Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The fact that he thinks humor is always more effective than outrage and shaming is colored by the fact that he's a comedian. The fact that he brushes off points about racists, anti-science types, misogynist, homophobic, ignorant assholes running things because it's so easy to laugh at them is said from a position which is not subject to the everyday oppression those assholes impose.

I see it more as recognition getting mad is ultimately futile. And mocking these types of people is the only effective, and truly demeaning response. To get pissed is to admit the crazies have strong enough points to incense you. To satirize them, brush them off with snark, or snicker at their ignorance, marginalizes them in a way no earnest response ever could.

I also don't like this idea that every joke should be permissible, but someone's reaction to that joke should be tempered. Fuck outta here. I don't think we should be trying to keep people from joking about whole topics. But how is a truly offensive joke--made for the purpose of being offensive--any different than making an offensive slur? Go ahead and make your joke. But just like all things--even speech--there may be consequences to your actions. And I have every fucking right to call you out on your offensiveness.

I agree with this. Every subject - literally everything - should be open to joking. However, if one is offended, he can say so.

But I'll ad one important caveat... At least in regard to comedy, being offended confers no moral high ground. It does not automatically require the comedian to apologize. Too frequently in this society, we put the state of being offended on a pedestal - like it's some injury, however slight it may be, that must always be remedied. That's silly. Just because something bothers a person does not entitle him to redress (or the comedian to loss of his show). In exactly the same way a person may say, "Fuck you. I'll be offended, and don't tell me I can't be," a comedian has the right to say, "I note your offense, and I don't give a shit. Turn the channel."

Finally, his points about white men getting great late-night job offers because they are actually the most talented out there is interesting to me. Seems to me he is conflating "best" with "most successful." Those things don't always match. When it comes to those jobs, the people making the decisions are basing it on the ability to build the affluent white following that sponsors so covet. Does that mean they aren't brilliant? No. But it may mean that other types of people (women, minorities) aren't given the shot because the assumption is they aren't marketable.

He's talking out of his ass there. The default in all modern network media is to cast the biggest net. White males still do this. Until they don't, I don't see any of this changing. The barrier to entry is being male, after that it's being white. The crop we currently have in late night TV are the funniest whites with penises the network could find. (Though Fallon is demonstrating a level of talent that is truly remarkable. Were he any sex or race, he'd arguably be the best all around entertainer out there.)

So, when Patton essentially says, "Why add something about how another white man is getting a great opportunity to a review about how good that white man is," I think, so what? What's the harm being done John Oliver?

Oliver's probably more victim here than anyone else. He could take almost any of the desks in late night TV and do a fantastic job. But he'd never catch a middle American audience because he's too British.

[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It is not complete lockstep. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/gr...ttons-horrific

Good for her.

But she'll no doubt be receiving a memo from Ailes shortly: "Get back in line. (Or I'll have the folks at your Scientology Church start leaking personal information from your 'going clear' sessions.)"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I agree with you in general, but I think you're missing something. Hillary, like Bill before her, will be about the little wars. Bill will tell you history validates his intervention in the Balkans and that history looks ill on his failure to intervene in Rwanda, and he has a point. Hillary will pick the little wars. But she's not going to pick the big wars. Vietnam remains a Democratic nightmare, the last bigger war we pulled the trigger on. But Iraq is our bogeyman, and Afghanistan is not popular among Dems either. So Hillary is going to be very active policing the globe, but she'll have a couple of Balkans, a Libya or two, maybe even a nice Falklands war for Bill O'Reilly.

The biggest problem the Republicans have with both Iraq wars is that they weren't big enough. Jeb is about the big war. His loser father has a legacy of hangers-on now criticizing the 47 idiots at the very time Tom Cotton's stock is rising in Republican ranks. Jeb needs to give the Rs a big one. One they've been waiting for. Jeb needs an Iran.

Even W said going to war with Iran was lunacy -- that inevitably, its population, which is not at all our enemy, would return to its more secular roots and normalize relations with both us and the rest of the world. I highly doubt the crazies in DC and the defense industry can overrule the sensible sorts in the State Dept who'd go on national TV and scream, "We have lost our fucking minds!" if we were to start considering armed conflict with Iran.

