Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?

[-Sentinel-]

This article by Gizmodo (http://lego.gizmodo.com/120-000-piece-lego-model-of-the-titanic-breaking-in-hal-1753739169) got me thinking. It features an impressive LEGO reproduction of the Titanic sinking, along with passengers in various states of horror and distress. Many of the commenters (yes, I know I shouldn't read the comments) are expressing outrage, saying that it makes light of a tragedy.

I will never sneer at anyone for taking offense over the treatment of a tragedy that killed many. Nonetheless, you've got to wonder at what point it stops being "too soon". I think a tragedy becomes fair game if the following three conditions are met: 1) no survivor or witness of the tragedy is still alive, 2) nobody who lost a loved one in the tragedy is still alive, and 3) the tragedy is neither the result nor the cause of a social, political or religious context that persists to this day.

The last survivor of the Titanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millvina_Dean) died in 2009. It is exceedingly unlikely, over 100 years after the fact, that anyone alive remembers someone who went down with the Titanic. And the Titanic was an accident, unlike (say) the Holocaust or the 9/11 attacks; I guess you could talk about the lax safety measures of the early 20th century, but other than that, it's hard to bring up the sinking of the Titanic in a present-day socio-political discussion.

That being said, offense over the treatment of a tragedy doesn't appear to be just a matter of time elapsed. In the example above, I think the medium (LEGO) plays a role. Regardless of the builder's intent, LEGO is seen as not-serious: the characters look comical with their exaggerated expressions, LEGO is seen as more of a game or hobby than an art form, and so on. You can write novels, compose ballads and make movies about a tragedy, but building a tragedy out of LEGO is seen as inherently disrespectful. And yet... if I were to use LEGO to build a Roman arena with gladiator fights, would people be offended on behalf of the tens of thousands who died in Roman arenas? I doubt it. So time does definitely play a role.

This isn't a "People are so easily offended!" thread. I want to discuss the causes and nature of offense, not the people being offended or offensive. Let's be civil, plz. :smallsmile:

[Toastkart]

This article by Gizmodo (http://lego.gizmodo.com/120-000-piece-lego-model-of-the-titanic-breaking-in-hal-1753739169) got me thinking. It features an impressive LEGO reproduction of the Titanic sinking, along with passengers in various states of horror and distress. Many of the commenters (yes, I know I shouldn't read the comments) are expressing outrage, saying that it makes light of a tragedy.

That is an impressive piece of work. As for the commenters, I honestly think they can safely be ignored. Trying to judge the feelings of the audience by internet comments is like trying to judge the average customer by a retail survey. 90% of the people who reply are only doing so because they're already pissed off.



I will never sneer at anyone for taking offense over the treatment of a tragedy that killed many. Nonetheless, you've got to wonder at what point it stops being "too soon". I think a tragedy becomes fair game if the following three conditions are met: 1) no survivor or witness of the tragedy is still alive, 2) nobody who lost a loved one in the tragedy is still alive, and 3) the tragedy is neither the result nor the cause of a social, political or religious context that persists to this day.

I think these criteria are too restrictive, especially number 3. By these metrics, we'd never have had shows like Hogan's Heroes. Sure, they never mentioned the holocaust, but the plight of POWs is no laughing matter either.

As for criteria 3, I think restricting things that might be not politically correct kind of defeats the point of comedy. For that matter, worrying about whether someone finds it offensive or not defeats the point of comedy too. Sometimes we need to be offended to be shocked into awareness. That doesn't mean comedy can't be offensive or tasteless (and I don't want to drag the thread down that road so that's all I'll say on that dimension of humor).

On the subject of "too soon," I don't think you can have hard rules and metrics and still appreciate creativity. Part of the beauty of humor is how unexpected, outrageous, and beyond the norm it really is. It's always going to be too soon for some people, and there are also plenty of people that don't care so long as they get a laugh out of it.

It's kind of like trigger warnings (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/). You can't censor the world, too much bad stuff happens in it. And trigger warnings create both a kind of fragile victim identity and an unrealistic expectation of what life is really like.

[1dominator]

I do not for one second believe that even 1 in a 100 of those people making a scene are actually emotionally invested in the Titanic or any of the people who were on it or even upset by the diorama. None of them actually care, I'd wager they're all just posers acting morally outraged for the sake of seeming morally outraged.

[-Sentinel-]

It's kind of like trigger warnings (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/). You can't censor the world, too much bad stuff happens in it. And trigger warnings create both a kind of fragile victim identity and an unrealistic expectation of what life is really like.
I don't want to dwell too much on the highly politicized issue of trigger warnings, but I think there's a lot of misinformation and exaggeration regarding their intent. It's not about censorship or about coddling people. It's about allowing people with unpleasant experiences (which we may not share, but should respect) to know what to expect. Those people won't necessarily avoid anything with a TW on it, but will at least be able to approach it on their own terms. Kind of like allergy warnings (minus the life-or-death implications), it means a lot to those who need them, and doesn't in any way inconvenience those who don't.

I think people would have less of a knee-jerk reactions to trigger warnings if they were called "content notices".

[McStabbington]

I don't want to dwell too much on the highly politicized issue of trigger warnings, but I think there's a lot of misinformation and exaggeration regarding their intent. It's not about censorship or about coddling people. It's about allowing people with unpleasant experiences (which we may not share, but should respect) to know what to expect. Those people won't necessarily avoid anything with a TW on it, but will at least be able to approach it on their own terms. Kind of like allergy warnings (minus the life-or-death implications), it means a lot to those who need them, and doesn't in any way inconvenience those who don't.

I think people would have less of a knee-jerk reactions to trigger warnings if they were called "content notices".

That is correct; they're functionally identical to content advisory warnings on television programs.

But as for the main issue, I think it depends less on the time involved than the medium and the degree of sensitivity involved. Legos as a medium is seen as inherently comedic and frivolous, because your medium is designed and built as a child's toy.

It's similar to the time in high school that my friends and I got bored in calculus class and designed a Gummy Bear House of Horror. Everyone thought it was kind of funny because of the medium. Had we built a Gummy Bear diorama in honor of the film Shoah instead, no matter how sincere our intent might have been, it would have rapidly hit "Dude, that is so totally not cool" territory. And I don't know that there was really anything we could have done to save it.

[veti]

Well, thank goodness none of those "offended" people has ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which makes light of the persecution of witches, the legal impunity of the nobility, sexual abuse in religious communities... the list goes on.

Or Duck Soup, which makes fun of - get this - war! What were they thinking? Dr Strangelove takes it even further, makes fun of nuclear war!

Build a bridge and get over it. Everyone's got hangups, and if some people really want to publish theirs for the world to see, that's their decision - but I don't see why I, or anyone else, should be expected to change what I want to say or show or do on that basis.

[Giggling Ghast]

I suspect it has nothing to do with being "too soon."

More likely, people are "offended" because Lego is a toy and people do not want to associate something light and fun with a major disaster, as it could be seen as mocking said disaster. It would be the same with a Lego model of, say, Auschwitz.

(A Polish artist actually did make a rather dreary Lego model of Auschwitz as an artwork, and it actually did spark some minor controversy.)

[Eldan]

And unlike, say, comedies set in WWII, that Titanic model doesn't make fun of anything. And I'd say WWII comedies are actually quite important.

[Pronounceable]

you've got to wonder at what point it stops being "too soon"
Immediately. All you need is to have no care for the people affected. Nobody owes anyone any care or respect, the amount of care and sympathy a human mind is able to produce is limited and you can't blame anyone for not spending it on people they don't know or like. If you do care about the victims, the too soon limit is still absolutely personal and can't be measured and you're not obligated to concern yourself with what anyone might think about your opinion.

And in this particular occasion, I'm %100 sure the "outraged" people are just internet idiots fishing for brownie points from other internet idiots.

[Yora]

As Master Yoda would say. "Tell joke or do not. There is no too soon."

[Killer Angel]

Woody Allen makes jokes about Holocaust, and it's generally considered fine.

(This could also mean that, if you are somehow involved in the tragedy, you may joke about it and get a sort of free pass)

[Aotrs Commander]

The only thing I have to contribute is to say how impressed I am the gentleman was able to get the Titanic to support itself at that angle. That's some work of structural engineering, LEGO or no. I think he rather deserves to look cheerful and proud for that effort.

