So many triggers
September 5, 2015 8:10 PM Subscribe
This is not an easy read, but I felt that it was worth reading: PC Comedy and Paul Revere
One point stuck out for me, going from "you are wrong" for a few examples to summarizing it as "you are not correct". Not to say Politically Incorrect, but FACTUALLY Incorrect, and if you have to TELL LIES to be FUNNY, you are doing it TOTALLY WRONG.
Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Victor Borge are all quoted that TRUTH is at the core of REAL HUMOR. Because it's not about cruelty... the truth can be as cruel as it can be funny, but when you're building your 'humor' on falsehood, it's not the joke, YOU ARE.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:53 PM on September 5, 2015 [20 favorites]
Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Victor Borge are all quoted that TRUTH is at the core of REAL HUMOR. Because it's not about cruelty... the truth can be as cruel as it can be funny, but when you're building your 'humor' on falsehood, it's not the joke, YOU ARE.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:53 PM on September 5, 2015 [20 favorites]
This was excellent.
posted by putzface_dickman at 9:07 PM on September 5, 2015
posted by putzface_dickman at 9:07 PM on September 5, 2015
Am I missing something? What is there about the Beastie Boys song that implies anything about sexual assault? I always took those lines as being about a father being violently upset about his daughter being (consensually) seduced, which is an ancient and extremely common comedy trope.
posted by kickingtheground at 9:15 PM on September 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 9:15 PM on September 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's also worth noting that the etymology of 'faggot' from Louie is false.
posted by kickingtheground at 9:19 PM on September 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 9:19 PM on September 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I always feel weird about linking because of that but it still seems to make the point pretty well to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:23 PM on September 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:23 PM on September 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
I was thinking of posting this, but I didn't want it to be my first post. And I didn't know how to frame it. And other excuses.
Thank you for posting. I think it's important. This article is what got me to (yesterday) finally post something on Facebook, breaking a very extended phase of almost entirely treating it like a place where my Instagram photos go and I occasionally click a "like" link.
The part I quoted on Facebook was
Thank you for posting. I think it's important. This article is what got me to (yesterday) finally post something on Facebook, breaking a very extended phase of almost entirely treating it like a place where my Instagram photos go and I occasionally click a "like" link.
The part I quoted on Facebook was
You felt pain there, because in the absence of politics and pre-rehearsed arguments and everything you think you think, your brain kicked in and forced you to feel the pain of another living thing. That pain, believe it or not, is wonderful; it’s tangible proof, if you ever need it, that you are not a fundamentally bad person. The primal instinct at the heart of all kindness and justice exists in you. Yet you told that joke, and it was fucked up. It really, really was. You were wrong about that one.posted by cardioid at 9:52 PM on September 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
> Am I missing something? What is there about the Beastie Boys song that implies anything about sexual assault? I always took those lines as being about a father being violently upset about his daughter being (consensually) seduced, which is an ancient and extremely common comedy trope.
kickingtheground, I think it could be taken as seduction if you only think about "I did it like this. I did it like that." I couldn't tell you what part of seduction is meant by "I did it with a Wiffle ball bat", though.
I admit I never thought about these lines. To me, it was just a rhyme, a rap, a little thing that fit in the song. I didn't think about them even as I was thinking more about what messages media are sending us, and I can't remember when was the last time I put much thought to the Beastie Boys in general, let alone their first album or this particular song. Sady Doyle got me to think about it, and in hindsight, it's pretty obvious something is wrong.
posted by cardioid at 10:01 PM on September 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
kickingtheground, I think it could be taken as seduction if you only think about "I did it like this. I did it like that." I couldn't tell you what part of seduction is meant by "I did it with a Wiffle ball bat", though.
I admit I never thought about these lines. To me, it was just a rhyme, a rap, a little thing that fit in the song. I didn't think about them even as I was thinking more about what messages media are sending us, and I can't remember when was the last time I put much thought to the Beastie Boys in general, let alone their first album or this particular song. Sady Doyle got me to think about it, and in hindsight, it's pretty obvious something is wrong.
posted by cardioid at 10:01 PM on September 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
This started strong. Nuanced, even. But it ended exactly as I expected.
I honestly wonder what this author would think of the contemporary critics that hated Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce, who considered them obscene and unfit for a cultured society. They'd probably chuckle at the parochial narrow-mindedness, that they just didn't get comedy like we do in the enlightened future. This author would probably say, "Woo! Good thing Pryor had an audience that was comfortable being uncomfortable! I mean, if Pryor wasn't free to..."
And I'd say, "Yeah, about that..."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:09 PM on September 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
I honestly wonder what this author would think of the contemporary critics that hated Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce, who considered them obscene and unfit for a cultured society. They'd probably chuckle at the parochial narrow-mindedness, that they just didn't get comedy like we do in the enlightened future. This author would probably say, "Woo! Good thing Pryor had an audience that was comfortable being uncomfortable! I mean, if Pryor wasn't free to..."
And I'd say, "Yeah, about that..."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:09 PM on September 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't know what Sady Doyle would think of the critics who were then critical of Richard Pryor et al in that time and place, but I think a very great many of them would be angry about people who argue against racist, homophobic, sexist and rape jokes today. I also think that those comedians would not be using the same material as they used then, because that would be really weird. I think they would be exploring humor in the present, if they were in the present, and their targets probably wouldn't be gay people, disabled people, people of color, rape victims etc.
posted by taz at 10:55 PM on September 5, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by taz at 10:55 PM on September 5, 2015 [31 favorites]
I don't even know what you read, Cool Papa Bell. The essay was very clear that it's not about obscenity or culture or snobbishness, but about trying not to hurt people. The call is not for inappropriate comedy to be banned or boycotted, but for artists to stop and think when confronted with the criticism that what they have said is hurtful and attempt to seriously grapple with whether it's worth it to cause that pain in pursuit of whatever goal they have in mind.
Tut-tutting about those uncouth outsiders doesn't enter into this except as a strawman.
posted by Scattercat at 11:13 PM on September 5, 2015 [37 favorites]
Tut-tutting about those uncouth outsiders doesn't enter into this except as a strawman.
posted by Scattercat at 11:13 PM on September 5, 2015 [37 favorites]
Tim Burke's response to Doyle is typically thoughtful and well-argued. He's a cultural historian--originally an Africa specialist--with a strong interest in media studies, video games, and the internet, and he takes the opportunity here to think about Doyle's points in relation to claims about violence in media.
posted by col_pogo at 11:20 PM on September 5, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by col_pogo at 11:20 PM on September 5, 2015 [19 favorites]
I very much appreciated reading and thinking about this. Thank you for the post.
posted by missmary6 at 11:53 PM on September 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by missmary6 at 11:53 PM on September 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I never saw that line as a joke about rape either but even if they didn't mean it that way, the point is it doesn't matter. Once you release something into the world your intent doesn't matter anymore. The only thing that matters is how people perceive it. And if you don't like the effect your work had then you have to do things different next time (like the Beastie Boys did), not whine on Twitter about it. Actually MCA had a lot of lyrics (once they grew out of their shitty frat boy parody phase) about how music made him feel good and he wanted his music to make other people feel good. It's pretty simple.
posted by bleep at 11:59 PM on September 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by bleep at 11:59 PM on September 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think it's just a not-quite-perfect example that hits up against some of the limitations of the argument but doesn't invalidate it. Maybe it was chosen because something really bad happened and because the artist has reflected publicly on the evolution of his subject matter but I think there are multiple interpretations too, and if we accept that
The only thing that matters is how people perceive it.
we also have to accept that can't know how every person is going to perceive it. The Burke link seems like a decent take on that.
BUT think of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, who were forced to confront that one has to be careful when one deploys racist tropes ironically lest someone in the audience pick them up sincerely. This is well worth keeping in mind if you do comedy.
posted by atoxyl at 12:39 AM on September 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
The only thing that matters is how people perceive it.
we also have to accept that can't know how every person is going to perceive it. The Burke link seems like a decent take on that.
