Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I lived in the Midwest for four years. During that time I literally* heard nothing about meth. But I heard a whole lot about crack, crack babies, and the fear of crime perpetrated by black and latino crack addicts. It turns out that, at that time, meth was having the same exact effect in white communities. The lingering effects of that reporting (or lack of reporting) of the damage those two drugs caused colors attitudes toward (and stereotypes about) people today.

Obviously we all know meth is a problem and it is reported on now. Heroin too.

TM

*And yes, I am using this correctly.

I'll take your word for it. Meth was not a known thing to me until the late '90s, i.e., I didn't know of its existence until then. And I expect that I would have seen it had it been around in the early '90s given everything else I saw (which includes crack).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I feel like you're ignoring my response. Satire, mocking, and poking fun through comedy has its place. Agreed. But being able to brush off the every day, real-life impact of actual racism, misogyny, or homophobia without anger, but merely with a joke, can truly only be accomplished by those who don't face the every day, real-life effects. You know, like Patton Oswalt doesn't.

I can believe that. I'd like to think many of the targets of bigotry can brush it off, but I doubt anyone can 100% do so.

Yes. Everyone can say and do whatever they want. If you offend a large group of people, you can do so. If they want to express their feelings of being offended, they can do so. If you want to tell them to fuck off and refuse to apologize, you can do so. But for each of those stages, there are consequences. You can't just say, the last stage should be tempered somehow.

Agreed. Everybody is free to say what he likes if he's willing to take the risk.

If you offend enough people so that you're in a position where you need to apologize in order to keep your job or not lose your show because the network values their business, the decision is still yours whether or not to apologize. But just because the stakes are high doesn't change anything. Your decision just must take into account those potential stakes at every stage.

Agreed again. However, if the offended party's first move is to try to censor the offending comic or boycott his or her sponsors, in the interest of free speech, the parties screaming for boycotts or firings as a first response should be subjected to extreme ridicule. (This is only as to comedy, of course. A public personality spewing bigoted crap in earnest deserves to be driven into obscurity.)

Too often, the minute a comic or pundit makes some ironic statement which offends, the first reaction is a crowd of internet bandwagon-joiners demanding his or her termination. This is a bad precedent for free speech for many reasons. First, the internet is filled with idiots who just want to feel self-righteous and belong to movements. And TV is filled with personalities seeking to create and exploit such movements, and the sorts who like to join them. The last thing we need to do is have people like Nancy Grace, George Will, or the oped board of HuffPo, and millions of basement dwellers online, screaming for a comic's head every time something potentially offensive is said.

We need to have a group of people who will, when confronted with opportunists, the perpetually offended, and the boycott-addicted, get together and say, in a resounding voice - with the fury and authority of God himself thundering to Moses - "It's a fucking joke. Lighten up, Francis."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Chris Rock- "I take care of my kids...." He is mocking people that he knows had limited chance to be better. Is that joke okay, or does it depend on the audience? Like he appeals to white and black people, but the thought of a bunch of white people laughing at that joke seems wrong- and don't get me wrong I love Chris Rock-

I don't see how that's wrong. The joke kills because it rips apart a bit of really glaring illogic. The point he makes is so obvious yet ostensibly overlooked, and the delivery is so over the top, whatever your race, if you can hear it, you're laughing. Might be an, "Oooooh, that's a pretty barbed bit right there" laugh. But that's still a laugh.

And if you're going to see Rock and not feel guilty about laughing once or twice, or feel uncomfortable a whole bunch of times, you're seeing the wrong comedian.

ETA: Chappelle did this best with the Clayton Bigsby bit.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I'll take your word for it. Meth was not a known thing to me until the late '90s, i.e., I didn't know of its existence until then. And I expect that I would have seen it had it been around in the early '90s given everything else I saw (which includes crack).

I think your perception is accurate and consistent with my own. That may be because we both live in cities and meth was more prevalent in the hinterlands, but I don't think that's the only reason. Overall, I think that the meth epidemic was later and not as severe as crack, in part because it hit in areas with lower population density. The decline in crack use and the decline in crime are not a coincidence, and even though meth use rose significantly after crack use declined it didn't bring the crime rate back up in the same ways.

I'm not arguing with or disagreeing with TM's overall point -- white people treat bad white people as an exception, or just as "other" ("they aren't regular white people, they are white trash") and do the opposite with black people ("crack is sweeping through 'the black community'".... and "isn't it nice that that black man speaks so well?", as if I should expect something different of an educated man because of his skin color).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm not arguing with or disagreeing with TM's overall point -- white people treat bad white people as an exception, or just as "other" and do the opposite with black people .

isn't this true of how all races look at the others?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

isn't this true of how all races look at the others?

According to this book, yes.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think your perception is accurate and consistent with my own. That may be because we both live in cities and meth was more prevalent in the hinterlands, but I don't think that's the only reason. Overall, I think that the meth epidemic was later and not as severe as crack, in part because it hit in areas with lower population density. The decline in crack use and the decline in crime are not a coincidence, and even though meth use rose significantly after crack use declined it didn't bring the crime rate back up in the same ways.

