Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

Suppose you walk into a room where you've heard there's going to be a debate, and you find Bill Maher with a really big megaphone, and a bunch of other people listening to him. Sometimes he just talks about what he wants to, and sometimes he asks other people questions and lets them answer a little, but he doesn't let go of the microphone so it's hard for anyone else to really be heard. He's wearing a nice suit, and it turns out that he's making some coin by telling people to go to particular restaurants in the area. After a bit of this, he starts going on with some vaccine nonsense.

If you say, hey, maybe someone else should get the megaphone for a while, are you silencing him? When he has the same chance to speak as anyone else without the megaphone? Are you depriving him of his livelihood because he won't get to make the plugs?

Not saying that the heckler's veto is the best path to a vibrant marketplace of ideas, but that really doesn't seem to be something you're worrying about either.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

The focus on an idea, or a statement, should be exclusively on the idea, or the statement. That's how you expose a bad idea or statement as flawed, imbecilic, malevolent, etc.

People can always say what you wrote above. They have that right. But the first response should be to attack what you find offensive on its merits. Which should be pretty easy. (If it's not, you probably don't have a good reason to be offended and should reconsider your sensitivities.)

No and yes. Maher's joke a few months back comes to mind. It wasn't funny. It was flat, and he was testing a third rail just to test it.

Yes. Her comment was simply a racist ejaculation. Indefensible. She was not trying to be funny. She was simply saying something crude, moronic, and of no entertaining value at all.

Comedians and pundits should be given wide berth to provoke or to test edgy comedy or explore touchy subjects. Sarah Silverman does this. Chris Rock does it. Stern does it all day long. Entertainers should be able to be cruel, and to offend, without consequence. It's art, and all's fair in art. Roseanne was not engaged in art. She was saying something she believed, and it was stupid and beyond the pale. No pass. Similar to the Opie and Anthony controversy of years ago. Those guys were always idiots, but along with Jimmy Norton, they tested politically correct views for ironic, comedic purposes. But when that one of them (I forget which one) went off on that totally earnest rant about how he hated blacks, he was just saying, "Hey, I'm a racist, and here's what I think." You do that, you reap the fallout. Caveat emptor.

Art has to have leeway to offend and not suffer the wrath of Twitter mobs or politicians demanding their networks or other platforms fire them.

That's why we have so much terrible "art" these days. That's why pay TV, where no one is beholden to advertisers, and therefor no one has to worry about boycotts or Twitter's wrath scaring advertisers, is so much better than everything else.

If you don't like seeing "Piss Christ," don't look at it. If you think Howard is a sexist, don't listen. If you don't want to hear an asshat like Laura Ingraham says the asshat things an asshat like her will say, why on earth tune in to her? Etc.

TM[/QUOTE]

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

Yes. I also disagree with Maher on that.

Unequivocally.

Now he's being an officious twit. He's imperiling my right to watch Maher. He should be ignored. If he persists and becomes impossible to ignore, he should insulted and mocked and told to mind his own business. That's how the marketplace of ideas works. His idea sucks, and others tell him it sucks. The problem is, he's not willing to leave it at that. He wants not only to counter somebody's (Maher's) idea. he wants to use economic means to ban Maher from speaking. And not only on that one issue on which Maher does have a bad idea. He wants to ban Maher from speaking entirely by having him fired from his show. He can suck a dozen bags of dicks for doing that. That's behaving like a little autocrat.

Well, I'd say today there's a misunderstanding of how big the mob is, which causes lots of bad decisions by skittish boards. Management thinks 200 morons on Twitter extrapolates to 2 million morons in the general public.

It's low because no one has the right to dictate to another what he or she may view. I like Maher. You don't? Okay. People can disagree. Adults can and should say, "I find this comedian odious, but others like him. Everyone has different tastes." Ah, but these busybodies don't do that. They seek to impose their views on others. Call me crazy, but if I were to cut your cable because in my kooky view, cable had too many dirty movies and was immoral, you'd be right to scatter my teeth around your driveway and then stick the pruning shears I'd used to cut the line up my ass. The same applies to anyone trying to deprive another of entertainment. I can think of nothing more deeply un-American, anti-intellectual, infantile, and arrogant than this sort of behavior. It's the kind of reaction to an argument one would expect from imbeciles in a trailer park in the bowels of [insert red state hollow here].

