(no subject)

[lollardfish]

Can anyone more knowledgeable than I point out any examples of the Vilification Tennis show doing productive social satire - that is, making fun of something in order to demonstrate its impropriety or nonsensical nature?

I'm seeing excuses that I shouldn't be offended at their upcoming show because it's productive social satire.

I think it's just an excuse and the show isn't about satire, it's about getting laughs by being as mean as possible. They are really good at it. They get a lot of laughs. I think they're kidding themselves about the satire, but I'm not that familiar with their shows.

Comments

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

If you spend your entirely life battling a word you're going to waste your life fighting. And not the good kind of fighting that brings awareness, the kind of chewing on the bars of the cage fighting that just bring constant turmoil to your life. Bring awareness is one thing. Brow beating your friends and implying malice because they don't agree with you.

To me, you've passed beyond bring awareness into a battle to be right. No matter what words are typed here, your wife was very upset and hurt. I hate to say this but life being what it is, she will be again. And people will be mean to your son. Because people suck.

You seem to want to win. What I've seen is a pick and chose of various explanations presented to you in a method of trying to disprove them all. Nobody said these were excuses or reasons for your permission. They simply said they were their reasons. You added the concept of 'defensive'. Many of those involved have said they are regretful that your family is hurting but they are not seeking your permission. Because that seems to be what this is all about. Permission.

You have stated you find other instances of derogatory speech (not necessarily about those will mental disabilities) satirical. I'm sure there's someone personally effected by those instances that finds such satire offensive. I will bring up South Park again. You said you don't find it always funny but you find it permissible satire. Is it satirical because it's so ridiculous? Or is it permissible because it's a cartoon? I find what is done in the few Vilification shows I've seen at the BLB to be complete ridiculous. If anyone watches that show thinking anyone on that stage is serious they are easily fooled.

You seem to imply malice in people's use of the word. People have repeatedly said their intent is humor and nothing is said with malice.

Think about this way. I am overweight. I have had people hang out of cars and call me Fat Ass. I have been told by people that I'm 'too fat to be wearing that'. And this is recently, not in school. I have watched friends make jokes like 'I went to the (S&M) floor and all I saw was naked fatties'. I have watched piles of vilification jokes about fat mothers and fat people. Some of them do hurt. Some of the flippant comments made by people I know about my weight have made me cry. Is it okay to make fat jokes because I'm fat and could just lose the weight and therefor it's my fault?

Yes, I do want people around me to think before they default to fat jokes. I want everyone around me to think before they go for any cheap laugh that just pokes fun at a physical aspect of someone. But humor is humor. Do I think no one should make fat jokes? Hell no. The rest of the world doesn't need my permission.

"You're mama's so fat she bends light." That right there is funny. Come on, it's a thinker even.

We laugh at the different. We laugh out of discomfort. We laugh at the ridiculous. We laugh because we are presented a twist of thought on something we recognize. Sometimes we don't laugh because we don't think it's funny.

I just don't find Stephen Colbert funny. I think he's this over-the-top clown and his jokes are obvious and tedious. I have friends that love his humor. I do not expect them to dislike his humor because I do. Even if he makes fat jokes. Which he does.

Humor is so very subjective. You have to just trust people's intent (which numerous people have stated regarding Vilification is not malice) and move on. If you want them to change their sense of humor you're going to fight a losing battle.

[zarathud23.livejournal.com]

Well said, jmanna!

--Eric M. Clark

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Good long thread and I want to break it down, but let's start with what I would love, but do not expect, to see. It would look something like this.

I was wrong about South Park. In my mind, not really thinking about it, I felt that South Park was creating effective social satire, including about disability issues. Having been corrected by both you and Minnehaha K., and going back over some shows, I think I was really wrong. Although SP does a lot of good satire, their use of Timmy and Jimmy is to get laughs OUT of their disabilities (TIMMY! and the stuttering), rather than by satirizing the stigma. Having reached that conclusion, I definitely cannot watch the shows about Timmy/Jimmy again.

I actually think this is mostly what Vil is doing. The word "Retard" is funny because it makes the audience think about people with odd facial expressions who don't understand what's going on. Somewhere in this thread, a different Jen posted the joke, "You're so stupid that you think retard is a noun." That's funny because it sets the expectation of making you laugh at retards, but actually reveals something else entirely. It's exactly why I started this thread ... not to win, not to see people admit they were wrong, but to understand more about the perceptions behind the show and how this situation reached this place.