[thorgrim29]

I believe that making fun of something takes away some of it's power to hurt you so it's probably better to do it while it's "too soon". Sure people might get offended but whatever you do people get offended so that's not a very useful barometer. That's why even though I don't care much for the rest of his career I have a lot of respect for Gilbert Gottfried for having the balls to make his 9/11 joke. More importantly than being a dumb and insensitive joke (which it was) it was a message saying "this horrible thing happened but we're going to be ok".

[TheThan]

The Nostalga Critic has an interesting essay (http://channelawesome.com/nostalgia-critic-when-does-a-joke-go-too-far/) on this topic. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says I think it’s still worth looking at.

Personally I think that when a person looks to be offended; he will find something that offends him.
I also think there a lot of people that just need to grow a tougher skin and not let offensive things bother them.

[Marillion]

I believe that making fun of something takes away some of it's power to hurt you so it's probably better to do it while it's "too soon". Sure people might get offended but whatever you do people get offended so that's not a very useful barometer. That's why even though I don't care much for the rest of his career I have a lot of respect for Gilbert Gottfried for having the balls to make his 9/11 joke. More importantly than being a dumb and insensitive joke (which it was) it was a message saying "this horrible thing happened but we're going to be ok".

Very much agreed. In a similar fashion, comedian Anthony Jeselnik has repeatedly gotten into hot water by making a joke on the day of a tragedy. The way he sees it, though, when he does that he's not making fun of the victims: After all, they're not on twitter that day, they've got things to do. As he explains (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FLGEr1zJYo), he's ridiculing the people who feel the need to inject themselves into the discussion of a tragedy with their "thoughts and prayers".

[Giggling Ghast]

To be clear, mocking Anakin Skywalker while he's cradling his dead mom is definitely in poor taste.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_69wvG7Bqa8

[Cristo Meyers]

The Nostalga Critic has an interesting essay (http://channelawesome.com/nostalgia-critic-when-does-a-joke-go-too-far/) on this topic. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says I think it’s still worth looking at.

I think he forgot one thing, or if he did I don't remember because I kinda just binged 6 or 7 of those: the visibility the internet provides now. Before, someone extremely offended by something inane like, say, a Lego recreation of the Titanic, was probably a single voice in a very large crowd. Easily drowned out or ignored if they even piped up at all. Now? It'll get blogged, tweeted, re-tweeted, facebooked, and before you know it that one voice has found Lord knows how many others and they're going to be heard, dangit.

[Rockphed]

I think he forgot one thing, or if he did I don't remember because I kinda just binged 6 or 7 of those: the visibility the internet provides now. Before, someone extremely offended by something inane like, say, a Lego recreation of the Titanic, was probabl(y a single voice in a very large crowd. Easily drowned out or ignored if they even piped up at all. Now? It'll get blogged, tweeted, re-tweeted, facebooked, and before you know it that one voice has found Lord knows how many others and they're going to be heard, dangit.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Manga Shoggoth]

This article by Gizmodo (http://lego.gizmodo.com/120-000-piece-lego-model-of-the-titanic-breaking-in-hal-1753739169) got me thinking. It features an impressive LEGO reproduction of the Titanic sinking, along with passengers in various states of horror and distress. Many of the commenters (yes, I know I shouldn't read the comments) are expressing outrage, saying that it makes light of a tragedy.

From what I can remember of the old Lego figures, the originals all used to have the same generic smile on their faces. I wonder what the outrage-o-meter would be reading if the figures were still using that face type.

[Pronounceable]

Now? It'll get blogged, tweeted, re-tweeted, facebooked, and before you know it that one voice has found Lord knows how many others and they're going to be heard, dangit.
That's not new (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc9gGwt4eAU).

[TheSummoner]

According to South Park, 22.3 years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612DEoTFH0o).


I do not for one second believe that even 1 in a 100 of those people making a scene are actually emotionally invested in the Titanic or any of the people who were on it or even upset by the diorama. None of them actually care, I'd wager they're all just posers acting morally outraged for the sake of seeming morally outraged.

This. There are a lot of people who use this sort of thing to feel self-righteous. Because nothing says "I'm a good person" like impotent rage on the internet over non-issues.


Very much agreed. In a similar fashion, comedian Anthony Jeselnik has repeatedly gotten into hot water by making a joke on the day of a tragedy. The way he sees it, though, when he does that he's not making fun of the victims: After all, they're not on twitter that day, they've got things to do. As he explains (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FLGEr1zJYo), he's ridiculing the people who feel the need to inject themselves into the discussion of a tragedy with their "thoughts and prayers".

Speaking of Anthony Jeselnik, this old image seems fitting. I had to censor a few words to make it forum appropriate... Some people might've been offended by the joke. :smallwink:

http://i.imgur.com/iLtyxrT.png

[Mando Knight]

This article by Gizmodo (http://lego.gizmodo.com/120-000-piece-lego-model-of-the-titanic-breaking-in-hal-1753739169) got me thinking. It features an impressive LEGO reproduction of the Titanic sinking, along with passengers in various states of horror and distress. Many of the commenters (yes, I know I shouldn't read the comments) are expressing outrage, saying that it makes light of a tragedy.

The "too soon" excuse for the Titanic in particular expired no later than 1997. If it can be the backdrop of a major motion picture that wins 11 Academy Awards, another artist has just as much a right to depict the event as a sculpture made from thousands of plastic bricks.

Also, the Jeselnik anecdote is hilarious.

[Traab]

People get offended by the stupidest things, and often its being offended "on someone's behalf" like, if I told a mildly racist joke and someone said, "Hey, you cant say that, its offensive to that group of people!" Anyone else remember the honest, seriously meant petition to change the release of the Fellowship of the Rings sequel title because "The Two Towers" was offensive and insensitive to the lives lost on 9/11?

[Don nadie]

Spoiler alert: this is a topic I am really interested in. I am, in fact, doing a PhD of novels that have humour + history, and as you can imagine comical versions of terrible historical events appear quite often. So, forgive me for going full nerd on this post and writing at length!

Now, straight for the core of the thread, I personally think the idea of “too soon” is very awkward. Every creator (but also every victim, and everyone who has heard of the event) makes his own decision. I think it is harsh to tell someone to “get over it”, or to criticise how they have no right to be offended because of this or that. The past is complicated, and each deals with tragedy on his own way. I am gay. Am I wrong because I find (some) jokes about AIDS funny? Would I be wrong for being hurt/disturbed/angry at them?

I think the problem is partly that the nature of offense (of feeling hurt by the behaviour of others) is deeply personal, as is the act of mourning a tragedy. In real life, usually we know or have an idea about the people we’re interacting with, and hence can control what we say to test the limits of our audience. The way words disseminate online makes it very difficult to have this kind of control. I can say something to a group (say, make a joke about how “everyone knows homosexuals are child-abusers who catch their victims by waving colourful feather boas”… [and I really hope everyone knows I am being 100% irony on this thread :P]) which then gets thrown around, becomes a quote, and makes someone feel really bad. I would feel bad having hurt someone with this, but also not exactly guilty.

And this is without considering that, because online we don’t have a clear context for words, all readers have a tendency to interpret statements within their own experience (so that very often irony is not caught. All the fake-news that get believed as real are a great example of this).
In this sense, trigger warnings (content warning, I must say, is a much more accurate term) are useful, because they allow people to know what to expect. And, furthermore, a trigger warning also implies a sort of kindness on part of the writer, because he implies that he knows his words could harm someone, and wants to give them the choice not to be hurt. I think it can be good online manners... Although that might not solve the issue (some people may find it offensive that the joke is done on the first place, and not the joke itself).

And this whole thing is without considering the role humour (and black, gallows, and all sort of ugly forms of it) can play in allowing a victim to grapple tragedy. It can be a way of putting some distance from the facts (humour can sometimes make a situation feel less real), of venting frustration and sadness, or simply of creating a sense of community. Freud, everyone’s favourite crazy person, claimed in fact that humour was the way our minds coped with forbidden or terrible thoughts. In one example that (unlike most of Freud) makes sense, he spoke of how people joke about mortality and death in order to cope with their anxiety about it.

