people to call n***ers stupid' -- where the context for that is 'they're racist'. In other words, you're fine with people making racist jokes so long as racists tell them because those jokes, to them, 'are usual'.
I'm not reading too much into it; the joke requires that you take a transphobic viewpoint for it to work, otherwise it's just nonsense. Gender neutral bathrooms have never been related to cisgender men deciding how they'd like to pee. As such, it's an offensive joke towards the trans community made by someone who isn't just some edgy comic - she's the successor to the current Chancellor of Germany, and who may have power over a group of people who need support and progress, not the same old bigoted vitriol.
I do mean it. I don't intend to defend her, because the intention is part of the context. While I do think that it should "still be allowed", I also expect people to be able to emit a judgment and understand the intention behind the joke, and to be critical of it. In other words, "anyone can say anything that is not clearly harmful, but they should be held accountable nonetheless". I oppose this to your "some things can not be joked about because they are harmful in context".
The situation you described is not a joke, a prank or anything remotely funny by any length, period. It's just being an asshole. Once again, the intention matters and here it absolutely cannot be anything not meaning ill.
I do care. And your opinion that I'm some kind of extremist, ultra-libertarian patron of laughs does you no service. Right now, when I re-read the controversial joke of the politician, I can only see the harm in it if I read into it too much. I don't think it's funny to me, by the way. But like I said, if she is actually bigoted, then I won't defend her. But I will defend her right to make this joke, which is only harmful if you think of it as such.
The situation I just described is often committed by people who insist 'it's just a prank' and that people who disagree are 'judging and failing to understand their intentions behind the joke'. It is as harmful to the widow as her joke was harmful to the trans/nonbigender community - because in both situations it's a person making a stab at someone else because they're different which others are willing to justify because 'they don't see the harm in it' while not being the one who would be harmed by it.
Your statement that 'you can only see the harm in it if you read into it too much' is you not 'reading into it too much' but, rather, lowering your defenses to see the joke for what it is. Do you think I'm "reading into the jokes too much" in the examples I gave above with Disney? If you don't think I'm reading into it too much there, why am I reading into it too much here? I don't want your meaningless platitudes, I want the real meat and meaning behind why you're willing to excuse this act by making it something it's not: harmless.
If you wanted to be harmful to people, the last place you'd wanna do that is at a Carnival. And as far as I know, she didn't make a whole speech mocking transgenders. It was just one sentence. It's not funny, but it's not serious either. You all tell me "yeah but she was totally serious about it", and I guess it's true. But saying it at Carnival still means that it's not gonna be taken seriously, whoever you are, unless you want to take it seriously. That's why.
Saying something mean does not actually require that you truly harbor those feelings, especially if you're in a situation where you are expected to say a great many mean things.
So you're telling me if I want to air out my racism and misandristic feelings that Carnival is the place to do it because nobody will take my genuine beliefs seriously so long as I make sure they're a one-off comment? You even state in your nonrebuttal that 'ok, even if she was serious and I take that as true, nobody will take it seriously because they've been told to not take it seriously'. I promise you that people will take it seriously. I'm not saying we should police humor such that nobody can make fun of anyone else; I'm saying that racist humor should be looked upon just as well as transphobic humor, because they both stem from the same source of a hatred for Otherness.
We should delight and highlight in our flaws rather than divide at our differences.
You're absolutely fine to make any jokes about any group I relate to, no exceptions. Since I'm asexual, friends have sometimes joked and told me it means I just "hate everybody" in opposition to being able to fall in love, or some distasteful comments about my dick. I don't mind and I smile. So if you thought you'd get me to admit that it's only funny if it targets others, that's not the case at all.
This says a lot more than I think you intend for it to. You're basically saying 'I accept that people are going to hate me and even my friends use me as a punching bag and I'm alright with it because everybody's a punching bag'. If you found it funny, you wouldn't smile, you'd laugh; a smile is a polite and sometimes forced acceptance - a laugh is an embrace. I think you do mind. I think you mind and bury it deep inside you while covering it up as 'I'm a good sport unlike you wet blankets'.
That doesn't make it fine to make jokes about any group you relate to.