Flower can vote with his $$$ all day. All I'm saying we should treat people who seek to shut down ideas or statements they don't like in a manner that deprives others of entertainment as the low sorts they are. It's poor behavior. It shows a lack of circumspect thinking. It should be considered deplorable.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

No. But this hypo doesn't fit. Regarding deplatforming, we are talking about someone saying, "I do not like what Maher has said and I am going to go talk to management of this building about throwing him off the premises."

It's not about his chance to speak. It's about his continued ability to do his shows.

Maher is on HBO. He does no plugs.

I'm not. I'm actually encouraging the heckler's veto. The heckler's veto often involves taking on the actual merit of what the speaker is saying. It may be bad manners, but it's an honest attempt if you're heckling based on the merits (as opposed to just shouting "get off the stage").

I think we're better off with a pure marketplace of ideas. It's by letting all ideas into the mix that the most innovation emerges. To argue for free college for all would have been heresy a mere decade ago. To raise the idea of universal basic income would be considered insane. Bernie and Andrew Yang are doing exactly that at the moment. Ideas are mainstreamed by open discourse, not shutting down speakers. If a homophobe wants to make a point, is it better to let him make it and watch endless rebuttals destroy it, or pre-empt it? Gay marriage isn't here because we deplatformed its opponents. It's here because its opponents took the public stage against it and the public judged their arguments to be weak to non-existent.

When you see a bad idea ripped to shreds, like climate change denial at the moment, you witness its death. When you pre-empt it by deplatforming its speaker, it sits underground and bubbles up years later, as all of our dumb populist notions of the moment are doing right now. There must always be a win on the merits. The boycotters and Twitter mobs calling for firings are enablers of the opponents.

Let the marketplace of ideas decide all on the merits of the ideas offered to it, and nothing more.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

I think you have a very strange idea of how the world works.

People can attack the idea all they want. The only people who get to express those attacks are those who have access to television, radio, print, whatever. If you can't immediately go on TV and say "What [whoever] said is in bad taste," then what's your recourse? You either turn the channel, tell the station you plan on turning the channel, and/or tell the advertiser that if they want your business, they will pull support for whoever.

But the funny thing about you is that you act like people are being punished randomly. Companies that sell shit act in their own best interests. And what you overlook is that companies who fire people (or pull their advertising dollars) because their customers are offended do so because there are enough people that doing so is a business decision. And that means there is a significant number of people who are pissed. You'd think that if there was a threshold for what is and isn't offensive, you would let the market set that threshold.

The NFL is a good example. They have blackballed Kaepernick because their customer base finds what he did offensive. Not enough NFL fans exist who support Kaepernick. I think it's disgusting, but what can you do? They're not afraid of losing advertisers and have decided to embrace their small-minded, racist fan base.

You, just like everyone else, are making a determination on what is and isn't offensive. Just because you draw your line somewhere different doesn't make you the arbiter of what should rise to the level of a boycott-able offense.

So Michael Richards gets a pass for saying "Nigger" during a performance and Imus can call black women "nappy-headed hoes" because they're pushing boundaries, but Roseanne says something similar outside of the stage and you have no problem with her losing her show and millions of dollars? Your argument is ridiculous.

There is no special carve-out for art. If your message, whether it's a joke or a painting or a play, is a hateful one, be prepared to pay the price. And if your joke is so inartful or outright fucking stupid that enough people express outrage then that's on you, not them.

You are overstating your case. There is plenty of room to offend. If you are so offensive that enough people can persuade a network or multiple advertisers, then you've obviously crossed a major line.

You're fucking crazy. If you don't think HBO or any other pay network has standards that they will absolutely fire people for violating, you're just stupid.