When I first started my PhD I considered quite a few humorous Holocaust novels, all of them written by Jews who had survived concentration camps. As you can imagine, they were very, very problematic… But they were also great! And you could see how the authors were trying to grapple with humour (which is, let us be clear, just one more resource of the storyteller, just like fantasy or realism) something that was just too big for simply “use words to tell the real story as it happened”. They were also offensive as hell to a lot of people, and banned all over Israel and Germany for ages. Sometimes I was reading some passages and I had to laugh, and then I felt weird about it (which is often what happens with dark humour). But just as I think a realistic painting is not necessarily better at representing pain that an abstract sculpture, I don’t think this is better or worse than any other choice.

So, to go back to the original poster, I do not think it is ever “too soon”, although I believe there will always be troubles and polemics about it. It’s just part of the fact each of us is his own individual person.

That said, I also think your 3 points are perfect for where you can be certain your commentary will not offend anyone. With an addendum, which would be that (4) the content of the joke should not be an act or acts that are disturbing to living people. Because I think people may find jokes about mass graves distasteful, regardless of them being about victims of the Black Death or victims of the Nazis…

[Murk]

I think it's wonderful that people can be offended by things like this.

I'm not meaning that snippy, or sarcastic, actually. I think it is an amazing thing that, if you dislike something, you can just say that.
There's a lot of people here saying people are "too easily offended", often with "nowadays" added. I think that's not true - I think people were always easily offended, and people will be easily offended. However, I do think it is new that they dare to speak out on it, rather than being hurt in silence.
These are not new feelings - these are very old feelings that are finally expressed. And I adore that.

Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't make these jokes. It does mean that you can take other peoples feelings into account better, should you wish to. If you're not out to offend someone, at least you know what you're up against. If you are out to offend someone, sure, go ahead, but you can count on the fact that people have as much right to be offended as you have to offend them.


See, this guy build a Titanic. He got a lot of love for it, and a little bit of hate. Guy's happy, lovers are happy, haters are happy. Seems all good to me.

[Zmeoaice]

There is no "too soon". Only not soon enough :smallbiggrin:.

Jokes need to be told as soon as they can be crafted IMO.

[veti]

I think it's wonderful that people can be offended by things like this.

I'm not meaning that snippy, or sarcastic, actually. I think it is an amazing thing that, if you dislike something, you can just say that.

On reflection, I think you're right. Thank you for that.

But I'd put one proviso on it. It's great that people can say "I don't find that funny", or "I'm offended by that". It becomes more problematic when the word "should" gets introduced: "You shouldn't do that because it's offensive". Because at that point, you're presuming to impose your values on someone else, and that's... well, offensive.

[Donnadogsoth]

I think the problem here is that a tragedy is being represented by children's toys. Granted, LEGO, by virtue of its age, has graduated to being adults' toys as well, but still it's largely promoted to, and perceived as chiefly being for, kids. Viewing a tragedy made of LEGO, whether Titanic or Auschwitz or the Twin Towers, comes off as in bad taste because, were children to play with it, or even view it and think of playing with it, they would likely not understand the gravity of what is being depicted. So that's why LEGO tragedy kits are a bad idea, and why this particular model is a bad idea.

[BWR]

Short answer: it will always be too soon for some people.

We have to accept that and one has to accept that some people will joke about stuff you find unpleasant. The only thing we should do is if not necessarily go out of our way to avoid offending people, at least go out of our to to not intentionally upset harmless people who are suffering.
E.g. I will happily make dead baby jokes. I will not make them in the presence of people who have lost a child (and most likely not in the presence of people with children at all).

[Aotrs Commander]

I think the problem here is that a tragedy is being represented by children's toys. Granted, LEGO, by virtue of its age, has graduated to being adults' toys as well, but still it's largely promoted to, and perceived as chiefly being for, kids. Viewing a tragedy made of LEGO, whether Titanic or Auschwitz or the Twin Towers, comes off as in bad taste because, were children to play with it, or even view it and think of playing with it, they would likely not understand the gravity of what is being depicted. So that's why LEGO tragedy kits are a bad idea, and why this particular model is a bad idea.

And on the other hand... How about that one Titanic animated movie (The Legend of the Titanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_the_Titanic)) in which a cartoon octopus prevents anyone from dying?

I find that... far more inappropriate on a number of levels (not only due to it, tacitly or not, teaching children the wrong things about actual history, but in molly-coddling of the children as well.) It would be no better if it was a cartoon elephant stopping the Great Fire of London or a cartoon, I dunno, dog stopping anyone dying from [pick a hurricane, tsunami or earthquake], let alone if applied to man-made tragedies (i.e. any terrorist attack). Or a caroon mouse finding a cure for the Black Death.

(The statute of limitations on revisonist history, at least, nevers expires... *looks in direction of Hollywood*)



(Also, if LEGO did a movie et al about the Titanic officially, all evidence points to the fact it would be actually very smartly done.)

[Bulldog Psion]

On reflection, I think you're right. Thank you for that.

But I'd put one proviso on it. It's great that people can say "I don't find that funny", or "I'm offended by that". It becomes more problematic when the word "should" gets introduced: "You shouldn't do that because it's offensive". Because at that point, you're presuming to impose your values on someone else, and that's... well, offensive.

On the other hand, "shouldn't" is toothless unless the speaker has actual power to back it up.

[Donnadogsoth]

And on the other hand... How about that one Titanic animated movie (The Legend of the Titanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_the_Titanic)) in which a cartoon octopus prevents anyone from dying?

Oh, man. "And if we had enough magic, nothing bad would ever happen!"

[TheThan]

On reflection, I think you're right. Thank you for that.

But I'd put one proviso on it. It's great that people can say "I don't find that funny", or "I'm offended by that". It becomes more problematic when the word "should" gets introduced: "You shouldn't do that because it's offensive". Because at that point, you're presuming to impose your values on someone else, and that's... well, offensive.

You know what; I was about to type out a whole huge lengthy ranting post to try to say what you just did in like three sentences. Thank you for saving me that time and effort.

The problem with censorship, that whole "You can't say that it offends me!" attitude is that it can really infringe upon someone’s right of freedom of speech; that first amendment right we Americans love to exercise so very much. So in a situation where person A makes an offensive joke and person B is offended and says “you can’t say that, it offends me!” Who is really stepping on whose toes? The person offending or the person being offended?

Has anyone ever read the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury? It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of rampant censorship. In this book anyone caught with books, magazines newspapers or any other print media that is not sanctioned by the dystopian government is arrested and the books burned all in the name of public happiness.

If not, then I urge you to go and read that book. It’s really good and strangely prophetic considering today’s society with TV, internet, social media and whatnot.


Edit:
I found this video on Youtube. I think it’s pertinent to the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs

[Murk]

Right. It's a fine line between actually hurting someone and "only" offending them, and that fine line is the line where "freedom" ends.
I think discussing the specific position of that line might be a little too political for this forum.

However, you are right, of course. Once people start saying "you shouldn't have made this joke, because it's too soon", that might be problematic. If they say "I'd prefer you didn't make this joke, because I think it's too soon", that would be awesome. The joker can then decide "do I value this joke over this persons feelings?" and if the answer is "yes" he can make the joke (and then people are free to decide what that says about the joker's personality).


I think that is what it boils down too - "too soon" is a spectrum. There will be a large percentage of people offended right after a tragedy happened, and a very small percentage offended after, say, a thousand year, in a steady decline (not sure if that's an exponantial or linear decline).
That makes it not a question of "when is it too soon?" but "what percentage of people is small enough to make the joke even though they feel it's too soon?"

That sounds pretty harsh, though.

[Chen]

The problem with censorship, that whole "You can't say that it offends me!" attitude is that it can really infringe upon someone’s right of freedom of speech; that first amendment right we Americans love to exercise so very much. So in a situation where person A makes an offensive joke and person B is offended and says “you can’t say that, it offends me!” Who is really stepping on whose toes? The person offending or the person being offended?

The first amendment is freedom from the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. Private citizens can attempt to restrict your speech as much as they want to. If they have the power to do so, they can, such as a private establishment owner kicking you out or banning you from saying certain things. There is no fundamental right to be able to say whatever the hell you want and have it protected. On the flip side there is also no fundamental right you have to not hear things you find offensive.