BUT think of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, who were forced to confront that one has to be careful when one deploys racist tropes ironically lest someone in the audience pick them up sincerely. This is well worth keeping in mind if you do comedy.
posted by atoxyl at 12:39 AM on September 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
It took me a loooonnnngggggg time to understand Chappelle's angst, but articles like this were a lot of the reason why I eventually found it. Thanks for putting yourself out there on topics like this, everybody and anybody who does.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:46 AM on September 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:46 AM on September 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't feel like Timothy Burke's response is really a response to Doyle's article at all. Burke is responding to a strawman which claims the "PC" brigade wants to cleanse all expression of the potential of any feeling getting hurt for any reason in any context. It's the same strawman that Patton Oswald and Jerry Sienfeld and Chris Rock are blaming for their discomfort at the backlash they get on college campuses.
Doyle's article is not calling for a moratorium on any and all expression which a hidden cabal of wet blanket millennials deem unacceptable. Doyle is focused specifically on rape culture and its contribution to rapes actually occurring. In the context of Doyle's article, the sword Burke describes is "rape jokes", and the two audiences who are deemed to have been given the monopoly of dictating their meaning are "rapists" and "victims of rape". How can one refuse to specifically stop telling jokes which light of rape and the victims of rape for the reasons Burke puts forward; I can't think of anything redeemable which society is in danger of losing if we oblige. And thinking it through, it is difficult see a reason to continue to tell jokes about the victims of racism, patriarchy, or any other pervasive oppression that infects society.
posted by Reyturner at 12:54 AM on September 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
Doyle's article is not calling for a moratorium on any and all expression which a hidden cabal of wet blanket millennials deem unacceptable. Doyle is focused specifically on rape culture and its contribution to rapes actually occurring. In the context of Doyle's article, the sword Burke describes is "rape jokes", and the two audiences who are deemed to have been given the monopoly of dictating their meaning are "rapists" and "victims of rape". How can one refuse to specifically stop telling jokes which light of rape and the victims of rape for the reasons Burke puts forward; I can't think of anything redeemable which society is in danger of losing if we oblige. And thinking it through, it is difficult see a reason to continue to tell jokes about the victims of racism, patriarchy, or any other pervasive oppression that infects society.
posted by Reyturner at 12:54 AM on September 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
That was very powerful and well written; thank you for posting it. I hope it helps reframe things for some people who see criticism of things like rape jokes as "censorship."
As Sady Doyle says in the article, "I don’t believe that offensive comedy should be prevented from existing, or forcibly suppressed. I believe it should be freely and openly criticized, because free speech does cover speech you don’t like, and therefore the answer to bad speech is more and better speech."
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 1:13 AM on September 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
As Sady Doyle says in the article, "I don’t believe that offensive comedy should be prevented from existing, or forcibly suppressed. I believe it should be freely and openly criticized, because free speech does cover speech you don’t like, and therefore the answer to bad speech is more and better speech."
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 1:13 AM on September 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
A nuanced take on a difficult-to-explain issue. Thanks for posting it, Joe.
posted by harriet vane at 1:32 AM on September 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by harriet vane at 1:32 AM on September 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Burke thing is about the complexity of assigning responsibility to an artist for a fan's interpretation of their work and corresponding actions. That is absolutely addressed to Doyle though I don't think she particularly actually means to hold the Beastie Boys morally responsible. (Also regardless they had lots of casual sexism to apologize for)
posted by atoxyl at 1:36 AM on September 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:36 AM on September 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't feel like Timothy Burke's response is really a response to Doyle's article at all. Burke is responding to a strawman
Well, yeah, that's been his M.O. ever since he was still presenting himself as the only liberal willing to swallow the hard truths about why a War on Iraq was necessary.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:53 AM on September 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
Well, yeah, that's been his M.O. ever since he was still presenting himself as the only liberal willing to swallow the hard truths about why a War on Iraq was necessary.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:53 AM on September 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
To me, it was just a rhyme, a rap, a little thing that fit in the song.
I suppose you also think Helter Skelter wasn't intended as an incitement to race war, Parsifal wasn't a celebration of Aryan blood purity, and The Catcher in the Rye can't be blamed for murder.
posted by sfenders at 4:24 AM on September 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I suppose you also think Helter Skelter wasn't intended as an incitement to race war, Parsifal wasn't a celebration of Aryan blood purity, and The Catcher in the Rye can't be blamed for murder.
posted by sfenders at 4:24 AM on September 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Here's the distinction as I'm thinking of it. Its probably not going to be funny if your joke depends on the implicit understanding that either:
A. [Bad thing] isn't a big deal
B. I couldn't possibly think [Bad thing] because it's so outlandish and I'm a good guy right?
C. Pretending to think [Bad thing] is sexy because it's counter to mainstream culture.
However if your joke is based on a real understanding or experience in the Bad Stuff and is saying something like:
"D. One truly absurd aspect of [Bad thing] that hasn't been described before is X. Let's all laugh about that in friendship."
Then you're not making a joke of Bad Thing you're making a joke about Bad Thing which may or may not be incisive and respectful and hilarious. Not as a guarantee but at least you have a shot.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:49 AM on September 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
A. [Bad thing] isn't a big deal
B. I couldn't possibly think [Bad thing] because it's so outlandish and I'm a good guy right?
C. Pretending to think [Bad thing] is sexy because it's counter to mainstream culture.
However if your joke is based on a real understanding or experience in the Bad Stuff and is saying something like:
"D. One truly absurd aspect of [Bad thing] that hasn't been described before is X. Let's all laugh about that in friendship."
Then you're not making a joke of Bad Thing you're making a joke about Bad Thing which may or may not be incisive and respectful and hilarious. Not as a guarantee but at least you have a shot.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:49 AM on September 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
This was fantastic, and I couldn't help but notice how many times our author emphasised that the creator/purveyor of what is oppressive material is of course a decent person who wouldn't want to be party to oppression, and how many times it's also emphasised that this isn't a call to outlaw, ban or suppress. I've been thinking about this a lot, because it seems these criticisms are very often taken to be a character indictment and a rallying cry for censorship. The way some people object to Anita Sarkeesian is a good example of this; no matter how much she bookends her criticisms with assurances she does not want vidya censored, policed or banned, that's still the prevailing myth. Even in this thread, the Censorous Strawman has been raised. And in my anecdotal experience, people who fancy themselves edgy, in-your-face freewheelin' free speech warriors will very often blast off for Planet Hyperbole if you say you didn't find their hot take hilarious. For people who demand everyone else lighten up and grow a thicker skin, they tend to be the most thin-skinned about any criticism.
So I understand having to repeatedly emphasise no, I do not think you are a literal rapist and no, I do not want Seinfeld sent to Comedy Prison for crimes against decency. Maybe it enables tone policing to do so, but at least you make clear to anyone else in the conversation where exactly you're coming from. And though many people get defensive in the heat of disagreement, maybe, once the dust has settled and the criticised has time to reflect, something might stick. There's nothing lost by trying to be reasonable with people you know to be basically decent, but "uneducated", as the author put it, on the experiences that have made a joke deserving of criticism.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:43 AM on September 6, 2015 [22 favorites]
So I understand having to repeatedly emphasise no, I do not think you are a literal rapist and no, I do not want Seinfeld sent to Comedy Prison for crimes against decency. Maybe it enables tone policing to do so, but at least you make clear to anyone else in the conversation where exactly you're coming from. And though many people get defensive in the heat of disagreement, maybe, once the dust has settled and the criticised has time to reflect, something might stick. There's nothing lost by trying to be reasonable with people you know to be basically decent, but "uneducated", as the author put it, on the experiences that have made a joke deserving of criticism.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:43 AM on September 6, 2015 [22 favorites]
Yeah, there are already dudes arguing in the tiny comments section on that post that it's impossible to call the mention of the whiffle ball bat in the song an allusion to rape, because there's no evidence that the sex in the song was not consensual. Because chicks are crazy about getting fucked with whiffle ball bats, I guess?
That plus the Censorous Strawman already raised here... this is why we can't have a nice society where more people are safe. Because when we try so very gently and nicely to say, hey, could you not, you're hurting me... there's always a big bag of assholes ready to shout NO WE'RE NOT!
posted by palomar at 7:37 AM on September 6, 2015 [11 favorites]
That plus the Censorous Strawman already raised here... this is why we can't have a nice society where more people are safe. Because when we try so very gently and nicely to say, hey, could you not, you're hurting me... there's always a big bag of assholes ready to shout NO WE'RE NOT!
posted by palomar at 7:37 AM on September 6, 2015 [11 favorites]
This was very interesting. Thanks for posting it.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:42 AM on September 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:42 AM on September 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having looked up Paul Revere on youtube to try and understand the context of the cited lyrics, I have to admit there are good reasons to object some of those words. The girl is admonished to "get straight", to return to her designated place in society, to give up the idea of achieving "kicks". There are dark suggestions of the consequences that will be enforced if this doesn't happen "before it's too late".