And we have more amazing television than ever. I won't include movies because only big ticket movies get made (which has resulted in more artists moving to TV).

Oh, I don't. But if I see Yuengling advertise on all those shows, I ain't buying it. According to you, I'm not allowed to let them know that I'm not buying it because...art? As usual, FoH.

TM

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

This is wrong. He is using his voice to tell HBO that he doesn't like what Maher is doing. If he says he's canceling his subscription, he's no longer exercising free speech?

What if everyone who hears Maher say something stupid immediately cancels their subscriptions without calling in which results in HBO firing Maher? Is that also wrong in your eyes? Are you only pissed with people who call for a boycott? Or are you actually angry at Flower for canceling HBO because he's "using economic means?"

If you're angry at people calling for a boycott, you are angry at free speech.

TM

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

I see. It's not really about free speech. It's about Maher's right to have a TV show. And not just Maher. As Anatole France said, more or less, the law in its infinite majesty gives the rich and poor alike the right to offend people on their own HBO show.

You say that, but you don't want to let anyone short ideas that suck.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

Get a low interest rate on the margin account there.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

off my corner ho!

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

Screw that, after the above I want to short "cases Sebby is arguing" and I bet there's a way to do it. OK, off to make some coin, enjoy, suckers!

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

You quibble at the margins.

Read it. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-the-grave/amp

Then read this. https://web.archive.org/web/20190501...atform/587125/

Look. This debate was ended years ago, before it started. I think the powers that be which countenance some call out and boycott culture understand a sad truth of humanity, proven by numerous examples: Mobs of the common require an occasional human sacrifice.

I see the wisdom in placating. But aren’t we better than this? Than “gotcha” punditry, than reveling in bringing down our betters? Isn’t that the currency of Trump Nation?

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

You’ll look long for counterparties or even a market.

I’ve been told by jurors I don’t relate or seem to believe what I was selling. I took that as both a compliment and proof I still had a soul. If I connected with those people... I mean, how does one get in the mind of those people?

When I’ve won money, I was happy about the money. But it’s always snake oil. You have to play to at least two idiots on the panel to get all the votes needed. It’s a serious skill. Pre-closing Whip-its would have been a good idea.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

The hypothetical Flower will ignore what the real Sebastian says because Sebastian is the actually one who is being the wannabe-autocrat, telling the hypothetical me what I can or cannot protest. AND, he's being the whiniest of little fucking bitches about it. The idea that he is advocating mob action to shame the hypothetical Flower for trying to incite mob action to shame Maher is yet another hypocrisy the real Sebastian is completely unable to understand, I'm guessing because of some narcissism disorder. Just as as the obvious truth of your last statement will be completely lost on the real Sebastian. And if there is one thing the hypothetical Maher-hating Flower will not stand for, it is a hypocritical and illogical, wannabe-autocrat, whiny little bitch.

As for Maher, I actually don't have much of an opinion on him. But I did look up his anti-vaxxer views after you mentioned them. And the fact that this guy bases his whole livelihood on being the voice of reason while at the same time espousing anti-vaxxer views makes me think he is a delusional jackhole whose hypocritical and irreconcilable inconsistencies are completely swallowed up by his delusional belief about his own unassailable wisdom. Which, now that I mention it, explains why Sebastian loves him so much, as that pretty much sums up every post that Sebastian writes.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

i am sure you didn’t know, but the Moth is routinely defined as “the epicenter of competitive narcissism.” I don’t mind your hypo self attacking Maher. I mind your real self attacking narcissists. And I’m going to protest and ask RT to ban you for these attacks.

I assume you are okay with my speech?

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

This isn’t an example of that with which any free speech advocate should be concerned. This is exactly what can be viewed as the ramblings of one’s spouse’s hair dresser, on a meth binge, and ignored.

“Thank you. I’m not familiar with the candidate. I wandered in from the neighboring Whole Foods, recognized someone and was told there were free hors d’oevres. Way to go on your commitment to... that cause.”