[TheThan]

The first amendment is freedom from the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. Private citizens can attempt to restrict your speech as much as they want to. If they have the power to do so, they can, such as a private establishment owner kicking you out or banning you from saying certain things. There is no fundamental right to be able to say whatever the hell you want and have it protected. On the flip side there is also no fundamental right you have to not hear things you find offensive.

Once again go read Fahrenheit 451. Because that’s exactly the scenario. People made enough noise over things they found offensive that the government started to step in and strip away people’s freedom to say what they want to (freedom of speech); or their freedom to expose themselves to things they want to expose themselves to (like the written arts in this case). It took decades to do it but it worked and the people in that book ended up living in a police state where they were only allowed to experience state authorized media; any unauthorized media (all books) are taken and burned. any speech that was deemed inappropriate or subversive landed you in trouble. Heck in that book there’s a war going on and nobody seems to know a darn thing about it or even care enough to try to find out.

Go read that book; the parallels to today’s society and some of the issues we face are staggering.

[Telonius]

I'd probably go by the Mel Brooks rule. The Producers came out in 1967. In the hands of a master comedian near the top of his game, 20 years or so is about enough time for even the most horrific tragedies. If you are not a master comedian near the top of your game, consider waiting a bit longer.

[Chen]

Once again go read Fahrenheit 451. Because that’s exactly the scenario. People made enough noise over things they found offensive that the government started to step in and strip away people’s freedom to say what they want to (freedom of speech); or their freedom to expose themselves to things they want to expose themselves to (like the written arts in this case). It took decades to do it but it worked and the people in that book ended up living in a police state where they were only allowed to experience state authorized media; any unauthorized media (all books) are taken and burned. any speech that was deemed inappropriate or subversive landed you in trouble. Heck in that book there’s a war going on and nobody seems to know a darn thing about it or even care enough to try to find out.

Go read that book; the parallels to today’s society and some of the issues we face are staggering.

And when the government starts restricting offensive jokes you can complain about it. There are plenty of private spaces where things are censored. Hell this forum censors anything religious or political. Or you know blatantly racist or sexist. Or any number of other things. People have agreed to that censorship.

I don't think there's any argument for preventing people from telling offensive jokes or even generally being offensive. But in the same vein, people are free to condemn that same telling of offensive jokes. Even from a government point of view there are restrictions on free speech (fire in a crowded theatre, inciting violence or other illegal acts etc).

[Killer Angel]

Edit:
I found this video on Youtube. I think it’s pertinent to the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs

I find it enlightening, tnx for the link.
It says many things i feel, but with so much clarity in exposition.

[TheThan]

I find it enlightening, tnx for the link.
It says many things i feel, but with so much clarity in exposition.

Thank you, I’m glad I could help.



And when the government starts restricting offensive jokes you can complain about it. There are plenty of private spaces where things are censored. Hell this forum censors anything religious or political. Or you know blatantly racist or sexist. Or any number of other things. People have agreed to that censorship.

I don't think there's any argument for preventing people from telling offensive jokes or even generally being offensive. But in the same vein, people are free to condemn that same telling of offensive jokes. Even from a government point of view there are restrictions on free speech (fire in a crowded theatre, inciting violence or other illegal acts etc).

By then it could be too late. There’s a great poem by noted anti-Nazi Theologian Martin Niemöller, it goes something like this:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me


This speaks of the dangers of doing nothing when you see something wrong. If we allow authorities to dictate to us what we can say, where we can say it and to whom we say it to; then we run the risk of losing everything we hold dear. The reason why the government doesn’t want us to yell fire in a crowded room or incite a riot is because that can cause physical harm to other people and property not because it’ll hurt someone’s precious feelings. This forum has their reasons for banning certain topics; I have agreed to their terms when I joined these forums many years ago. If I did not agree to their terms I would not have joined. I have willingly submitted myself to the rules they set forth (and have occasionally crossed the line when I felt strongly about something).

But that’s the difference, I’ve chosen to submit and censor myself (and found myself holding back more than once); I am not being forced to be silent by a committee or organization or someone who wishes to silence anything they don’t agree with. Such is the case of someone saying “you can’t say that it’s offensive”.

Now I don’t feel that comedy has to be offensive or focus on recent tragedies to be funny. However I don’t think that comedy must be perfectly clean either. Comedians should be able to choose to sensor themselves based on their style of comedy, and I’ll choose for myself who I find funny and who I don’t. just as I view that Lego Titanic as an amazing work of art showcasing a tragedy that happened over a hundred years ago.

[TheSummoner]

And when the government starts restricting offensive jokes you can complain about it. There are plenty of private spaces where things are censored. Hell this forum censors anything religious or political. Or you know blatantly racist or sexist. Or any number of other things. People have agreed to that censorship.

I don't think there's any argument for preventing people from telling offensive jokes or even generally being offensive. But in the same vein, people are free to condemn that same telling of offensive jokes. Even from a government point of view there are restrictions on free speech (fire in a crowded theatre, inciting violence or other illegal acts etc).

No, I think I'll complain about it when I damn well feel there's something worth complaining about, regardless of whether it's the government trying to restrict my rights or some other party. The end result is the same, regardless of who is doing the censoring.

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

(Note that I mean "you" in a very general sense above and am not referring to any person in particular.)

[Murk]

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.


I actually expect people to go easy on you when you are offended. If someone makes a joke that hurts me, I expect them to at least feel sorry for it. Not to remove the joke, or never make it again, but at least say "Sorry if this hurts you".
Take feelings into account. Not because you should, not because of any law, not because your freedom is restricted, but, maybe, because it's a nice thing to do? You are not forced to be nice, but it's still nice to do.

But maybe I'm naive.

[Aotrs Commander]

I actually expect people to go easy on you when you are offended. If someone makes a joke that hurts me, I expect them to at least feel sorry for it. Not to remove the joke, or never make it again, but at least say "Sorry if this hurts you".
Take feelings into account. Not because you should, not because of any law, not because your freedom is restricted, but, maybe, because it's a nice thing to do? You are not forced to be nice, but it's still nice to do.

But maybe I'm naive.

I think that is ENTIRELY dependant on what people are claiming offense on.

Because, for example, I am not going to be in the least sorry if the offended party is, for example, some zealot or bigot or doing something wrong and is offended they've been called on it (e.g. for unacceptable business practises), or using being offended as a shield to try and make people to go easy on them because they have done something worthy of critism (e.g. the sort of blow-up you see from people on Steam Greenlight and the like when they attempt to peddle (for actual money) crap to consumers and are rightly called on it) etc etc.

[Killer Angel]

Thank you, I’m glad I could help.

:smallsmile:
There's a whole world of difference, between "your freedom ends where my rights begin" and "your freedom ends where my sensibility begins".

[Swordsmith]

I recall hearing a joke the day of the Challenger Disaster: Why do the soda machines at NASA stock Sprite?

It was too soon for me. But maybe it's still too soon for me today, so perhaps "too soon" is not the issue there.

I recall a radio DJ calling Air Florida and asking about tickets to the 14th street bridge, right after a plane crashed into it. That was too soon for me. I don't think it's funny now, either, so maybe too soon is still the wrong way to look at it.

But my point is, in both cases, I felt a strong outrage at the joke that, at the time, seemed to have a "too soon" component, as if it might have been sort of funny later but not right then.

[Bulldog Psion]

No, I think I'll complain about it when I damn well feel there's something worth complaining about, regardless of whether it's the government trying to restrict my rights or some other party. The end result is the same, regardless of who is doing the censoring.

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

(Note that I mean "you" in a very general sense above and am not referring to any person in particular.)

So, you're saying that anyone has the right to insult anyone else with no consequences, and the target is obliged to just suck it up?

I'm not sure if that viewpoint is going to work out so great in reality. Sure, person A can follow person B around, making insulting and mocking comments about person B's 4-year-old daughter, say, but if person B is a 6'7" ex-spetznaz, then the odds are fairly high that person A is going to end up chewing on a knuckle sandwich PDQ. Even if theoretically the "world is offensive" and the tattooed muscle-bound 300-lb hulk should just "suck it up."

