|
Post by Christmas Chief on May 8, 2015 18:36:50 GMT -5
I know this has been discussed in the past, but it's relevant again in light of the semi-recent Handler controversy. I wanted to shift the discussion here in order to respond to a video Poe's Coats Host Toast posted in the same thread linked above: Here's something that I think is very much related to this incident. The point is summed up neatly at the very end, but to understand it you have to watch what he says leading up to it, but it's well worth the time. Having said that, I think it's wise that Handler just apologized for what he said (&then some), because the point Zizek is making isn't simple and carries a lot of nuance (if that makes sense). But the intentions behind the joke were not racist, and Zizek puts the backlash at something like this into a larger context. I find it somewhat troubling that Zizek so readily universalizes his experiences to a larger audience. Could most people really get away with a comment like "you yellow people all look the same"? What might the risks be in attempting to navigate this "art of obscenity," and do they outweigh the potential benefits?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 8, 2015 20:56:45 GMT -5
I love political correctness! It's an amazing way of exercising tolerance (and by tolerance I mean not being a douchebag) to all people. Navigating this "art of obscenity" as I guess he probably called it, is super unnecessary. Why not just be nice or something, there is legit like no reason you would ever need to say "you yellow people all look the same" like ever. Unless you were on the Simpsons talking to like a whole heap of clones (eg that one episode where Homer's a clone), and even then that's still not necessary or really polite either.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on May 8, 2015 22:12:57 GMT -5
So you didn't watch the video. Žižek's argument was that being able to joke about your differences with other races/cultures (thus sharing your recognition of how stupid the legitimately bigoted people are) is one of the best ways to connect, on a fundamental level, with people who are different from you. It has nothing to do with being a douchebag. In the extreme form that it often takes today, political correctness seems to be more concerned with being "nice" no matter what; then, two unlike people develop a societally developed rigidity in the way they feel is appropriate for them to communicate. In this way, the concept of PC reaches too far away from simple politeness. Similar to authoritarianism, it oppresses one's ability to feel safe in any attempt at identifying with another culture or acknowledging discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by penne on May 8, 2015 22:14:52 GMT -5
i find that the biggest critics of politically correct language are usually privileged people. funny how that goes. to say that being "politically correct" is a way to hide oppression or make it harder to combat is victim-blaming. politically correct language is often the product of victories of underprivileged groups towards a more respectful treatment. if privileged groups choose to use it as an excuse to pretend prejudice or oppression don't exist, then that's something we should be calling them out on, not the change in treatment itself. i will admit i didn't watch the whole video because the way that guy talked was annoying af. regardless, jacqueline woodson herself has written an article on why she felt the jokes were problematic. nothing this or any other white man say can be used to silence that. whether daniel handler's intentions were racist or not is unclear, but the fact that he felt the need to tell that joke reveals a racist mentality that does need to be pointed out, not for the sake of political correctness, but for the fight for its eradication.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 8, 2015 22:16:12 GMT -5
The video resonates with me because I can sometimes see Orwell's Newspeak in the socially enforced 'tolerance' nowadays with its PC terminology (as well as the patronizing connotations that Zizek mentions). Especially when it gets to a point where people break out in cold sweat to unsee race or whatever, in situations where it doesn't even make sense to do so. Or when people (like store employees) are forced to actually stop wishing people a merry Christmas/Easter/whathaveyou and need to say 'happy holidays' instead, in order not to offend anybody. (Oh, and stray thought: When Disney (the company) photoshops cigarettes out of Walt Disney's photographs, it just makes me think they are literally rewriting history and falsifying documents, instead of setting a better example for children or whatever.)