But I don't think it serves well as an illustration of the perils of stand-up comedy in general.
posted by sfenders at 8:45 AM on September 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
But I don't think it serves well as an illustration of the perils of stand-up comedy in general.
posted by sfenders at 8:45 AM on September 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Paul Revere lyrics might have room for interpretation. But let's be clear here, at best the sheriff's daughter is being treated like an object.
"...the sheriff's after me for what I did to his daughter."
To his daughter. Not with his daughter, despite the fact that this would also fit the flow. (And I like the Beastie Boys.)
posted by synapse at 9:56 AM on September 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
"...the sheriff's after me for what I did to his daughter."
To his daughter. Not with his daughter, despite the fact that this would also fit the flow. (And I like the Beastie Boys.)
posted by synapse at 9:56 AM on September 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
She lost me here:
Patton's A Closed Letter To Myself About Thievery, Heckling And Rape Jokes is a must-read. You may be tempted to skip to the end, but I encourage reading the whole thing.
posted by ArmandoAkimbo at 10:50 AM on September 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Patton Oswalt, in his (I’m going to say) 478th statement about something Salon wrote, complains that… oh, God, I can’t bring myself to care what Patton Oswalt had to say about Salon. It was angry, right? It’s usually angry. ANYWAYThat's a really jerky dismissal of someone who does this for a living, who's obviously thought a lot about this, and who's written thoughtfully on the topic.
Patton's A Closed Letter To Myself About Thievery, Heckling And Rape Jokes is a must-read. You may be tempted to skip to the end, but I encourage reading the whole thing.
posted by ArmandoAkimbo at 10:50 AM on September 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I read Patton Oswalt's letter when he posted it a few years ago and was very impressed at the thoughtfulness he exhibited, and sincerely hoped this meant he understood the implications of his comedy and words and would stop defending asshats like Daniel Tosh. And then a few months ago he went on a 53-part rant on Twitter decrying political correctness, making fun of triggers and victims of PTSD, and generally freaking out about comedians being oppressed. It may be a dismissive comment from Doyle, but Oswalt doesn't seem particularly interested in doing the ongoing work of self-reflection and continued learning. One epiphany does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card for future idiocy.
posted by Phire at 1:33 PM on September 6, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Phire at 1:33 PM on September 6, 2015 [20 favorites]
One of the more amazing things about the Beastie Boys (and there are many) is that they grew up.
posted by chavenet at 1:59 PM on September 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 1:59 PM on September 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
I never thought about that line as being about sexual assault, but after reading this, I realize that that's because I never thought about the sheriff's daughter's side of the experience at all. The singer was defiant, the sheriff was angry, and those were the people whose perspectives were foregrounded. To me, that makes the lyric a perfect example about how someone can unthinkingly contribute to rape culture, then later realize their take on things was really messed up.
Hard to read, but great article - thanks for posting it.
posted by heisenberg at 3:37 PM on September 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
Hard to read, but great article - thanks for posting it.
posted by heisenberg at 3:37 PM on September 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
I think that's the whole point, that there's an undeniable redemption arc here. The Beastie Boys got better, and nobody can deny that they got better. Every single of of us who just now or at some point in the past suddenly heard that line for the Nth time and thought "whoa...hang on a second...", we got better.
I think there's a lot to be said for seeing people get better, not that people should aim low on purpose but I think it is useful for humans to see other humans do that, and maybe learn not to write people off forever for not knowing better at a point in the past.
posted by Lyn Never at 4:24 PM on September 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think there's a lot to be said for seeing people get better, not that people should aim low on purpose but I think it is useful for humans to see other humans do that, and maybe learn not to write people off forever for not knowing better at a point in the past.
posted by Lyn Never at 4:24 PM on September 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
The line from Paul Revere may or may not be about rape, but it certainly is sexual violence. People can consent to sexual violence, but a lot of the rape culture problem lies in the default assumption that a female person who was on the receiving end of a sexually violent act consented to it. We do not have to default to this conclusion.
posted by gingerest at 4:44 PM on September 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 4:44 PM on September 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
sfenders, I'm really confused as to how you think that Paul Revere has anything to do with this.
posted by olinerd at 5:26 PM on September 6, 2015
posted by olinerd at 5:26 PM on September 6, 2015
I think that was some super dry humor.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:28 PM on September 6, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 5:28 PM on September 6, 2015
Well first, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to try and make a joke about an article about a song that allegedly contains a rape joke. In principle I feel someone should defend the right of comedians to joke about rape if they can make it funny, but I've never had the slightest inkling of any way to make such a joke myself and figure this is as close as I will likely get. But seriously, I'm not convinced that the Beastie Boys line is about rape or sexual violence; I wouldn't interpret it that way. Then again I was never really into their stuff or rap music in general, and actually have very little idea what a whiffle ball might be now that I think of it. I'm not sure it qualifies as a joke, either. Nor would the album usually be sorted under "comedy". So it just seems like a less-than-ideal example to use to make a point about rape jokes in comedy.
That a horrific crime is associated with it doesn't help me appreciate the choice; that can happen no matter what you write as history demonstrates. The predictable and avoidable harm isn't that kind, it's the more generalized and intangible kind, at worst (barring more deliberate evil) contributing to the perpetuation of a kind of rape culture, or some similarly objectionable piece of culture that is more mildly misogynistic than rapist for example, in a way like voting contributes to an election -- your voice matters, but it's highly unlikely that the broad cultural outcome or any sufficiently indirect incident can be causally connected to one source in particular in the fashion suggested. The vote that during counting puts the total over the threshold for someone to win isn't really more special than the others that happened to get counted before it. It still has an effect, don't get me wrong, I agree with the general idea of encouraging people not to vote for the bad guy. I just don't like the way the argument is made or the mistaken inferences that might be drawn as a result.
And then, I'm not completely convinced that Kicks doesn't have a creepy patronizing "what she needs is a man to tell her what's what" feel to it if you look at it from that angle. If by chance some insane rapist had picked it as his favourite song in 1972 and told himself he was doing it for her own good, that wayward girl, then we'd have the same kind of spurious connection. Just because that didn't happen does not absolve the song from any veiled sexism it might contain despite the best intentions of its authors, be it even further from the rapey centre of evil than is the non-rape reading of the Beastie Boys. So, it doesn't seem too unfair to make the reference to the other Paul Revere.
That is what I meant by my stupid joke.
posted by sfenders at 7:04 PM on September 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
That a horrific crime is associated with it doesn't help me appreciate the choice; that can happen no matter what you write as history demonstrates. The predictable and avoidable harm isn't that kind, it's the more generalized and intangible kind, at worst (barring more deliberate evil) contributing to the perpetuation of a kind of rape culture, or some similarly objectionable piece of culture that is more mildly misogynistic than rapist for example, in a way like voting contributes to an election -- your voice matters, but it's highly unlikely that the broad cultural outcome or any sufficiently indirect incident can be causally connected to one source in particular in the fashion suggested. The vote that during counting puts the total over the threshold for someone to win isn't really more special than the others that happened to get counted before it. It still has an effect, don't get me wrong, I agree with the general idea of encouraging people not to vote for the bad guy. I just don't like the way the argument is made or the mistaken inferences that might be drawn as a result.
And then, I'm not completely convinced that Kicks doesn't have a creepy patronizing "what she needs is a man to tell her what's what" feel to it if you look at it from that angle. If by chance some insane rapist had picked it as his favourite song in 1972 and told himself he was doing it for her own good, that wayward girl, then we'd have the same kind of spurious connection. Just because that didn't happen does not absolve the song from any veiled sexism it might contain despite the best intentions of its authors, be it even further from the rapey centre of evil than is the non-rape reading of the Beastie Boys. So, it doesn't seem too unfair to make the reference to the other Paul Revere.
That is what I meant by my stupid joke.
posted by sfenders at 7:04 PM on September 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's also worth noting that the etymology of 'faggot' from Louie is false.