[Forum Explorer]

I actually expect people to go easy on you when you are offended. If someone makes a joke that hurts me, I expect them to at least feel sorry for it. Not to remove the joke, or never make it again, but at least say "Sorry if this hurts you".
Take feelings into account. Not because you should, not because of any law, not because your freedom is restricted, but, maybe, because it's a nice thing to do? You are not forced to be nice, but it's still nice to do.

But maybe I'm naive.

Eh, it depends. A lot.

If it's a personal tragedy that you've suffered and you don't want to talk about it? Then I won't talk about it to you, and I will feel bad that you suffered said tragedy. However I maintain the right to talk about it to anybody else, and yes, even do things like put up posters, protest, argue, and even joke about you.

Basically I won't inflict the subject matter on you, so long as you are willing to extend the courtesy of actually trying to avoid, and not demand that I censor myself so you don't have to feel bad.

This goes triple for universities and the like because they should be challenging you and moving you out of your comfort zone with new ideas and opinions.


@^ There is a line between a casual insult and harassment. And there is another line between expressing your opinion and an insult.

[Chen]

No, I think I'll complain about it when I damn well feel there's something worth complaining about, regardless of whether it's the government trying to restrict my rights or some other party. The end result is the same, regardless of who is doing the censoring.

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

(Note that I mean "you" in a very general sense above and am not referring to any person in particular.)

I think we're actually on the same page here. I'm not saying you have any obligation to not offend people. I am seeing you need to accept the consequences of offending people with your so called free speech. If society stigmatizes you because you are offensive, that is the cost you have for that speech. I am not saying we need to ban it or the government needs to ban it or anything. When dealing with private citizens you have the right to say practically whatever you want. And the person you're saying it to has every right to criticize you back or to ignore you or to tell people to shun you or whatever.

https://xkcd.com/1357/ is a bit more concise in making the same point I'm trying to make.

[thorgrim29]

I think there is a difference between "do I like this?" and "should this be allowed?". It's a fairly crucial difference that I unfortunately see a lot of people on the Internet and on campuses ignoring, I believe because of a wildly optimistic belief that they are on the right side of history and will therefore never be subjected to the same kind of methods they use.

That's why I think that offence is utterly irrelevant. There are a ton of things that make my blood boil with rage but I still think they should be allowed because as long as you're not causing harm you should be allowed to do it (and I mean real harm here, none of that "hearing about a subject gets me down therefore I have self-diagnosed PTSD and should be handled with kid gloves and provided a nice pastel colouring room to relax" crap). You might get protested, insulted and scorned but you shouldn't be stopped IMO because one day it might be me or people who think like me that are not in favour and if we create an environment where dissent from societal norms is banned either officially or effectively then we'll be screwed.

Now that's the argument for legal free speech, which is fairly uncontroversial in western democracies (hate speech laws aside, but that's a grey area I really really don't want to get into). The counter-argument for the private nature of online spaces is I believe flawed because Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media platforms are in effect public spaces even though they are owned by private companies. They're the new town hall/public broadcast/town squares and at some point they are going to have to be treated as such.

[dehro]

I don't think time has much to do with it. It's more about the quality and circumstances in which something is made light of.
think about the Charlie Chaplin masterpiece "the great dictator", a parody of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
watching it now for the first time may well be a completely hilarious experience, detached from the historical relevance and personal connections one may have with WW2 or its aftermaths.
The movie however came out in 1040, when Hitler was still in power and was not yet universally reviled or opposed. In fact the US still had to join the war and I am fairly certain that there were quite a bit of people who probably took offence at this lampooning of a head of state who at the time was still enjoying a degree of support in most countries he had yet to invade.
Was it "too soon" or was it a bit of perfectly timed satire that should have awoken a few consciences more than it did??
I bet that WW2 veterans and survivors reacted rather differently, in the following decades, at their first viewing of the movie.. some probably disliked being reminded of those dark times, whilst others may have been helped coping with the memories by seeing things from a farcical angle. Likewise, my grandmother, who in the 80's didn't mind watching Chuck Norris movies as they came out and could sit through a fair bit of movie violence, would immediately turn over the TV to something else if there was a japanese officer shouting something on screen, albeit in a peaceful setting. She did spend most of the war in a japanese prison camp, so that would explain it.. My grandfather on the other hand, who had his own share of difficulties in Europe, was never particularly affected by any depiction of violence.
Any kind of racist joke at a KKK rally is probably not ok (one could debate the appropriateness of KKK rallies at large, but that's a topic for another forum).
A derogatory comment at a funeral is probably also not quite right (then again, quality, as I said, does make exceptions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o9-E-eMUHs)).
Most will agree that the WBC picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers deserve a good punch in the face.. but I reckon that if they argued their positions more eloquently and in a more civilised and less controversial manner, they would receive a lot more support than the usual public outrage seems to indicate.
In other words, a piss-take, a joke a comment or a different opinion is not made inappropriate by timing but by content and quality.
Of course this means that there cannot be a single rule to determine when or how to make light of something and when it is not appropriate to do so. If quality (an entirely subjective notion) and the circumstances (too many and too differring to frame them in a single rule of thumb) are what matters, we will just have to resign ourselves to the fact that everything is passible to being made fun of or not being taken seriously, and that conversely, not one attempt at doing so will find everybody in agreement. There will always be someone who will take offense, whether they are personally affected or not.

Tl;Dr, the internet sucks at keeping out bumhurt people. bumhurt people are everywhere. we will all be bumhurt at one time or the other in life... and now we have a tool to share our bruises with whoever wants to listen to us.

[Pex]

It may be more of a hit or miss. Someone tries to reference the tragedy, but the timing of it and what they're doing matters. "The Walk" made its debut 14 years after 9/11. What fascinated me about it in all the publicity is that no mention of 9/11 was made. People discussed the movie for its own sake, concentrating only the subject matter and ignored the elephant in the room. I see that as a sense of healing.

Personal opinion bias, that sense of healing is a result, not something the movie provided. It is often said the key to healing in laughter. To me, the healing started in 2009 with Jeff Dunham, the now famous ventriloquist. Before 2009 he was known on the comedy circuit, well received, but not a "star". In 2009 he took a risk and debuted Achmed The Dead Terrorist. He recorded his performance for DVD sales, and his Achmed skit became a viral hit on the internet. He gave "permission" for Americans to laugh about the subject matter. A taboo was broken, and the healing began. "The Walk" could be made 5 years later and be treated as any other movie.

[Pronounceable]

In 2009 he took a risk and debuted Achmed The Dead Terrorist.
Which was also a gigantic pile of racist, jingoist, religionist pile of condescending bull**** and %110 objectionable. Why'd Americans' "healing" be more valuable than the outrage that guy would cause among Muslims?

So, where's the line? Answer: Nowhere. There's no line.

[Pex]

Having performed in the Middle East and Malaysia with Achmed, your point is moot.

[Aotrs Commander]

I do not believe that many - perhaps most - Muslims find terrorists to be any less worthy of derision that non-Muslims; certainly in the UK at any rate. (Though I think we should be careful about further discourse in this matter due to forum restrictions.)

[Psyren]

Rule one of comedy is know your audience.

All I can say is the Titanic thing didn't offend me, it was long enough ago that it shouldn't be "fresh." I personally wouldn't have made such a sculpture even if I could, but neither am I castigating the guy for doing so.

[Pronounceable]

Having performed in the Middle East and Malaysia with Achmed, your point is moot.
That's not how it works.

Rule one of comedy is know your audience.
That's how it works. The sword cuts both ways. You can be as offensive and insulting to people as you want, you'll be successful if you find an audience that approves of it (there'll always be an audience for everything). As free as Dunham is in being a giant ****head for comedy, anyone is just as free to object to it.

[TheThan]

That's not how it works.

That's how it works. The sword cuts both ways. You can be as offensive and insulting to people as you want, you'll be successful if you find an audience that approves of it (there'll always be an audience for everything). As free as Dunham is in being a giant ****head for comedy, anyone is just as free to object to it.

The problem is not that people object to things other say or do (they are free to do so), the problem is that some people want to to force silence or censorship upon others because they object to what others are saying or doing.

[Psyren]

The problem is not that people object to things other say or do (they are free to do so), the problem is that some people want to to force silence or censorship upon others because they object to what others are saying or doing.