Now, like I said, while I don't think what Handler said was of racist intent, I still think it was highly inappropriate because of the setting, the time and place, he said it. But when you're in a personal conversation with somebody and both parties share a similar sense of humour (that's why I said this carries a lot of nuance), why the hell should you not be able to laugh at the ridiculousness of racial (or gender or other) stereotypes?
|
|
|
Post by bandit on May 8, 2015 22:42:24 GMT -5
i find that the biggest critics of politically correct language are usually privileged people. funny how that goes. to say that being "politically correct" is a way to hide oppression or make it harder to combat is victim-blaming. politically correct language is often the product of victories of underprivileged groups towards a more respectful treatment. if privileged groups choose to use it as an excuse to pretend prejudice or oppression don't exist, then that's something we should be calling them out on, not the change in treatment itself. i will admit i didn't watch the whole video because the way that guy talked was annoying af. regardless, jacqueline woodson herself has written an article on why she felt the jokes were problematic. nothing this or any other white man say can be used to silence that. whether daniel handler's intentions were racist or not is unclear, but the fact that he felt the need to tell that joke reveals a racist mentality that does need to be pointed out, not for the sake of political correctness, but for the fight for its eradication. Of course, there are always people who twist things for their own benefit, and if a minority expresses their disapproval of a certain behavior, devaluating political correctness is not a valid argument for said behavior. The problem Žižek most addressed, though, was the tendency of privileged groups (as you call them) to create their own precepts about what is acceptable and what is not, which I don't think is victim-blaming at all. I don't think it avoids direct confrontation with the people who are spreading this judgment either. As a side note, I tried to read Jacqueline Woodson's editorial back when it came out, but for some reason I just couldn't understand any of it. No offense, I'm not trying to diss Jacqueline Woodson or anything, but is there any chance someone could summarize for me what she thought of the incident?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 8, 2015 22:44:16 GMT -5
You should be able to laugh at racial stereotypes, but Idk, but I feel like what DH did wasn't really that. But given that that is actually kinda not the point of this thread, I digress
I don't really think PC makes you unable to acknowledge discrimination? Like I'm sure I can find a way of saying "People should be nicer to magikarps", which doesn't use language that has oppressive connotations'
Also idk what identifying with another culture even means (I can't appreciate African-American culture without using the N-word?), but same point as above I guess.
Also, I'm all for socially enforced "tolerance". Happy holidays is a cuter phrase than Merry Christmas anyway. I don't really see PC-ness as newspeak at all, and I think that's a bullsalsa comparison. I think it's totally fair to have a socially enforced (or even imo legally) system of PC-ness in speech (but then, I guess Oz doesn't have freedom of speech in our constitution or whatever).
Really if somebody calls me or my family "curry-eaters" once, I'll smile politely, but anything more than that and you're pretty much dead to me (soz). Maybe you could argue that it's not my "sense of humour", but I just am entirely uncomfortable with people making light of slurs (sexual, racial whatever) in speech
|
|
|
Post by penne on May 8, 2015 22:51:03 GMT -5
As a side note, I tried to read Jacqueline Woodson's editorial back when it came out, but for some reason I just couldn't understand any of it. No offense, I'm not trying to diss Jacqueline Woodson or anything, but is there any chance someone could summarize for me what she thought of the incident? Basically, she felt the jokes were dismissive of her accomplishments, as they showed Handler still thinks of her, above all, as a black woman and not as an award-winning author.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 8, 2015 23:54:44 GMT -5
Also, I'm all for socially enforced "tolerance". Happy holidays is a cuter phrase than Merry Christmas anyway. I don't really see PC-ness as newspeak at all, and I think that's a bullsalsa comparison. I think it's totally fair to have a socially enforced (or even imo legally) system of PC-ness in speech (but then, I guess Oz doesn't have freedom of speech in our constitution or whatever). I don't even know what you're saying in the above comment's first three paragraphs, but regarding this one, if you'd have watched the video you would have heard how some Native Americans/Indians don't like the term 'Native Americans' because it is condescending (i.e. they see an implication of being separate from "cultured" Americans), or how white people's terminology for black people went through a number of changes to be PC, which at some point seemed to have become pointless (Zizek expresses his dislike for the term Afro-American); if that's not comparable to Newspeak then I call bullsalsa on your ability to be objective. As to wanting socially/legally enforced PC-ness, this is by definition the totalitarian state that Zizek is talking about. I guess some awful people like that kind of state, but I prefer to have freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on May 9, 2015 0:19:23 GMT -5
As a side note, I tried to read Jacqueline Woodson's editorial back when it came out, but for some reason I just couldn't understand any of it. No offense, I'm not trying to diss Jacqueline Woodson or anything, but is there any chance someone could summarize for me what she thought of the incident? Basically, she felt the jokes were dismissive of her accomplishments, as they showed Handler still thinks of her, above all, as a black woman and not as an award-winning author. there we go folks. i get why we're having a discussion about political correctness but id say its a little irrelevant in this case bc the woman responded. why should we worry about making sure daniel handler can say whatever he wants? guess what, he can, but if he acts like a dick and the person in question has a problem with it, i say we respect that too. she thought it was offensive. it was offensive. the thing about joking about differences in cultures is that if both people/groups arent laughing, you are laughing at someone not with someone. and being all "lighten up im just joking!!!!" just makes it worse. hint, try joking about your own potato ing culture instead of making jokes about someone else's first.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on May 9, 2015 0:23:02 GMT -5
oh btw its midnight and im tired so i didnt get through all this yet, i just skimmed.