At any rate, does being wrong about SP and disability mean that I have to boycott SP? I honestly don't know. I have asked people not to go to this Vil show. I have not asked anyone to boycott Vil forever. That's where intention comes in for me. V-T is not trying to hurt us ... they just did. And there are moral and ethical consequences for that, and perhaps social ones for them (there are DEFINITELY social consequences for me for speaking out). But I see no malice towards the disabled or towards my family here - people are just trying to get laughs. So is South Park. Do I still get to watch the Obama episode?

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

But that's the thing. There's a pile of jokes in each episode that insult some person or another. You have just basically said that if it doesn't slight you personally you're okay with it.

And I'm saying you can't cherry pick. Either you appreciate the humor of South Park, whether it's directed at you or not, or you find it offensives. Because saying 'Well that part isn't hurtful to me so I don't mind' is hypocritical.

And you don't need my permission. Watch or don't watch whatever you like.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I'm not asking for permission. I am investigating a moral question I find interesting and genuinely looking for alternative perspectives.

Take for example the character "Token." By his very name, his presence is satirical, pointing out the way that minorities are relegated as "Tokens" in mass media. I find this effective satire. If someone does find this offensive, I'd like to hear them articulate why. If his name was "Nigger," we'd have a different situation. Thinking about SP's use of disabled characters, I now feel that it's not productive satire and am trying to figure out if that means I have to wash my hands of the whole show, ethically.

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

And I think you're fast and loose with the details here.

Here's the deal with South Park. South park is going to insult everyone. If you're ever seen the very first episode (the 'Christmas' Special) they made for California cable access you would understand. In that episode they insult Christians, Jews, Gays, Overweight people, just about everyone. They make it clear that everyone is to be mocked for humor. If you cherry pick what mocking is offensive and what is satire, well then you're missing the point of South Park. South Park is open season on everyone. Everyone at some point is going to be offended by the show because that is what they do. They mock people's sensibilities. Whether it just for laughs or to make people wonder why they're sensitive, dunno. That's a question for the creators.

From your comments in the past, it seems you have attributed motivation to the creators intents while I would say nobody really knows they're real intent. At the same time, you've contributed malice to the action of the Vilification folks because they mocked something that is particularly important to you, your son.

Why does South Park deserve consideration of intent where Vilification does not?

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

Okay, just trying to clarify, it seems there's a lot of responsibility = malicious intent in the comments, not perhaps attributed by you but there it is. But my question is more along the lines of Why is vilification instantly hurtful where South Park requires contemplation? Is it just the use of that single word? Not arguing, just trying to clarify your position. Signal to noise and all.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Hey, I deleted the comment above because I said vast majority when I wanted to say minority, and didn't want to convey a false impression.

I'm not sure it's necessary to re-hash why the VT show title was offensive. I think Tim's discussion with me down below this thread somewhere covers that ground pretty well.

I'm trying to work with something that I find slippery. If this week the SP people do a show taunting fat people for being fat, propagating the idea that the fat should be mocked and marginalized, I think that's pretty clearly wrong. You may not. If next week they do a show demonstrating hypocrisy in the Catholic Church as regards pedophile priests, I think that's much more defensible. So the moral question at hand is that if I am offended by this week's show, is it morally inconsistent to watch next week's show, although not offensive to me. I'm leaning towards the answer yes, in order to be morally consistent, I need to stop watching the show altogether, regardless of subject matter. I am having trouble articulating why, though.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

About this time of year, every year, my mother would bring home bags of mixed nuts from the grocery store. You could buy them today, and the mix is the same now as it was when I was a girl: Hazel nuts. almonds, pecans, English walnuts and Brazil nuts.

And my father would complain about the the Brazil nuts. "These damned nigger toes are hard to open." Or, "Why are there always so many nigger toes in the mixed nuts?"

Deconstructing his joke is simple. It's easy to see that it has an element of surprise, a little twist that draws the laugh. It's ridiculous. Using the word nigger simply out of the blue like that gets a laugh from the shock because it is not a word that polite company uses.

For some, I suppose, it's easy to say that the joke isn't about people, it's just funny. For others, the word nigger is a connection to slavery and the not-fully-human status given to slaves is inescapably lucid, and cannot be set aside for the laugh.