No one is forcing anything though. They're saying "I and {number of people that share my views} find this joke distasteful" followed by the platform holder saying "I think this is a significant enough backlash that I would not like my platform to be involved." The comedian or messenger in question is then perfectly free to find their own means of continuing to broadcast that message via private enterprise.

Or to put it more succinctly: https://xkcd.com/1357/ (mild language warning.)

[Tyndmyr]

A lot of it is more about how than when. A transgressive joke can still be funny.

Had a friend get hit by a train on sunday. Cracked bones and everything. Instead of a get well card, she got sent a "Thomas the tank engine". Should be getting there today.

How much people like this sorta humor varies a lot. If you and your friends enjoy it, cheers. I certainly do. But it's best to be aware that tastes differ, and that what might be funny between friends might not be so amusing at a funeral.

[TheThan]

No one is forcing anything though. They're saying "I and {number of people that share my views} find this joke distasteful" followed by the platform holder saying "I think this is a significant enough backlash that I would not like my platform to be involved." The comedian or messenger in question is then perfectly free to find their own means of continuing to broadcast that message via private enterprise.

Or to put it more succinctly: https://xkcd.com/1357/ (mild language warning.)

The question I immediately thought of is this:
“Is that person being pressured to remove his joke/message etc?”
Peer pressure, social engineering, these things exist and has been used to manipulate people to doing things they don’t want to do since the very beginning. Heck I’ve known teenagers that were master manipulators; back when I was a teen (pre-social media btw). What’s the difference between forcing someone to do something via peer pressure/social engineering and media pressure vs forcing someone to do something via laws or political pressure or physical pressure?

Not much if you ask me. The net result is the same, silencing someone because he is disliked.

Personally I just don’t listen to comedians that I don’t like. Really it’s that simple. Comedian “X” says things I don’t like, I don’t listen to him. I don’t have to get all butt hurt and go online and piss and moan on social media, make mean youtube comments (are there any other kind?), en alt.

[jere7my]

The question I immediately thought of is this:
“Is that person being pressured to remove his joke/message etc?”
Peer pressure, social engineering, these things exist and has been used to manipulate people to doing things they don’t want to do since the very beginning. Heck I’ve known teenagers that were master manipulators; back when I was a teen (pre-social media btw). What’s the difference between forcing someone to do something via peer pressure/social engineering and media pressure vs forcing someone to do something via laws or political pressure or physical pressure?

Not much if you ask me. The net result is the same, silencing someone because he is disliked.

Personally I just don’t listen to comedians that I don’t like. Really it’s that simple. Comedian “X” says things I don’t like, I don’t listen to him. I don’t have to get all butt hurt and go online and piss and moan on social media, make mean youtube comments (are there any other kind?), en alt.

Do you think there is no social pressure exerted by racist or sexist jokes? Don't those silence people just as readily as social media campaigns—which, I'm sure you'll point out, are just another form of speech? Why are you in favor of free expression in one case, but not the other? You seem to be "pissing and moaning on social media" right now; why don't you just ignore the speech you don't like?

[TheThan]

Do you think there is no social pressure exerted by racist or sexist jokes? Don't those silence people just as readily as social media campaigns—which, I'm sure you'll point out, are just another form of speech? Why are you in favor of free expression in one case, but not the other? You seem to be "pissing and moaning on social media" right now; why don't you just ignore the speech you don't like?

Actually I never said I was for or against anything and no I'm not pissing and moaning. I’m trying to get people to think.

Is using social pressure for any reason wrong?

Is it ok for some to use social pressure to fulfill their agenda and not others?

Does that racist or sexist have the right to be racist or sexist and express his views?

If no, then do others who don’t agree with his stance have the right to silence him?

If yes, then does he have the right to silence others with his racist and sexist rhetoric?

is it ok to suppress one person's free expression but not an others free expression?
if so then do we have a double standard?
if we have a double standard, then why?

Where do we draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? Who should draw that line?

[thorgrim29]

So I just came across a video on the subject of making jokes about bad things. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that Ricky Gervais isn't board appropriate (like, ever) so I'll just summarize his argument here. It's very similar to what I wrote earlier so I might have watched it before and internalized it.

Basically he says that the whole reason we as a species use humour is as a kind of medicine that helps us get over bad things. Whether it's a disaster, a terrorist attack, murder, rape, whatever, joking about it is what allows us to live with it. Therefore jokes about good things are pointless and by trying to prevent jokes about bad things you're just delaying or stopping the healing process.

[Psyren]

The question I immediately thought of is this:
“Is that person being pressured to remove his joke/message etc?”
Peer pressure, social engineering, these things exist and has been used to manipulate people to doing things they don’t want to do since the very beginning. Heck I’ve known teenagers that were master manipulators; back when I was a teen (pre-social media btw). What’s the difference between forcing someone to do something via peer pressure/social engineering and media pressure vs forcing someone to do something via laws or political pressure or physical pressure?

Not much if you ask me. The net result is the same, silencing someone because he is disliked.

Except he's not silenced. He has total freedom to find another platform from which to express his message, including buying his own website, or standing on a public street corner with a sign. What he does not have the right to do is demand that Facebook, Comedy Central, Youtube, or any other privately-owned enterprise give him a megaphone.


Personally I just don’t listen to comedians that I don’t like. Really it’s that simple. Comedian “X” says things I don’t like, I don’t listen to him. I don’t have to get all butt hurt and go online and piss and moan on social media, make mean youtube comments (are there any other kind?), en alt.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), the right to piss and moan is free speech too. And if private entities choose to respond to that by not hosting you on their platforms, that is their right as well.

[Pex]

That's not how it works.

That's how it works. The sword cuts both ways. You can be as offensive and insulting to people as you want, you'll be successful if you find an audience that approves of it (there'll always be an audience for everything). As free as Dunham is in being a giant ****head for comedy, anyone is just as free to object to it.

Of course you can object to it. That doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't exist. It goes both ways. Certain groups do not get immunity to satire.

[TheThan]

Except he's not silenced. He has total freedom to find another platform from which to express his message, including buying his own website, or standing on a public street corner with a sign. What he does not have the right to do is demand that Facebook, Comedy Central, Youtube, or any other privately-owned enterprise give him a megaphone.


Ok for starters I read your initial post wrong. My bad
In the case that someone is being compensated for his time and effort. Then he has the obligation to speak about what he’s being paid to speak about. Going off the rails as it were will give him a bad reputation that will jeopardize his ability to make money. It’s in his best interest to be consistent in his performances/speeches etc. even in a situation like a comedian that has to change his performance up often to stay fresh, still keeps a consistent style and jokes because that’s what expected of him that’s what an audience will pay to go see.

Additionally I would hope that the owner of a venue would at least be familiar with said speaker’s previous work before hiring him to come to his venue to speak. It’s in his best interests to know what this speaker is going to speak about in a general sense. That way he can promote him and market to the appropriate crowd of people.



Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), the right to piss and moan is free speech too. And if private entities choose to respond to that by not hosting you on their platforms, that is their right as well.

Agreed.

But I’ll ask again what happens when one person’s rights infringe upon another person’s rights?

[Killer Angel]

But I’ll ask again what happens when one person’s rights infringe upon another person’s rights?

If we're talking about legal rights from both sides, and not personal tastes / sensibility, then it's probably time for lawyers.

[Wardog]

Complaining about things being too soon isn't just a modern thing.

Apparently, some people Saved from the Titanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saved_from_the_Titanic) was too soon (in this case: 29 days after the event). In its defence, the main star was one of the survivors.

List of films about the Titanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_about_the_RMS_Titanic).

[Psyren]

Ok for starters I read your initial post wrong. My bad
In the case that someone is being compensated for his time and effort. Then he has the obligation to speak about what he’s being paid to speak about. Going off the rails as it were will give him a bad reputation that will jeopardize his ability to make money. It’s in his best interest to be consistent in his performances/speeches etc. even in a situation like a comedian that has to change his performance up often to stay fresh, still keeps a consistent style and jokes because that’s what expected of him that’s what an audience will pay to go see.