There is no way to sell war with Iran. That is not happening.

Regarding Hillary taking us into numerous little wars, if that's the trade off -- "Jeb 2016: Big Wars!" vs. "Hillary 2016: Little Wars!" -- consider me a Hillary vote right now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Even W said going to war with Iran was lunacy -- that inevitably, its population, which is not at all our enemy, would return to its more secular roots and normalize relations with both us and the rest of the world. I highly doubt the crazies in DC and the defense industry can overrule the sensible sorts in the State Dept who'd go on national TV and scream, "We have lost our fucking minds!" if we were to start considering armed conflict with Iran.

There is no way to sell war with Iran. That is not happening.

Regarding Hillary taking us into numerous little wars, if that's the trade off -- "Jeb 2016: Big Wars!" vs. "Hillary 2016: Little Wars!" -- consider me a Hillary vote right now.

There is serious Jonesing for war with Iran on the right. Did you see the Washington Post Op-Ed from a few days ago? This is coming from one of the guys thought of as a neoconservative intellectual, despite being totally batshit crazy.

The old Republican foreign policy team from the Bush I days is gone, totally juiceless. There are a couple NYT op-ed writers still fond of the days when Americans trusted Rs on foreign policy, but we're now at the point where McCain signs Tehran Tom's letters because he needs cred with the bellicose upstarts.

There is one solution to Iran: capitalism. But from Cotton to McCain to Bibi, every one of Adelson's boys wants to make it another Cuba or worse.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree with this. Every subject - literally everything - should be open to joking. However, if one is offended, he can say so.

It can all be open to joking, but has anyone actually made a funny racist joke ever?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is serious Jonesing for war with Iran on the right. Did you see the Washington Post Op-Ed from a few days ago? This is coming from one of the guys thought of as a neoconservative intellectual, despite being totally batshit crazy.

The old Republican foreign policy team from the Bush I days is gone, totally juiceless. There are a couple NYT op-ed writers still fond of the days when Americans trusted Rs on foreign policy, but we're now at the point where McCain signs Tehran Tom's letters because he needs cred with the bellicose upstarts.

There is one solution to Iran: capitalism. But from Cotton to McCain to Bibi, every one of Adelson's boys wants to make it another Cuba or worse.

Iran will never develop a bomb because Israel will never allow it. We do not need to get directly involved.

Nor can the neocons make a case strong enough for us to get involved. No one here believes our govt anymore. We have no faith in it. Even the dimmest follower classes of this nation regard the govt's statements - particularly those supporting war - with suspicion.

Could Hillary nevertheless sell us on a few small interventions to remedy human rights atrocities? Yes. And that probably isn't a bad thing. But the GOP has blown its credibility in terms of leading us into big conflicts in the Middle East. We are too close in time to memories of the lies that led us into the Iraq War, our greatest foreign policy blunder (and a more than arguably criminal war).

To fight Iran would require unity and belief in our leaders that no longer exists in the population, or Congress. Not even the media, which was happy to get behind the Iraq War (ratings!) could get behind a conflict with Iran. There are too many Rand Pauls out there, too much damage from the 2008 collapse still to be fixed at home, and too much warranted cynicism from things like the Snowden disclosures, to create the needed cohesion for war with Iran (or anything like it).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It can all be open to joking, but has anyone actually made a funny racist joke ever?

Yes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It can all be open to joking, but has anyone actually made a funny racist joke ever?

Lenny Bruce. Richard Pryor. Mel Brooks. And many, many more.

The good ones make racism itself a subject of the joke.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Warning: Rant coming

This is not conflation, this is the core of bigotry today. Bigots today are too polite to say we don't want to hire Ordella because of her race or sex or religion. They don't hire Ordella because their customers, or their customers customers, or some other fictional universe THAT IS JUST A PROJECTION OF THEMSELVES might be uncomfortable. Because the audience advertisers crave love any number of Ellens, Oprahs, Arsenios or whatever, when they're talented, and it generally didn't matter, but people get denied the opporunity because the bigot says, gee, yes, Ordella is very talented, but she's going to have barriers to deal with that little white boy won't have, and that will make her less successful, and I'm hiring for success, so I'll take the white boy.