Under Etymology it's the second sentence of the first paragraph: "Its immediate origin is unclear, but it is based on the word for "bundle of sticks", ultimately derived, via Old French, Italian and Vulgar Latin, from Latin fascis.[8][9]". But yes, there's no evidence that "flaming" is connected to that via burning of undesirables during the Middle Ages.
posted by numaner at 7:41 PM on September 6, 2015
Under Etymology it's the second sentence of the first paragraph: "Its immediate origin is unclear, but it is based on the word for "bundle of sticks", ultimately derived, via Old French, Italian and Vulgar Latin, from Latin fascis.[8][9]". But yes, there's no evidence that "flaming" is connected to that via burning of undesirables during the Middle Ages.
posted by numaner at 7:41 PM on September 6, 2015
That a horrific crime is associated with it doesn't help me appreciate the choice; that can happen no matter what you write as history demonstrates.
I think that is a fair point. Catcher in the Rye is not a book about how awesome murder is, but the association with killers happened because of people with some mental issues.
But look,
and actually have very little idea what a whiffle ball might be
A wiffle bat is a plastic baseball bat meant to hit a plastic baseball. Short of masochism, which is fine and dandy by me if it's your thing, you are probably not going to have a good time if you insert one in yourself. In my mind, referencing sex via an unconventional object like that calls to mind incidents like (Warning, story about rape) this. It's hard to see how it would be fun consensual sex barring, again, things that are outside of the mainstream but perfectly okay if that is your thing.
The reality of the lyric to me though is that it was more just a random thing to emphasize that he did her. " I did her. I DID HER. BOY DID I DO HER!" The lyric was not meant to be a boast about rape. The issue is that author intention isn't the only thing that matters, especially as time goes on. I can totally understand "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not a story about a rape when you understand the culture of the time and what the lyrics mean in that context of women needing excuses to stay overnight with a man they want to be with, but still...in 2015 if it doesn't rub you the wrong way at least a little you seem a bit out of touch to me.
So, it's not like this is a song about raping a girl necessarily, but if you can't see the issues with it that exist anyway when you look at those lyrics today, at this point I don't know how to persuade you any further.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:09 PM on September 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think that is a fair point. Catcher in the Rye is not a book about how awesome murder is, but the association with killers happened because of people with some mental issues.
But look,
and actually have very little idea what a whiffle ball might be
A wiffle bat is a plastic baseball bat meant to hit a plastic baseball. Short of masochism, which is fine and dandy by me if it's your thing, you are probably not going to have a good time if you insert one in yourself. In my mind, referencing sex via an unconventional object like that calls to mind incidents like (Warning, story about rape) this. It's hard to see how it would be fun consensual sex barring, again, things that are outside of the mainstream but perfectly okay if that is your thing.
The reality of the lyric to me though is that it was more just a random thing to emphasize that he did her. " I did her. I DID HER. BOY DID I DO HER!" The lyric was not meant to be a boast about rape. The issue is that author intention isn't the only thing that matters, especially as time goes on. I can totally understand "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not a story about a rape when you understand the culture of the time and what the lyrics mean in that context of women needing excuses to stay overnight with a man they want to be with, but still...in 2015 if it doesn't rub you the wrong way at least a little you seem a bit out of touch to me.
So, it's not like this is a song about raping a girl necessarily, but if you can't see the issues with it that exist anyway when you look at those lyrics today, at this point I don't know how to persuade you any further.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:09 PM on September 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah well, the part where I more explicitly acknowledged the issues with it that exist anyway was elided for brevity because seriously, wtf.
posted by sfenders at 8:49 PM on September 6, 2015
posted by sfenders at 8:49 PM on September 6, 2015
Okay, I didn't pick up on that. Not always the closest reader. Sorry.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:00 PM on September 6, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 9:00 PM on September 6, 2015
A nuanced take on this: http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2015/09/04/putting-out-fire-with-gasoline/
posted by neil pierce at 10:43 PM on September 6, 2015
posted by neil pierce at 10:43 PM on September 6, 2015
That Burke essay was linked and discussed some upthread.
posted by gingerest at 11:46 PM on September 6, 2015
posted by gingerest at 11:46 PM on September 6, 2015
Thanks, I missed that somehow.
posted by neil pierce at 12:16 AM on September 7, 2015
posted by neil pierce at 12:16 AM on September 7, 2015
This is a really good article, but I'm not sure I completely agree. As Burke says, I think it has a creeping little subtlety to it, in that it kind of wants to have it both ways. Of course this song didn't cause this person to be a rapist, but he did listen to this song then become a rapist. If you are making an argument that the song contributes to a culture which makes this person a rapist then you are arguing that the song makes the person a rapist. Not that it's the only thing, of course, but that it is a contributory factor.
And... I dunno. There's this idea of clowning, of a comedian being a dark mirror for society. That they say truths we don't want to hear, that might even disturb us, and maybe make us reflect on ourselves. And I appreciate that as value. But then I think of the racist or sexist making jokes which the audience enjoys, and confirms the audience's prejudices. And so....
Freedom of speech is a really hard to define thing. We don't owe anyone a living, for example, so if your horrible racist comedy is not appealing to anyone, we don't have to keep paying to keep watching you. The trouble comes when we actively campaign against certain kinds of speech. We can, and do, shout people into silence for their behaviours, and drive people away.
But... hmm. This Film is Not Yet Rated is an excellent demonstration of a possible problem with this. In it it argues that films which get an NC17 rating, which was intended to protect artistic displays of sexuality, are essentially receiving the kiss of death. Because shops won't sell them, and cinemas won't show them, thanks to active campaigning by people who don't like that kind of speech. So films like that are either very hard to obtain, or worse, they deliberately self censor to become commercially viable.
The problem with the idea of shouting down ideas you don't like is that maybe your voice isn't the loudest? And it's not like I want supermarkets full of the best of racism part 3, but... I guess it's complicated?
It doesn't help of course that jokes are usually reported sans context. When you hear about an awful thing a comic says, you don't get to see the entire show, or understand what kind of comic they are, you just hear the joke. And it sounds terrible. So one campaigns against it, and that comic finds themselves attacked, they lash back, the culture wars continue.
I don't know quite what point I'm making here, it's just its very easy to talk in absolute terms, and suggest certain kinds of humour are just wrong, as Doyle does towards the end of this essay, and I mostly agree, but I think it can be more complicated than that.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:03 AM on September 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
And... I dunno. There's this idea of clowning, of a comedian being a dark mirror for society. That they say truths we don't want to hear, that might even disturb us, and maybe make us reflect on ourselves. And I appreciate that as value. But then I think of the racist or sexist making jokes which the audience enjoys, and confirms the audience's prejudices. And so....
Freedom of speech is a really hard to define thing. We don't owe anyone a living, for example, so if your horrible racist comedy is not appealing to anyone, we don't have to keep paying to keep watching you. The trouble comes when we actively campaign against certain kinds of speech. We can, and do, shout people into silence for their behaviours, and drive people away.
But... hmm. This Film is Not Yet Rated is an excellent demonstration of a possible problem with this. In it it argues that films which get an NC17 rating, which was intended to protect artistic displays of sexuality, are essentially receiving the kiss of death. Because shops won't sell them, and cinemas won't show them, thanks to active campaigning by people who don't like that kind of speech. So films like that are either very hard to obtain, or worse, they deliberately self censor to become commercially viable.
The problem with the idea of shouting down ideas you don't like is that maybe your voice isn't the loudest? And it's not like I want supermarkets full of the best of racism part 3, but... I guess it's complicated?
It doesn't help of course that jokes are usually reported sans context. When you hear about an awful thing a comic says, you don't get to see the entire show, or understand what kind of comic they are, you just hear the joke. And it sounds terrible. So one campaigns against it, and that comic finds themselves attacked, they lash back, the culture wars continue.
I don't know quite what point I'm making here, it's just its very easy to talk in absolute terms, and suggest certain kinds of humour are just wrong, as Doyle does towards the end of this essay, and I mostly agree, but I think it can be more complicated than that.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:03 AM on September 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Years ago, I saw a comedian on some major nighttime talk show, and he had a whole extended riff about those weird black strips you'd see along the highway, speculating about what they might be and how they got there. The entire thing was predicated on the fact that he didn't know it was retread, and the assumption that nobody else did either. It was horrifying to watch. Nobody laughed.