Additionally I would hope that the owner of a venue would at least be familiar with said speaker’s previous work before hiring him to come to his venue to speak. It’s in his best interests to know what this speaker is going to speak about in a general sense. That way he can promote him and market to the appropriate crowd of people.

But even having that general sense ahead of time isn't always enough. When the Laugh Factory brought Michael Richards in back in 2006, they were very familiar with his existing body of work (as Kramer + his standup.) He wasn't an unknown by any stretch of the imagination. And yet, I doubt they knew back then that he'd launch into an extremely racially-charged tirade that would end up making the news and besmirch their reputation. (And it's not like he went in intending to do that either - he just got caught up in the heat of the moment during a badly bombing set.)



Agreed.

But I’ll ask again what happens when one person’s rights infringe upon another person’s rights?

Your question is moot in this case though - when a private entity chooses what material/message it wants or does not want to host, no one's rights are being infringed. Getting a gig at a comedy club is not a right. Having a Facebook profile or Youtube account is not a right.

As for competing rights - which again doesn't apply here - this is what the courts are for, so I can't get into it in detail. One example is how a public protester on a street corner with a megaphone (free speech) is not allowed to do so at 2 in the morning in a residential area (right to peace and quiet wins.)

[TheThan]

But even having that general sense ahead of time isn't always enough. When the Laugh Factory brought Michael Richards in back in 2006, they were very familiar with his existing body of work (as Kramer + his standup.) He wasn't an unknown by any stretch of the imagination. And yet, I doubt they knew back then that he'd launch into an extremely racially-charged tirade that would end up making the news and besmirch their reputation. (And it's not like he went in intending to do that either - he just got caught up in the heat of the moment during a badly bombing set.)

What exactly are you trying to get at? What you describe is the same thing I described. Mr. Richards went off the rails so to speak at a performance and now his reputation (and unfortunately laugh factory’s rep as well) is in the toilet. He’s reaping the consequences of his actions (an extremely unprofessional and racist rant). What happened to Mr. Richards is exactly what should have happened to him for going so far off the rails in an insulting derogatory manner. Did Mr. Richards have the right to do so? Yes he did. But he failed to realize the consequences for his actions and as a result he suffered a huge reputation hit and is likely hard up for work.

It’s unfortunately that laugh factory is (unjustly) suffering for the actions of the person they brought in but that is a risk (usually a very small one) they have to take being in the entertainment business. They had no way of knowing he would do what he did. If they did, they wouldn’t have brought him on. Just like I’m sure he had no idea he was going to do that when he stepped out on stage. This sort of thing is actually quite uncommon.


Your question is moot in this case though - when a private entity chooses what material/message it wants or does not want to host, no one's rights are being infringed. Getting a gig at a comedy club is not a right. Having a Facebook profile or Youtube account is not a right.

As for competing rights - which again doesn't apply here - this is what the courts are for, so I can't get into it in detail. One example is how a public protester on a street corner with a megaphone (free speech) is not allowed to do so at 2 in the morning in a residential area (right to peace and quiet wins.)

How is it a mute point? How does it not apply?

As a citizen of a free country I want to know how far my rights extend. Where do my rights end and another's rights begin? Yes courts exist and laws exist for usually good reason (there are unfair courts and unjust laws still in the world today but I digress), and they exist for legal reasons. But what about between two people on the street, in a house you know outside of a court case. Where do they draw the line? where does one person say "ok now you're infringing on my rights". ?

These are important things to define if we want to have a civilization that's actually you know civil.

[Chen]

How is it a mute point? How does it not apply?

As a citizen of a free country I want to know how far my rights extend. Where do my rights end and another's rights begin? Yes courts exist and laws exist for usually good reason (there are unfair courts and unjust laws still in the world today but I digress), and they exist for legal reasons. But what about between two people on the street, in a house you know outside of a court case. Where do they draw the line? where does one person say "ok now you're infringing on my rights". ?

These are important things to define if we want to have a civilization that's actually you know civil.

It doesn't apply because say you are on the street and someone is saying things you don't want to hear. Neither of you have any rights that are being violated here. They have no particular right to be listened to and you have no particular right to not be offended by what you're hearing. In terms of a private establishment, the owner tends to have the final say in how can be allowed in the place. As such they can kick you out if you're saying stuff they dislike. Barring things like discrimination based on a protected class, no rights are being violated here. Without discrimination coming into play the only rights in play here are property rights.

[Psyren]

What exactly are you trying to get at? What you describe is the same thing I described. Mr. Richards went off the rails so to speak at a performance and now his reputation (and unfortunately laugh factory’s rep as well) is in the toilet. He’s reaping the consequences of his actions (an extremely unprofessional and racist rant). What happened to Mr. Richards is exactly what should have happened to him for going so far off the rails in an insulting derogatory manner. Did Mr. Richards have the right to do so? Yes he did. But he failed to realize the consequences for his actions and as a result he suffered a huge reputation hit and is likely hard up for work.

It’s unfortunately that laugh factory is (unjustly) suffering for the actions of the person they brought in but that is a risk (usually a very small one) they have to take being in the entertainment business. They had no way of knowing he would do what he did. If they did, they wouldn’t have brought him on. Just like I’m sure he had no idea he was going to do that when he stepped out on stage. This sort of thing is actually quite uncommon.

I can't speak for how common or uncommon it is; I was merely countering your assertion that venues/platforms always know what the person they're bringing in will say and the impact it might have on their reputation. The fact is that they don't, even for a well-known performer, and so they are taking a risk by doing so. If they make the business decision not to take on that risk as a private enterprise, then said performer or speaker has to find other outlets, but their rights have not been infringed.



How is it a mute point? How does it not apply?

As a citizen of a free country I want to know how far my rights extend. Where do my rights end and another's rights begin? Yes courts exist and laws exist for usually good reason (there are unfair courts and unjust laws still in the world today but I digress), and they exist for legal reasons. But what about between two people on the street, in a house you know outside of a court case. Where do they draw the line? where does one person say "ok now you're infringing on my rights". ?

These are important things to define if we want to have a civilization that's actually you know civil.

Where the line exists (and where it should exist) is indeed a meaningful discussion to have. However, we can't do so here because law and politics are against the forum rules. I was merely pointing out that the line does exist, which is about all we can really say.

[Bohandas]

Personally I believe it's never too soon.

[TheThan]

It doesn't apply because say you are on the street and someone is saying things you don't want to hear. Neither of you have any rights that are being violated here. They have no particular right to be listened to and you have no particular right to not be offended by what you're hearing..

You’re missing the point. People have the right to take offense, but what happens when they use their free speech to try to shut that person up? Say by social pressure; which is something we see all the time. Some celebrity will make some mean comment or tweet about something and the world starts attacking him for being mean, or a hater or any other common attack words used now until finally that celebrity issues an apology for saying something mean.

Now it’s safe to assume that this celebrity is saying whatever offensive thing he said to attract attention. But that may not always be the case. Look at Mel Gibson; he went on an anti-semitic rant while drunk (and pulled over by the cops) and now his career is in the toilet. Did he do that for attention? I highly doubt it.


In terms of a private establishment, the owner tends to have the final say in how can be allowed in the place. As such they can kick you out if you're saying stuff they dislike. Barring things like discrimination based on a protected class, no rights are being violated here. Without discrimination coming into play the only rights in play here are property rights.


I can't speak for how common or uncommon it is; I was merely countering your assertion that venues/platforms always know what the person they're bringing in will say and the impact it might have on their reputation. The fact is that they don't, even for a well-known performer, and so they are taking a risk by doing so. If they make the business decision not to take on that risk as a private enterprise, then said performer or speaker has to find other outlets, but their rights have not been infringed.

Well yeah, you pays your money (hopefully not up front) and you takes your chances. You can assume that the speaker you hired won’t go too far off the rails like Mr. Richards did. But you never know for certain.



Where the line exists (and where it should exist) is indeed a meaningful discussion to have. However, we can't do so here because law and politics are against the forum rules. I was merely pointing out that the line does exist, which is about all we can really say.

True that. I think I’m done with this thread, talking about this stuff gets exhausting.

[Killer Angel]

Look at Mel Gibson; he went on an anti-semitic rant while drunk (and pulled over by the cops) and now his career is in the toilet. Did he do that for attention? I highly doubt it.