And this happens very politely, hopefully with people not having to say why they like the white boy, but with every room full of white men on a hiring committee magically choosing a white boy for every job from first year associate to being David Letterman. No matter what the talent pool looks like.

And bigots like this cross all kinds of lines, many are quite liberal and would be shocked that anyone's recognized their bigotry. Many of them fit into a category of people who are regularly discriminated against.

Uh...You ain't gonna get me to argue with this.

I think there's something to the fact that unconscious bias materializes in many different ways, making people completely unaware of the fact that they are valuing (incorrectly) certain characteristics over others for all the wrong reasons. Hell, it may very well be true that a white host is more marketable to a valued demographic than any of the alternatives. I'm not saying that making that decision solely on that criteria isn't cowardly. But if I'm talking to Patton Oswalt, I'm going to use my approach in explaining the problem over yours. Black people are sensitive about racial issues. But white people turn off when you attempt to explain a racial perspective, no matter how nuanced, and they tend to only hear, "Here's why you're being racist, racist."

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Lenny Bruce. Richard Pryor. Mel Brooks. And many, many more.

The good ones make racism itself a subject of the joke.

A joke about racists isn't a racist joke.

I'd posit that almost every racist joke we laughed at when young would be old and dated now, and no longer funny, and that our kids would look at us like we were deranged and possibly dangerous old farts if we laughed at them today.

As a matter of fact, I'm sure of it. Last summer, I was at a picnic for one of my kids' friends and Tom Lehrer shows up. Me and some of the other parents are excited. Somehow he and a few of us got into a chorus of "National Brotherhood Week", and we're having a blast. Time of our lives.

Then I look at around at about 20 absolutely aghast pre-teens watching us sing "And everybody hates the Jews...".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Uh...You ain't gonna get me to argue with this.

I think there's something to the fact that unconscious bias materializes in many different ways, making people completely unaware of the fact that they are valuing (incorrectly) certain characteristics over others for all the wrong reasons. Hell, it may very well be true that a white host is more marketable to a valued demographic than any of the alternatives. I'm not saying that making that decision solely on that criteria isn't cowardly. But if I'm talking to Patton Oswalt, I'm going to use my approach in explaining the problem over yours. Black people are sensitive about racial issues. But white people turn off when you attempt to explain a racial perspective, no matter how nuanced, and they tend to only hear, "Here's why you're being racist, racist."

TM

I was in a really bad, bad mood last week. A room full of white guys had just gotten three good candidates for a job, and picked the candidate I thought was 3rd best, white and male, instead of either the man or woman of color I liked more. And I was dealing with a matter where one of my clients was dealing with a lot of grief because she's a woman. And a family member was having issues for similar reasons. And I felt like it was the 19th century again.

But white boy's references sucked and so it's time to hire one of the people I liked most, and the tables seem to have turned in one of the other two cases, so maybe the post-Obama world is better than it used to be.

Still, I understand using your approach for Patton. Or Hank.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see it more as recognition getting mad is ultimately futile. And mocking these types of people is the only effective, and truly demeaning response. To get pissed is to admit the crazies have strong enough points to incense you. To satirize them, brush them off with snark, or snicker at their ignorance, marginalizes them in a way no earnest response ever could.

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But I'll ad one important caveat... At least in regard to comedy, being offended confers no moral high ground. It does not automatically require the comedian to apologize. Too frequently in this society, we put the state of being offended on a pedestal - like it's some injury, however slight it may be, that must always be remedied. That's silly. Just because something bothers a person does not entitle him to redress (or the comedian to loss of his show). In exactly the same way a person may say, "Fuck you. I'll be offended, and don't tell me I can't be," a comedian has the right to say, "I note your offense, and I don't give a shit. Turn the channel."

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.

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.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It can all be open to joking, but has anyone actually made a funny racist joke ever?

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Iran will never develop a bomb because Israel will never allow it.

This is insane. Israel can't stop it. Neither can we.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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 fact the every day, real-life effects. You know, like Patton Oswalt doesn't.

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.

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.

TM

Yeah, or Sebby, too.