I feel sort of the same way about most jokes about sexual violence, except that there are a lot fewer people who know what it is. People do tell rape jokes on the assumption that it is a rare and bizarre crime, from the premise that claiming to be a rapist yourself is absurdist humor, while women (and, according to David Lisek, rapists) perceive it more as observational humor. And like that retread guy, it often just straight up is not funny at all. Not just because it's offensive. I can acknowledge that an offensive joke is funny if it is, even if it's not worth it. I mean, actually literally just not funny, because the premise is so obviously flimsy.
And I feel a little bit bad for those guys, in the same way that I feel bad for the retread joke guy. But I think it's pretty safe to say that if a whole bunch of people had approached that guy to tell him about retread, and the internet and media was full of people explaining what retread is, that guy would have learned something and retired (Woo! Good one!) that joke.
I spent most of my teenaged years in a pristine little suburb, in a housing development built around a little park with a small lake, neatly trimmed landscaping and playgrounds, all completely visible on all sides from the houses surrounding it. There were a couple smallish stands of trees, though, and in those stands was a small core group of about 5-7 boys, ranging from about 17 on down to 8 (yes, an 8 year old), who would lurk in there, tackle passing girls and sexually assault them. Almost every day they did this, and every girl from about 10 on up knew it and had developed strategies for avoiding it. We hesitated to talk to our parents because the only thing that ever came of it was that the girl who got attacked would be blamed somehow, and/or she would be put on lockdown by her parents who, understandably, wanted to keep her safe. So if you wanted to be able to do normal kid and teenager stuff, like hang out with your friends or go to shows or just walk to the store, you kept your mouth shut and dealt with it among yourselves.
I'm still in touch with my siblings and a handful of other people I knew at the time, and to a one, the girls knew about this, and the boys didn't. Apart from the ones who were doing it, none of the boys seemed to even know this was happening. They are not bad guys. It is not their fault that, as children themselves, they were unaware that something that horrific was happening to girls right under their noses. And in my experience, when you tell them, they're incredulous. They assume you're exaggerating somehow or even making it up, maybe, because it so conflicts with the way they experienced that world. They had their own horrors with bullying and fighting and such, but for the most part, everyone knew that was going on.
And I'm pretty sure that pattern is not unique. Women know about a lot of things men don't. We're all pretty acclimated to hearing things from a male perspective, but boys grow up so segregated from and oblivious to the culture girls grow up in that they're blindsided by things girls and women just take for granted.
Men often have no idea what the world that women live in looks like, and while 'bad comedy' isn't the worst thing about it, it is a thing. That's why men men telling jokes about rape (and many other sexist topics) are not just ignorant and insensitive, but actually not funny in the same way that retread guy wasn't funny.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:32 AM on September 7, 2015 [39 favorites]
I feel sort of the same way about most jokes about sexual violence, except that there are a lot fewer people who know what it is. People do tell rape jokes on the assumption that it is a rare and bizarre crime, from the premise that claiming to be a rapist yourself is absurdist humor, while women (and, according to David Lisek, rapists) perceive it more as observational humor. And like that retread guy, it often just straight up is not funny at all. Not just because it's offensive. I can acknowledge that an offensive joke is funny if it is, even if it's not worth it. I mean, actually literally just not funny, because the premise is so obviously flimsy.
And I feel a little bit bad for those guys, in the same way that I feel bad for the retread joke guy. But I think it's pretty safe to say that if a whole bunch of people had approached that guy to tell him about retread, and the internet and media was full of people explaining what retread is, that guy would have learned something and retired (Woo! Good one!) that joke.
I spent most of my teenaged years in a pristine little suburb, in a housing development built around a little park with a small lake, neatly trimmed landscaping and playgrounds, all completely visible on all sides from the houses surrounding it. There were a couple smallish stands of trees, though, and in those stands was a small core group of about 5-7 boys, ranging from about 17 on down to 8 (yes, an 8 year old), who would lurk in there, tackle passing girls and sexually assault them. Almost every day they did this, and every girl from about 10 on up knew it and had developed strategies for avoiding it. We hesitated to talk to our parents because the only thing that ever came of it was that the girl who got attacked would be blamed somehow, and/or she would be put on lockdown by her parents who, understandably, wanted to keep her safe. So if you wanted to be able to do normal kid and teenager stuff, like hang out with your friends or go to shows or just walk to the store, you kept your mouth shut and dealt with it among yourselves.
I'm still in touch with my siblings and a handful of other people I knew at the time, and to a one, the girls knew about this, and the boys didn't. Apart from the ones who were doing it, none of the boys seemed to even know this was happening. They are not bad guys. It is not their fault that, as children themselves, they were unaware that something that horrific was happening to girls right under their noses. And in my experience, when you tell them, they're incredulous. They assume you're exaggerating somehow or even making it up, maybe, because it so conflicts with the way they experienced that world. They had their own horrors with bullying and fighting and such, but for the most part, everyone knew that was going on.
And I'm pretty sure that pattern is not unique. Women know about a lot of things men don't. We're all pretty acclimated to hearing things from a male perspective, but boys grow up so segregated from and oblivious to the culture girls grow up in that they're blindsided by things girls and women just take for granted.
Men often have no idea what the world that women live in looks like, and while 'bad comedy' isn't the worst thing about it, it is a thing. That's why men men telling jokes about rape (and many other sexist topics) are not just ignorant and insensitive, but actually not funny in the same way that retread guy wasn't funny.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:32 AM on September 7, 2015 [39 favorites]
suggest certain kinds of humour are just wrong, as Doyle does towards the end of this essay
To be clear, she suggests that certain statements are incorrect -- that rape is rare, that gay people talk a certain way, that black people are dangerous, that Latinas are crazy. These statements are wrong not in a moral way, but in a factual way. To make them the basis for a joke is to found your joke in a lie. That's not a 'dark mirror for society,' that's being incorrect, and helping people who are already incorrect about these things continue to be incorrect. That's the opposite of the point of art.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:23 AM on September 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
To be clear, she suggests that certain statements are incorrect -- that rape is rare, that gay people talk a certain way, that black people are dangerous, that Latinas are crazy. These statements are wrong not in a moral way, but in a factual way. To make them the basis for a joke is to found your joke in a lie. That's not a 'dark mirror for society,' that's being incorrect, and helping people who are already incorrect about these things continue to be incorrect. That's the opposite of the point of art.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:23 AM on September 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
Well, yeah, that's been his M.O. ever since he was still presenting himself as the only liberal willing to swallow the hard truths about why a War on Iraq was necessary.
Tim Burke, 17 January 2003: "I am prepared to accept and even cautiously endorse a UN-approved, semi-multilateral attack on Iraq. I am opposed strongly to a unilateral or near-unilateral attack."
Tim Burke, 29 January 2003: "Let me put it this way: if 9/11 had never happened, I might actually be prepared to support the attack on Iraq. But precisely because 9/11 did happen, I think it's a tremendous mistake."
Tim Burke, 11 March 2003:
posted by asterix at 1:20 PM on September 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tim Burke, 17 January 2003: "I am prepared to accept and even cautiously endorse a UN-approved, semi-multilateral attack on Iraq. I am opposed strongly to a unilateral or near-unilateral attack."
Tim Burke, 29 January 2003: "Let me put it this way: if 9/11 had never happened, I might actually be prepared to support the attack on Iraq. But precisely because 9/11 did happen, I think it's a tremendous mistake."
Tim Burke, 11 March 2003:
I could support a military conflict with Iraq designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power.What was that you were saying about straw men?
I am convinced that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are exactly the wrong people at the right time to execute that mission. I am convinced that John Ashcroft is exactly the wrong man to be in charge of law, order and the security of American liberty at this time.
posted by asterix at 1:20 PM on September 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
That a horrific crime is associated with it doesn't help me appreciate the choice; that can happen no matter what you write
your voice matters, but it's highly unlikely that the broad cultural outcome or any sufficiently indirect incident can be causally connected to one source in particular in the fashion suggested.
If by chance some insane rapist had picked it as his favourite song in 1972 and told himself he was doing it for her own good, that wayward girl, then we'd have the same kind of spurious connection
Catcher in the Rye is not a book about how awesome murder is, but the association with killers happened because of people with some mental issues.
It'd be silly to say it's possible to predict the precise real-world effects of any single cultural artifact or representation, but I also don't think it's quite right to suggest that it's simply that some "insane" people made completely random associations, in tragedies like those. I think Catcher in the Rye, for example, resonates at particular frequencies of alienation and hostility, perhaps more loudly in the mind of people situated to receive them in a particular manner. And I think it's within the realm of possibility that a bunch of researchers will uncover why, or at least how, that particular narrative (and others like it) might be sticky in that way.