Isn't this more a case of "you're free to say whatever you want, but the rest of the world is free to react in unpleasant was? "

[Chen]

You’re missing the point. People have the right to take offense, but what happens when they use their free speech to try to shut that person up? Say by social pressure; which is something we see all the time. Some celebrity will make some mean comment or tweet about something and the world starts attacking him for being mean, or a hater or any other common attack words used now until finally that celebrity issues an apology for saying something mean.

What exactly is the problem here? No rights are being violated. It's merely an example of actions having consequences. If you say something people really dislike, well there's going to be pushback. You have the right to not have the government interfere with your free speech (with certain exceptions). They can't do things or threaten you or whatever to prevent you from saying what you want to say. Other people though? They can do whatever they want, within legal bounds, to incentivize you to not say things. Be it social pressure, barring from establishments or simply no longer interacting with you.

[Pex]

What exactly is the problem here? No rights are being violated. It's merely an example of actions having consequences. If you say something people really dislike, well there's going to be pushback. You have the right to not have the government interfere with your free speech (with certain exceptions). They can't do things or threaten you or whatever to prevent you from saying what you want to say. Other people though? They can do whatever they want, within legal bounds, to incentivize you to not say things. Be it social pressure, barring from establishments or simply no longer interacting with you.

But it crosses the line when you demand people be fired for saying something you don't like. I'm not talking about a boss firing an employee due to harm against the company's image. I'm talking about "the public" demanding the boss fire an employee where as the employee's speech had nothing to do with his work, was said by the employee's own volition of a personal opinion, and the only "offensive" thing about it was it disagreed with the opinion of those demanding the firing. It has happened. Sometimes all it takes is wearing a shirt given as a gift by co-workers or has the American flag.

[Psyren]

But it crosses the line when you demand people be fired for saying something you don't like. I'm not talking about a boss firing an employee due to harm against the company's image. I'm talking about "the public" demanding the boss fire an employee where as the employee's speech had nothing to do with his work, was said by the employee's own volition of a personal opinion, and the only "offensive" thing about it was it disagreed with the opinion of those demanding the firing. It has happened. Sometimes all it takes is wearing a shirt given as a gift by co-workers or has the American flag.

I don't think "this person should be fired" is really the common form the backlash takes. More often its "We're boycotting the establishment this person works for and encourage others to do the same" (which is, obviously, their right as private citizens to support whatever business they want) and then the higher-ups there conclude that firing the problematic individual or asking for their resignation is a good move.

The few times I do see "this person should be fired" it's usually because the prominence of their position makes it so that they are speaking for the organization as a whole. An example would be the Mozilla CEO kerfluffle - he has every right to his personal views, but as CEO he also represents the company as a whole and so there was a conflict between hi private opinions and his professional role.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't think "this person should be fired" is really the common form the backlash takes. More often its "We're boycotting the establishment this person works for and encourage others to do the same" (which is, obviously, their right as private citizens to support whatever business they want) and then the higher-ups there conclude that firing the problematic individual or asking for their resignation is a good move.

The few times I do see "this person should be fired" it's usually because the prominence of their position makes it so that they are speaking for the organization as a whole. An example would be the Mozilla CEO kerfluffle - he has every right to his personal views, but as CEO he also represents the company as a whole and so there was a conflict between hi private opinions and his professional role.

It happens way too often in education, the most glaring story I heard where a Prof was being accused of being a racist and anti-Sematic when a sentence he said was taken out of context (the class was about WW2 and the Nazis). I can't remember all the details, but I think the prof was telling what the Nazi's beliefs were, and a student accused him of holding those beliefs.

I can't remember the end consequences, but he did have to fight for his job, and he was mentally and physically harassed by the public. (he may have lost his job, I don't know)

Now that sort of crap happens way too often for my comfort.

[Psyren]

Education is a special case though as most teachers are government employees. So the public are literally paying their salary and do have somewhat of a say in the content/message as a result. It's not quite the same as, say, a self-employed comedian or even a business executive making an off-color comment.

For a private institution, I agree, the message should be more "we disagree and have chosen not to patronize this establishment," with the school then making the business/ethical/moral decision that results.

[Pex]

I don't think "this person should be fired" is really the common form the backlash takes. More often its "We're boycotting the establishment this person works for and encourage others to do the same" (which is, obviously, their right as private citizens to support whatever business they want) and then the higher-ups there conclude that firing the problematic individual or asking for their resignation is a good move.

The few times I do see "this person should be fired" it's usually because the prominence of their position makes it so that they are speaking for the organization as a whole. An example would be the Mozilla CEO kerfluffle - he has every right to his personal views, but as CEO he also represents the company as a whole and so there was a conflict between hi private opinions and his professional role.

"A few times" is a few times too many. Being a CEO of a company does not forever forbid him from expressing an opinion people don't like or be forced to resign. Demanding someone be fired is a common thing. People have lost their businesses.

[Forum Explorer]

Education is a special case though as most teachers are government employees. So the public are literally paying their salary and do have somewhat of a say in the content/message as a result. It's not quite the same as, say, a self-employed comedian or even a business executive making an off-color comment.

For a private institution, I agree, the message should be more "we disagree and have chosen not to patronize this establishment," with the school then making the business/ethical/moral decision that results.

To a certain extent sure, but these days it seems far too rigid, or parents are far less intolerant of their children being exposed to ideas they don't personally agree with.

[jere7my]

To a certain extent sure, but these days it seems far too rigid, or parents are far less intolerant of their children being exposed to ideas they don't personally agree with.

I'm not sure this is actually more common "these days." It used to be the norm for teachers to be fired for so-called moral reasons: being gay, or getting a divorce, or having extramarital sex. That still happens, of course—I have teacher friends who have to keep their private lives private, and Melanie Martinez was famously fired as host of a PBS kids' show because she'd made a satirical video about a sex act years before—but it's no longer nigh-universally accepted that a gay teacher is unfit to have contact with kids. We hear more about high-profile cases, but overall tolerance tends to increase with time.

[Psyren]

"A few times" is a few times too many. Being a CEO of a company does not forever forbid him from expressing an opinion people don't like or be forced to resign. Demanding someone be fired is a common thing. People have lost their businesses.

No, but what it means is that he needs to lead a company that shares his values, or at the very least one that doesn't wish to be tainted by association. The simple fact is that the conflict between his views and those of the company as a whole (which supports the kinds of rights he was opposing) was costing them both clients and talent. Fit matters a great deal, especially at that level of management.

[Pex]

No, but what it means is that he needs to lead a company that shares his values, or at the very least one that doesn't wish to be tainted by association. The simple fact is that the conflict between his views and those of the company as a whole (which supports the kinds of rights he was opposing) was costing them both clients and talent. Fit matters a great deal, especially at that level of management.

Since when should a person's personal opinion on a political point be a qualification/disqualification for being hired for a job, barring lobbyists, campaign staff, and other overt political organizations of course?

[Chen]

Since when should a person's personal opinion on a political point be a qualification/disqualification for being hired for a job, barring lobbyists, campaign staff, and other overt political organizations of course?

Depends on the political point. A point that could possibly lead to discrimination or discriminatory attitudes in the company are certainly one that could impact employees. Thoughts on monetary policy could end up having some sort of effects on worker remuneration.

In the ends the exact details aren't terribly relevant. The technical expertise/products a company produce are certainly one way they maintain customers. But their public perception is another big one. And that one can be very closely linked with the public perception of its employees. As you get higher up on the employee totem pole, the more and more visibility there is towards that person's personal beliefs and how those beliefs reflect on the company.

[Pex]

Depends on the political point. A point that could possibly lead to discrimination or discriminatory attitudes in the company are certainly one that could impact employees. Thoughts on monetary policy could end up having some sort of effects on worker remuneration.

In the ends the exact details aren't terribly relevant. The technical expertise/products a company produce are certainly one way they maintain customers. But their public perception is another big one. And that one can be very closely linked with the public perception of its employees. As you get higher up on the employee totem pole, the more and more visibility there is towards that person's personal beliefs and how those beliefs reflect on the company.

2016, the new 1984

Who gets to decide what is the appropriate political point? Who gets to define discrimination? Who gets to decide it is Incorrect Thinking to disagree on something? Who are the Thought Police?