What I'm saying is that if you don't let some people make racist jokes and the rest, then you're actively policing humor. I do wish for a world where those jokes would vanish entirely from the minds of humanity, but it is my utmost conviction that preventing them from happening in the first place doesn't work. What I've seen is that if you want people to grow out of something, you have to let them do their stupid thing, and take criticism for it. And another thing that I'm convinced of: being ignored is a better deterrent than being criticized. Though I'm not saying the politician should be not criticized, for the good reason that she is a politician. Of all the people in the world, politicians need to be held accountable for everything.
But by holding this activity they're engaging in as a sort of 'sacred thing' you are allowing them to be shielded from criticism from it. You are allowing them to not grow out of it by giving them a space where they can 'act childish' and face no repercussions. You are actively defending 'the stupid thing', which is shielding them from criticism, which directly runs against your desire for 'a world where those jokes would vanish entirely from the minds of humanity'.
Being ignored is a catalyst for people to think what they did was alright and acceptable. Being criticized is a shock for people to understand that they have violated a social more.
You are saying the politician should not be criticized because the most critical part of all of it is the part you've avoided this whole time: If politicians should be held accountable for everything, why is and should she be allowed to make jokes at Carnival?
I'm not sure what to do with this. Then if a member of a group does not represent their group, who does?
No individual person represents a group which has not appointed someone to represent them. That's besides the point, however, as the issue isn't 'the group isn't being represented fairly'; the issue is 'you as a person are being ignored and substituted for something more familiar'.
No one's shielded from criticism. Carnival and humor are sacred but not in the sense that anything goes without consequences. I defend the right to mock people and the right to criticize that mockery. It's not as simple as you imply: there are social norms that bind people and their acts; if you go out of these bounds you will be either ignored or hated. That means that it's not because you let people say whatever they want that everything's going to turn to shit. If this politician used the Carnival to sing the "nigger nigger nigger" rap song in front of the crowd, everyone would have hated her for it and it wouldn't have contributed to the rise of racism one bit. This is just to illustrate that letting do people do "the stupid thing" can be good. I can understand if you fail to see how singing that song would be good, but that's because it would be so irredeemably terrible that it would contribute a lot to society, by giving people a clear image of racism being stupid.
Being criticized either makes people change their mind, or it makes them further entrenched in their opinion, or it makes them doubt, which will make them go either way depending on the contacts they have. You definitely should know that criticism does not reform people automatically.
I'm saying that she should be criticized, like she is now.
And you should know that people being ignored contributes nearly nothing to their reformation, if that's your goal, and being ignored repeatedly may lead them to believe 'they're right but people simply aren't listening'. Prison doesn't reform people by simply removing them from the public. If you want to reform them, they have to be reformed rather than simply assigned to a cell. In the same way, people's opinions have to be challenged if you want to change their minds about it.
Giving evil a platform to spread from contributes to its rise, always. Very few things should ever be treated as evil - but ideas, given a mass platform to be broadcast from, contributes to the rise of an affirmative consensus supporting those ideas. This can be seen throughout American society at a glance, as that's exactly the sort of 'internal war' we're struggling from right at this moment.
The issue being, of course, that criticism and jokes are not one in the same. All she needs to be shielded from criticism is for people to cry 'it was just a joke'. Then you can only 'criticize the bad joke' rather than the 'bad person', no?
Giving everyone a loaded gun with no means of tracking it nor the bullets inside it can be good - but sets the table for evil.
The thing is that if people aren't listening, then you can't obtain any form of power. Hitler gained power because he was ignored by some and glorified by many more. To get back on-topic, I think that if her joke had been completely ignored (as in, no one laughed or smiled or booed or anything), that would have hurt her feelings as a politician. Politicians thrive on popularity, and when they don't get reactions from the public, that's where their career is over. That was my point about being completely ignored. If that had happened, she would have made a mental note to never try something like that again. Does this make sense to you?
What I know is that when you don't give a platform for a big enough group, then it's gonna find one or make its own. The alt-right have definitely found their way and spread on the internet. Now they're all locked up in their echoboxes instead of facing criticism on the platforms where they could be seen by the public. But it goes both ways; in times of oppression, the resistance also find a way.
That's true. I don't know if someone who was affirmatively not transphobic could have made the same joke in any context, but then the joke itself would be criticized as bad, not the person who delivered it.
It does, but free speech is different in the fact that anyone can be tracked and criticized nowadays. It is also not necessarily a good thing since it promotes extremism and inaction.
Then you must be a minority here. I don't consider that laughing something off means you underestimate it, but that's your opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