(E.g., copycat suicides and mass murders have been linked not only to the quantity of media coverage of those events, but also to particular reporting tropes. Researchers are finding that representational content does have predictable effects [e.g. as in this paper, which found that a particular racialized/racist trope "alters visual perception and attention, and it increases endorsement of violence against Black suspects"].)
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:37 PM on September 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
your voice matters, but it's highly unlikely that the broad cultural outcome or any sufficiently indirect incident can be causally connected to one source in particular in the fashion suggested.
If by chance some insane rapist had picked it as his favourite song in 1972 and told himself he was doing it for her own good, that wayward girl, then we'd have the same kind of spurious connection
Catcher in the Rye is not a book about how awesome murder is, but the association with killers happened because of people with some mental issues.
It'd be silly to say it's possible to predict the precise real-world effects of any single cultural artifact or representation, but I also don't think it's quite right to suggest that it's simply that some "insane" people made completely random associations, in tragedies like those. I think Catcher in the Rye, for example, resonates at particular frequencies of alienation and hostility, perhaps more loudly in the mind of people situated to receive them in a particular manner. And I think it's within the realm of possibility that a bunch of researchers will uncover why, or at least how, that particular narrative (and others like it) might be sticky in that way.
(E.g., copycat suicides and mass murders have been linked not only to the quantity of media coverage of those events, but also to particular reporting tropes. Researchers are finding that representational content does have predictable effects [e.g. as in this paper, which found that a particular racialized/racist trope "alters visual perception and attention, and it increases endorsement of violence against Black suspects"].)
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:37 PM on September 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
To be clear, she suggests that certain statements are incorrect -- that rape is rare, that gay people talk a certain way, that black people are dangerous, that Latinas are crazy. These statements are wrong not in a moral way, but in a factual way. To make them the basis for a joke is to found your joke in a lie. That's not a 'dark mirror for society,' that's being incorrect, and helping people who are already incorrect about these things continue to be incorrect. That's the opposite of the point of art.
I agree... most of the time. I think it is possible for certain kinds of comedians, who are aware and artful, to do something with that kind of material. You are correct of course that all those statements are factually incorrect, but these are stereotypes that people hold in their heads, and I'm suggesting that a smart person (smarter than me), might be able to do something with it.
For a for instance, look at Brass Eye, a satirical news show from the UK, by Chris Morris. One famous sketch is a talk show where a man is talking to Morris about how he got HIV, and reveals that he got it from his partner. Morris then denounces him, saying he has "bad AIDS".
I know, I know, that's probably not what Doyle was referring to. And it's true, I can absolutely imagine the lazy comedian standing there telling nasty homophobic jokes and getting easy laughs for it. And I'm not saying we should praise that lazy comic. I'm just suggesting that it might be difficult to distinguish between the lazy comic and the smart one when we start cutting away context.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:55 PM on September 7, 2015
I agree... most of the time. I think it is possible for certain kinds of comedians, who are aware and artful, to do something with that kind of material. You are correct of course that all those statements are factually incorrect, but these are stereotypes that people hold in their heads, and I'm suggesting that a smart person (smarter than me), might be able to do something with it.
For a for instance, look at Brass Eye, a satirical news show from the UK, by Chris Morris. One famous sketch is a talk show where a man is talking to Morris about how he got HIV, and reveals that he got it from his partner. Morris then denounces him, saying he has "bad AIDS".
I know, I know, that's probably not what Doyle was referring to. And it's true, I can absolutely imagine the lazy comedian standing there telling nasty homophobic jokes and getting easy laughs for it. And I'm not saying we should praise that lazy comic. I'm just suggesting that it might be difficult to distinguish between the lazy comic and the smart one when we start cutting away context.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:55 PM on September 7, 2015
Researchers are finding that representational content does have predictable effects [e.g. as in this paper, which found that a particular racialized/racist trope "alters visual perception and attention, and it increases endorsement of violence against Black suspects"
That paper is a bit shocking. Even if you accept its experimental evidence though, the hypothesis proposed seems inadequately supported by it. If those subliminal images do in fact have such a strong effect I would guess it might turn out to be a combination of more subtle goings on, perhaps including a shift in perception caused by images of non-human faces causing some kind of "look out, that guy looks dangerous" reaction which then interacts with ingrained racism unrelated to the suspected trope. One would at a minimum want to see the same experiment on populations that don't have the same cultural history of racism.
If you do accept its surprising conclusions, the cause pointed to is nearly the precise opposite of "any single cultural artifact or representation". Instead it points to a vast subconscious network measured in word associations linking racist stereotypes to animals, which persists and has force even after the racist trope that created it has faded out of consciousness and into history, in experimental subjects that have not been directly exposed to it. If that paper is representative of the state of the art, things are far from clear and predictable.
"Copycat suicides" does seem worth considering. Reports of suicide are many and can perhaps be reasonably assumed to be close to functionally similar to each other in terms of their effects, so maybe there is enough quantitative data there to overcome the difficulties. Not having read The Sorrows of Young Werther I won't speculate further, but even with such a simple search for cause and effect the first thing I find on google suggests to me that there too the story is not quite so straightforward as might be guessed.
posted by sfenders at 4:35 AM on September 8, 2015
That paper is a bit shocking. Even if you accept its experimental evidence though, the hypothesis proposed seems inadequately supported by it. If those subliminal images do in fact have such a strong effect I would guess it might turn out to be a combination of more subtle goings on, perhaps including a shift in perception caused by images of non-human faces causing some kind of "look out, that guy looks dangerous" reaction which then interacts with ingrained racism unrelated to the suspected trope. One would at a minimum want to see the same experiment on populations that don't have the same cultural history of racism.
If you do accept its surprising conclusions, the cause pointed to is nearly the precise opposite of "any single cultural artifact or representation". Instead it points to a vast subconscious network measured in word associations linking racist stereotypes to animals, which persists and has force even after the racist trope that created it has faded out of consciousness and into history, in experimental subjects that have not been directly exposed to it. If that paper is representative of the state of the art, things are far from clear and predictable.
"Copycat suicides" does seem worth considering. Reports of suicide are many and can perhaps be reasonably assumed to be close to functionally similar to each other in terms of their effects, so maybe there is enough quantitative data there to overcome the difficulties. Not having read The Sorrows of Young Werther I won't speculate further, but even with such a simple search for cause and effect the first thing I find on google suggests to me that there too the story is not quite so straightforward as might be guessed.
posted by sfenders at 4:35 AM on September 8, 2015
One of the things I find disquieting about these things is how quickly they disconnect the artist/comedian/whomever from their work, saying how intentions don't matter once it enters the public consciousness. I don't think intention is the be-all and end-all, but I certainly think it matters.
What happens, however, when the art becomes separated from intent is that the meaning becomes what the offended impart to it. In the article, The Beastie Boys are repeatedly described as good guys who grew and became right-thinking - but the unstated predication is that this is because they dismissed their previous song that was associated with this horrific rape. They grew, and that growth is suggested to be in part because of this association, but it also requires that they have to have grown to associate their music with rape culture in general and this crime in particular. So even though it's acknowledged that it wasn't their intent, the song has to now be seen as having this meaning ascribed to it, this contribution to making a teenager commit a heinous act.
And, I mean, Doyle specifically says she doesn't think the lyrics made him a rapist, but then later leads with how factually incorrect jokes are going to lead to other people internalising this wrongness and hurting other people with it. And so no matter what the artist's intentions, and even if they're being misquoted, misheard or misunderstood, they are considered in some way to be responsible for how other people receive and respond to their art, entirely separate from what they think they actually put out there.
This isn't a defense of rape jokes or the Paul Revere lyrics. It's just to say that separating intent entirely means all meaning becomes that put into it by the first to take offence or complain and away from those who actually said or sang the thing in the first place. Intended meaning doesn't matter, as the meaning becomes whatever negativity has been ascribed to it and the original performer loses their ability to have their words mean what they wanted them to mean. Because it stops mattering, from that perspective, if they say it wasn't their intention, or what they meant, or whatever - that's considered choosing to hurt someone's feelings over learning and/or apologising, and having to accept that they've apparently lost control of their message and yet are still held responsible for it, no matter what.