I'm not arguing with or disagreeing with TM's overall point -- white people treat bad white people as an exception, or just as "other" ("they aren't regular white people, they are white trash") and do the opposite with black people ("crack is sweeping through 'the black community'".... and "isn't it nice that that black man speaks so well?", as if I should expect something different of an educated man because of his skin color).

While I've been in the Chicago area for a while, in the early '90s (when I was in HS) I was in Podunk, Indiana. Had meth been prevalent back then, I would have seen it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

isn't this true of how all races look at the others?

I don't know, but it's a greater problem when the race with power looks at others this way.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

isn't this true of how all races look at the others?

Segregation plays a role in it. I think the more one lives in a multi-racial world, the more you look on all races as diverse and get beyond stereotypes.

Minorities, of course, have to live in a more multi-racial world than majorities, and I think that goes the same whether the minority group is African Americans in America or whites in West Africia or Mexico.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed again. However, if the offended party's first move is to try to censor the offending comic or boycott his or her sponsors, in the interest of free speech, the parties screaming for boycotts or firings as a first response should be subjected to extreme ridicule. (This is only as to comedy, of course. A public personality spewing bigoted crap in earnest deserves to be driven into obscurity.)

Too often, the minute a comic or pundit makes some ironic statement which offends, the first reaction is a crowd of internet bandwagon-joiners demanding his or her termination. This is a bad precedent for free speech for many reasons. First, the internet is filled with idiots who just want to feel self-righteous and belong to movements. And TV is filled with personalities seeking to create and exploit such movements, and the sorts who like to join them. The last thing we need to do is have people like Nancy Grace, George Will, or the oped board of HuffPo, and millions of basement dwellers online, screaming for a comic's head every time something potentially offensive is said.

We need to have a group of people who will, when confronted with opportunists, the perpetually offended, and the boycott-addicted, get together and say, in a resounding voice - with the fury and authority of God himself thundering to Moses - "It's a fucking joke. Lighten up, Francis."

Generally, I agree. But what is happening now is one person says, "You're an asshole, I'm not going to support you or your sponsors," and that gets lumped in with "Start a world-wide boycott and remove that asshole from the air!" in people's minds. They're not the same thing.

Similarly, people tend to lump in a comedian who makes a joke that may be a bit on the edge with Imus, who basically said that dark-skinned black women have no value, or that jackass Duck Dynasty dude who said all sorts of crazy shit. There are definitely degrees whether you're talking about the actions of the offender or the boycotter. We've gotten to the point where we're lumping everyone in on one side or the other in order to make whatever extreme argument we think is the right one.

It would be awesome if everyone handled racist situations the way Kamau Bell did when he went into a restaurant in Berkeley to talk to his wife and was shooed away by the waitress. But he's a better man than I. http://www.wkamaubell.com/2015/03/2500/

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think your perception is accurate and consistent with my own. That may be because we both live in cities and meth was more prevalent in the hinterlands, but I don't think that's the only reason.

Nope, crack could also be and was associated in popular perception with scary black people and dangerous urban areas, which is a narrative that sells.

The decline in crack use and the decline in crime are not a coincidence

We've had this conversation before, and while I don't think it's entirely a coincidence, I don't think it is really as big a factor as is often asserted.

meth use rose significantly after crack use declined it didn't bring the crime rate back up in the same ways.

You mean it happened largely in communities who are subject to significantly less attention from our criminal justice system than those most directly associated with crack.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think your perception is accurate and consistent with my own. That may be because we both live in cities and meth was more prevalent in the hinterlands, but I don't think that's the only reason. Overall, I think that the meth epidemic was later and not as severe as crack, in part because it hit in areas with lower population density. The decline in crack use and the decline in crime are not a coincidence, and even though meth use rose significantly after crack use declined it didn't bring the crime rate back up in the same ways.

I'm not arguing with or disagreeing with TM's overall point -- white people treat bad white people as an exception, or just as "other" ("they aren't regular white people, they are white trash") and do the opposite with black people ("crack is sweeping through 'the black community'".... and "isn't it nice that that black man speaks so well?", as if I should expect something different of an educated man because of his skin color).

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

While I've been in the Chicago area for a while, in the early '90s (when I was in HS) I was in Podunk, Indiana. Had meth been prevalent back then, I would have seen it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

You both could be right. I remember reading an article about the myths of crack and the realities of meth. I also remember reading somewhere that meth has been around for a long time, but I am having trouble finding either piece showing that the two phenomenon were happening at the same time.

This piece is pretty informative about how the press runs away with a story though: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._meth_now.html

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

On behalf of white people everywhere, I'd like to apologize for the CEO of Starbucks.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l?ito=embedded

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

The recently late Terry Pratchett: "We are endlessly fallible, but usually worth saving."

And: "Goodness is about what you do. Not who you pray to."

Both true, but neither really relevant to the point I was making: that we, as a species, have no faith in each other and we don't play well together as a group. No matter what binds us.