anyway, he does have free speech, so does she. no one says he didnt have the right to say what he did. but if she express her problem with what he said about her, we should respect that instead of being all ohhhh no the thought police we want free speech blah blah. that bullsalsa is a way to let jerks keep being jerks and make those insulted feel like theyre stupid and not allowed to speak up for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on May 9, 2015 0:23:54 GMT -5
I was under the impression that this thread was branching off the discussion into more general thoughts. We can probably all agree that Handler shouldn't have made his comment.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on May 9, 2015 0:40:39 GMT -5
i just thought that was dumb. the video doesnt back handler up bc i dont care who the potato that dude is and he doesnt matter here. i think that if someone is saying theyre offended you listen and that often doesnt happen. we have to have a whole discussion about whether something is really actually offensive and then if the person had a right to be offended by it like theres some way we can even measure that.
i dont think he has to agree with or even apologize necessarily, just respect the way she felt about what he said.
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 9, 2015 4:30:45 GMT -5
I don't even know what you're saying in the above comment's first three paragraphs, but regarding this one, if you'd have watched the video you would have heard how some Native Americans/Indians don't like the term 'Native Americans' because it is condescending (i.e. they see an implication of being separate from "cultured" Americans), or how white people's terminology for black people went through a number of changes to be PC, which at some point seemed to have become pointless (Zizek expresses his dislike for the term Afro-American); if that's not comparable to Newspeak then I call bullsalsa on your ability to be objective. If Native Americans think that term is condescending, call them what they want, but as an atheist, I think I might have some right to comment on "Happy Holidays". Christmas is not a Christian holiday. It's just not. Santa Claus, Christmas trees, mistletoe, yule logs, holly wreaths, baubles - none of these are Christian things. Jesus wasn't even born in December, according to anyone who knows what they're talking about. December 25 was a pagan festival that Christians adopted (or perhaps I should say, like most of their religion, it was outright stolen). Summer, 4 B.C., Wednesday: there are lots of different estimates of when Jesus was born, but December 25 has less than a 1 in 365 chance of being the right date because it's just a random date. So although I have lots of other objections with Christmas, few are to do with the associated Christianity. I have a good laugh whenever a TV special or unaware Christian brings up the "real meaning of Christmas" being the birth of Jesus, but that's not much of a problem. So if you want to say "Merry Christmas" to me, go ahead. However, there are millions of people who celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or various other religious festivals around December. "Happy Holidays" encompasses them and, IMO, has less of an assuming "I'm-a-Christian-so-everyone-else-must-be-too" tone. It's not oppressing your free speech. It's just a small effort to acknowledge those with other religious opinions.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on May 9, 2015 6:48:01 GMT -5
yeah like i agree with people having the right to say whatever they want
i also agree that people shouldn't say whatever they want, and not because of political correctness (even tho it's a good thing) and not in a censorship way, but just because of tact.
you have the right to be a dick to people, but don't be a dick to people. because that makes you a dick.
and even if you think you're being careful and someone is still offended by what you've said, just remember that it's them who gets to decide what is offensive to them. sometimes rationally, sometimes irrationally, but when dealing with other cultures and when you're coming from a position of privilege, how about giving them the benefit of the doubt.
|
|