And it's not like the performer is always faced with boycotts or outright condemnation, but it becomes about how they don't take responsibility for any pain caused and would rather die on the hill of 'freedom to be an arsehole' and somehow it all comes back to they have to accept that their intent didn't matter but these consequences are still primarily theirs to answer for. And while the parallel from, for example, their lyrics to a gang rapist may be considered fuzzy, it still becomes something to be tainted by and that requires repudiation... It's a soft, social, shaming response, and I find it completely unsurprising that it can be considered constraining or unpleasant, especially if you're regularly read in the worst, most provocative, light.
It all, as well as Wes Craven's passing, makes me think of the quote from Scream: 'Movies don't make serial killers. They just make serial killers more creative.' Which makes me wonder the last time a movie was held responsible for crimes. The 'Gone Girl' case that wasn't? James Holmes and his shootings in a showing of the third Batman movie? Columbine and the terror of 'The Matrix' jackets? The video nasties scare in the UK in the 80s and the associated James Bulger murder, which was blamed on, amongst other things, the Child's Play movies?
posted by gadge emeritus at 7:01 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
What happens, however, when the art becomes separated from intent is that the meaning becomes what the offended impart to it. In the article, The Beastie Boys are repeatedly described as good guys who grew and became right-thinking - but the unstated predication is that this is because they dismissed their previous song that was associated with this horrific rape. They grew, and that growth is suggested to be in part because of this association, but it also requires that they have to have grown to associate their music with rape culture in general and this crime in particular. So even though it's acknowledged that it wasn't their intent, the song has to now be seen as having this meaning ascribed to it, this contribution to making a teenager commit a heinous act.
And, I mean, Doyle specifically says she doesn't think the lyrics made him a rapist, but then later leads with how factually incorrect jokes are going to lead to other people internalising this wrongness and hurting other people with it. And so no matter what the artist's intentions, and even if they're being misquoted, misheard or misunderstood, they are considered in some way to be responsible for how other people receive and respond to their art, entirely separate from what they think they actually put out there.
This isn't a defense of rape jokes or the Paul Revere lyrics. It's just to say that separating intent entirely means all meaning becomes that put into it by the first to take offence or complain and away from those who actually said or sang the thing in the first place. Intended meaning doesn't matter, as the meaning becomes whatever negativity has been ascribed to it and the original performer loses their ability to have their words mean what they wanted them to mean. Because it stops mattering, from that perspective, if they say it wasn't their intention, or what they meant, or whatever - that's considered choosing to hurt someone's feelings over learning and/or apologising, and having to accept that they've apparently lost control of their message and yet are still held responsible for it, no matter what.
And it's not like the performer is always faced with boycotts or outright condemnation, but it becomes about how they don't take responsibility for any pain caused and would rather die on the hill of 'freedom to be an arsehole' and somehow it all comes back to they have to accept that their intent didn't matter but these consequences are still primarily theirs to answer for. And while the parallel from, for example, their lyrics to a gang rapist may be considered fuzzy, it still becomes something to be tainted by and that requires repudiation... It's a soft, social, shaming response, and I find it completely unsurprising that it can be considered constraining or unpleasant, especially if you're regularly read in the worst, most provocative, light.
It all, as well as Wes Craven's passing, makes me think of the quote from Scream: 'Movies don't make serial killers. They just make serial killers more creative.' Which makes me wonder the last time a movie was held responsible for crimes. The 'Gone Girl' case that wasn't? James Holmes and his shootings in a showing of the third Batman movie? Columbine and the terror of 'The Matrix' jackets? The video nasties scare in the UK in the 80s and the associated James Bulger murder, which was blamed on, amongst other things, the Child's Play movies?
posted by gadge emeritus at 7:01 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well that's the point isn't it? To remove the excuses and leave rapists without justifications or someone to push the blame onto. That song, and all the others like it, and all the comedians telling lazy rape jokes and all the movies and TV shows that treat rape as something so rare that it's weird... they're providing camouflage for actual rapists. Remove the cover and they'll be left exposed. Remove the cover and the media might actually have to do some genuine investigation instead of blaming pop culture.
Plus if dudes stopped joking and singing about rape, maybe the other half of the population could relax and enjoy some light entertainment for a change. I witnessed a rape when I was 12, I don't need to be reminded of the worst day of my life every other time I turn on a comedy show or the radio just because some nice guy couldn't think of a rhyme or a punchline.
posted by harriet vane at 7:49 AM on September 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Plus if dudes stopped joking and singing about rape, maybe the other half of the population could relax and enjoy some light entertainment for a change. I witnessed a rape when I was 12, I don't need to be reminded of the worst day of my life every other time I turn on a comedy show or the radio just because some nice guy couldn't think of a rhyme or a punchline.
posted by harriet vane at 7:49 AM on September 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I dunno, I worry about how comedians and musicians are going to earn a living in a post-torrent, global-yet-fragmented world. A bit of soft shaming for being so inaccurate or blasé about rape that people who actually know about it cringe in their seats is not making my heart bleed for them. If soft shaming is the worst that happens to them for being wrong then they'll live and maybe even learn.
posted by harriet vane at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by harriet vane at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Instead it points to a vast subconscious network measured in word associations linking racist stereotypes to animals, which persists and has force even after the racist trope that created it has faded out of consciousness and into history, in experimental subjects that have not been directly exposed to it.
Right, the suggestion, based on a content analysis of media coverage of their subject of interest, is not that the trope itself has faded out of consciousness (only its explicit historical manifestation) but that it is maintained by the use of cognate metaphors in popular culture. The point I was trying to make was not that one image or representation in isolation would or could bear the weight of causality on its own, rather that associations like the ones used in the paper I linked to (or in the Beastie Boys lyric) aren't random in the least, and neither are their effects on other associations and judgements. (That set of studies was meant to measure one of the possible impacts of a particular, necessarily culturally derived association, not a single representation in a vacuum. Repeating the studies with a sample of people not exposed to those metaphors and stereotypes would only exclude a cultural mechanism and maybe approach possible latent variables like the one you proposed.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:04 AM on September 8, 2015
Right, the suggestion, based on a content analysis of media coverage of their subject of interest, is not that the trope itself has faded out of consciousness (only its explicit historical manifestation) but that it is maintained by the use of cognate metaphors in popular culture. The point I was trying to make was not that one image or representation in isolation would or could bear the weight of causality on its own, rather that associations like the ones used in the paper I linked to (or in the Beastie Boys lyric) aren't random in the least, and neither are their effects on other associations and judgements. (That set of studies was meant to measure one of the possible impacts of a particular, necessarily culturally derived association, not a single representation in a vacuum. Repeating the studies with a sample of people not exposed to those metaphors and stereotypes would only exclude a cultural mechanism and maybe approach possible latent variables like the one you proposed.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:04 AM on September 8, 2015
I know not everyone agrees, but I do think that just about any topic has the potential to be funny in the right hands, including rape. Everyone has their own tolerance levels for various subject matter, but there are ways that I at least can find humor in a rape joke. Thing is, it's usually women who can pull it off.
Most rape jokes told by men are lazy, stupid, and factually wrong, and they just contribute to rape culture rather than dismantling or shining a light on it. Which wouldn't even be worth it if they were funny, but that's academic because they're almost never funny even divorced from their content. They're just dumb and repetitive at best.
So here is Tig Notaro's no moleste bit, which starts out as a mild rape joke, riffing on a Spanish word that can be a little weird for English speakers, evoking a world in which sexual assault is something you can simply opt out of. It then merges into a bit about mansplaining and the fact that some men are literally incapable of comprehending that women are not always being 100% literal and po faced, that even professional women comedians can't possibly be joking.
I think that is funny. She is smart and observant and dry, and that is a joke that is from a female perspective, which we just don't have enough of.
And if I now may contrast this with a similar situation with Louis CK. Let us see how he responds when women raise objections not unlike the Omaha Spanish translator in Tig Notaro's bit.
I mean, I'm not going to tell people what they think is funny or not, but I don't find that funny at all. It just sounds stupid and aggressive and lazy and cheap. LULZ WOMEN NO UNNASTAN MY JOEK. Which, to me, raises the possibility that those women correcting him are politely telling him that the joke is not funny enough to merit the suspension of disbelief he's asking for.