On a more personal level, jmanna, you and I don't really know each other. Nevertheless, I am sorry as can be that friends and strangers have hurt you and made you cry by making fat jokes. But I am much, much sadder that on some level you find fat jokes acceptable, and think it's fine for people to make them. You deserve to be treated better than that, by the world and by your friends. Honest. You really do.

K.

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

Please don't feel sorry for me. I have great friends who when I point out what they said hurt me, they apologize. Or I tell them it was actually funny.

I am overweight. That's just a fact. It doesn't make me lazy or stupid or ugly. Just, well, fat. When someone does something funny with humor related to weight, I laugh. Because it's not belittling me. It's a joke. If I trip and I'm not hurt, my friends have my full permission to laugh at my clumsy ass. Because it's funny.

When someone makes a joke about annoying American tourists, I laugh because I've seen those annoying tourists. (BTW, the make the same jokes about Brits too.)

My father's side of the family is Italian. They are loud and pushy and tend to have fights with each other for reasons that baffle me. (They're also generous to a fault, warm and joyful.) I seen this behavior is the three other Italian families I've encountered. Some of the jokes made about Italian families? They're true. Sure there are Italian families that don't act like that (there's exceptions to every rule) but a good measure of it is true.

I don't need someone to defend me. I don't need someone to protect me from laughing at myself. If someone hurts me, I tell them so. Sometimes? They don't agree. I shrug and evaluate the intent. If there was no malice I can't perceive it as a willful personal slight. I just can't or I would waste a heck of a lot of time being hurt, angry or outraged.

So please, don't feel sorry for me. I don't.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

So if you tell someone and judge it accidental, and then they do it again, and again, and again, what do you do? I'm not saying that is an analogous situation to here, but I am curious about your sense of things. I really appreciate all the feedback you are giving me.

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

If they do it again and again after repeatedly being asked not to I give them the final 'I told you this hurt me and you didn't stop' and then I stop being friends with them. But Each incident isn't so cut and dry. I cannot tell someone who makes their living a fat suit to stop making a living that way. I can either accept it as part of them or not be friends with them. It's kinda selfish and silly to think my way of living is the best/only way of living for everyone.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Because it's not belittling me. It's a joke." And this was my point about the Brazil nuts.

I've said elsewhere that I can be very black-and-white (<--Irony! Funny!) about these situations, and I find that easier than trying to understand someone else's moral distinctions. (Thus, lollardfish, SP = Not Under Any Circumstances.)

Being able to laugh at one's self is admirable, and being able to ascribe the best of motives to people you trust to care about you is, too. But those great qualities can't keep you from being hurt, as you've said. And you don't deserve the hurt. None of us do.

When jokes are made about people who cannot defend themselves (for any of a number of reasons), who don't see the "it's a joke" motive that excuses the attack, that's a situation I can't understand.

K.

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

You point about the Brazil nuts is not my point. I would present your logic that your father was not black therefor he was being racists where as I am fat and therefor it's inclusive.

As for not deserving being hurt I shall be nerdy and quote a movie:

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

Just because something causes me pain does not necessarily mean it is wrong or malicious. It means it causes me pain. Know what causes me pain? Seeing people wounded, dying or dead because of violence instigated by religion. I have sobbed at pictures of the hideous shit people do to each other in the name of religion. Now I have had friends say to me 'But aren't they just bad people doing bad things and using religion as an excuse?' or 'But if religion inspires someone to do something good isn't it okay then?' My answer to both is No. I have my reasons but I feel strongly about it.

However, I don't tell my friends not to be religious. Some people think me ridiculous to even have the belief that I do. I do not tell my friends that by being religious they are involved in some way in something that horrifies and hurts me. Why? Because using my hurt, my beliefs as a reason to belittle them, call them names like hateful or ignorant or malicious is just ans painful to them. Because I judge my friends on the sum of their actions, not on a part.

As for attacking those that can't defend themselves, well again, it comes back to my discussion on assumed malicious intent.

[zarathud23.livejournal.com]

In The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn, Mark Twain uses the word "nigger" over 200 times. Now, at the time of the writing of this book, it was a socially acceptable term. It was used often. I believe that he was trying to tell us something. By using it over and over and over again, he was trying to tell us that it was NOT correct to use that word. I don't think most people believe that Mr. Twain was a racist.

I'm not saying that what we do is try to make people socially aware. I'm simply pointing out the fact, at different times in history, a word can be a black mark, or can be accepted by society.