That's just not funny to me. It's not insightful or interesting, and it doesn't defy my expectations, and it just comes off to me as though he is likely misreading a situation in a really boring, socially conservative way. If I'd read that as text, I would have thought it was someone like Rush Limbaugh. Stupid, gross, defensive, and over the top aggressively misogynistic.
So I could totally explain how lazy jokes about rape contribute to rape culture, but anyone who needs to hear it will elide the culture part and tell that same exact "joke" they all tell where they elide the 'culture' part and say that people think that a joke raped them or whatever. <--Constantly. They tell this exact same joke over and over, and it is based entirely on them not being able to understand a term that has two words in it.
So I will not bother with that, and will just point out that those jokes are stupid and predictable, and they're just objectively not funny to anyone of normal adult intelligence.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:09 AM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Most rape jokes told by men are lazy, stupid, and factually wrong, and they just contribute to rape culture rather than dismantling or shining a light on it. Which wouldn't even be worth it if they were funny, but that's academic because they're almost never funny even divorced from their content. They're just dumb and repetitive at best.
So here is Tig Notaro's no moleste bit, which starts out as a mild rape joke, riffing on a Spanish word that can be a little weird for English speakers, evoking a world in which sexual assault is something you can simply opt out of. It then merges into a bit about mansplaining and the fact that some men are literally incapable of comprehending that women are not always being 100% literal and po faced, that even professional women comedians can't possibly be joking.
I think that is funny. She is smart and observant and dry, and that is a joke that is from a female perspective, which we just don't have enough of.
And if I now may contrast this with a similar situation with Louis CK. Let us see how he responds when women raise objections not unlike the Omaha Spanish translator in Tig Notaro's bit.
I mean, I'm not going to tell people what they think is funny or not, but I don't find that funny at all. It just sounds stupid and aggressive and lazy and cheap. LULZ WOMEN NO UNNASTAN MY JOEK. Which, to me, raises the possibility that those women correcting him are politely telling him that the joke is not funny enough to merit the suspension of disbelief he's asking for.
That's just not funny to me. It's not insightful or interesting, and it doesn't defy my expectations, and it just comes off to me as though he is likely misreading a situation in a really boring, socially conservative way. If I'd read that as text, I would have thought it was someone like Rush Limbaugh. Stupid, gross, defensive, and over the top aggressively misogynistic.
So I could totally explain how lazy jokes about rape contribute to rape culture, but anyone who needs to hear it will elide the culture part and tell that same exact "joke" they all tell where they elide the 'culture' part and say that people think that a joke raped them or whatever. <--Constantly. They tell this exact same joke over and over, and it is based entirely on them not being able to understand a term that has two words in it.
So I will not bother with that, and will just point out that those jokes are stupid and predictable, and they're just objectively not funny to anyone of normal adult intelligence.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:09 AM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
I can't think of a better authority on not-funny than Opie & Anthony.
posted by phearlez at 1:13 PM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 1:13 PM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
A bit of soft shaming for being so inaccurate or blasé about rape that people who actually know about it cringe in their seats is not making my heart bleed for them. If soft shaming is the worst that happens to them for being wrong then they'll live and maybe even learn.
That's a false equivalence. Those aren't the alternatives. Indeed, neither the main article or the response frames it as such. But it's how it quickly gets reduced, isn't it - only talking about bros making rape jokes and when compared to rape it's not a big deal - when that's actually a misleading way to frame the discussion, because that's not a choice presented.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:43 PM on September 8, 2015
That's a false equivalence. Those aren't the alternatives. Indeed, neither the main article or the response frames it as such. But it's how it quickly gets reduced, isn't it - only talking about bros making rape jokes and when compared to rape it's not a big deal - when that's actually a misleading way to frame the discussion, because that's not a choice presented.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:43 PM on September 8, 2015
To be clear, she suggests that certain statements are incorrect -- that rape is rare, that gay people talk a certain way, that black people are dangerous, that Latinas are crazy. These statements are wrong not in a moral way, but in a factual way. To make them the basis for a joke is to found your joke in a lie. That's not a 'dark mirror for society,' that's being incorrect, and helping people who are already incorrect about these things continue to be incorrect. That's the opposite of the point of art.I agree... most of the time. I think it is possible for certain kinds of comedians, who are aware and artful, to do something with that kind of material. You are correct of course that all those statements are factually incorrect, but these are stereotypes that people hold in their heads, and I'm suggesting that a smart person (smarter than me), might be able to do something with it.
For a for instance, look at Brass Eye, a satirical news show from the UK, by Chris Morris. One famous sketch is a talk show where a man is talking to Morris about how he got HIV, and reveals that he got it from his partner. Morris then denounces him, saying he has "bad AIDS".
Using the "incorrect" framework, I think the Brass Eye joke works. (And not just because I love Chris Morris.) Chris Morris the CHARACTER is Incorrect, but the entire force of the joke is that Chris Morris the WRITER knows the character is Incorrect, and trusts that the audience will realize, the way he's framed it, will also know the character is incorrect, and it's that incorrectness that should be mocked.
Of course, this gets pretty close to the whole "I WAS BEIIIING IRONNNNNIC" argument where you eventually get Family Guy, where they make the same "ironic" racist/sexist jokes so much you start to wonder how ironic they actually are.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 7:36 PM on September 8, 2015
Then I'm not sure I follow, gadge - are you able to clarify a bit? (I've re-worded this a couple times cos I don't want to sound sarcastic, but in case it's not clear I think I'm genuinely missing your point and would like to understand).
posted by harriet vane at 4:32 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by harriet vane at 4:32 AM on September 9, 2015
In the example of 'Paul Revere', it's not necessarily a rape joke. It wasn't intended as such, and has been noted a few times here as not being interpreted as such. The original article makes is clear there isn't some direct line from what the Beasie Boys were trying to convey in their song to the actions of a teenaged rapist who loved those particular lyrics.
But this quickly becomes dudes singing and joking about rape (and inevitably being wrong about it), and the dichotomy becomes that, which all examples inevitably become, vs. the other half of the population - every single woman - being made uncomfortable, being reminded of the worst day of their life, etc. Those are stated as the only two options, that you get one or the other. And that's simply not true.
And for that matter, though the article touches in it, really there's a much more obvious and enveloping contribution to the behaviour in this heinous crime, and that's the elevation of teenage sports stars to untouchable gods. See: Amy Schumer's Friday Night Lights parody sketch, which incidentally is explicitly jokes (or, well, variations on the one joke) about rape.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:58 AM on September 10, 2015
But this quickly becomes dudes singing and joking about rape (and inevitably being wrong about it), and the dichotomy becomes that, which all examples inevitably become, vs. the other half of the population - every single woman - being made uncomfortable, being reminded of the worst day of their life, etc. Those are stated as the only two options, that you get one or the other. And that's simply not true.
And for that matter, though the article touches in it, really there's a much more obvious and enveloping contribution to the behaviour in this heinous crime, and that's the elevation of teenage sports stars to untouchable gods. See: Amy Schumer's Friday Night Lights parody sketch, which incidentally is explicitly jokes (or, well, variations on the one joke) about rape.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:58 AM on September 10, 2015
where you eventually get Family Guy, where they make the same "ironic" racist/sexist jokes so much you start to wonder how ironic they actually are
I don't even wonder a little bit.
posted by brennen at 12:28 PM on September 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't even wonder a little bit.
posted by brennen at 12:28 PM on September 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I actually do wonder about some stuff with Seth MacFarlane. I'm a huge fan despite the issues. Some of it is clearly just being offensive for the sake of being offensive, but some of it...especially the sexism...has a lot of moments where I feel like he is being dead serious.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 PM on September 10, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 PM on September 10, 2015
Seth McFarlane's stuff is pretty over-the-top blatant about its misogyny.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:54 PM on September 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 9:54 PM on September 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
Ok, I think I see. But "not intended" and "not interpreted" as a rape joke - I think you're the one who's misinterpreted here. It was a rape joke, intended as such by the Beastie Boys and interpreted as such by most people who heard it. "Joke" might be a strong word. At the very least, a reference to rape in a fun lighthearted song about criminals on the run.
The Beastie Boys didn't intend their fans to think "hey rape is cool", because they're not rapists and it didn't occur to them that anyone would be that awful. They were in fact too nice to realise how it sounded. The vast, overwhelming majority of listeners didn't interpret those lines as if the Beastie Boys would approve of rape, even if a lot of them were hurt by the casual mention of it.
The article says if you're going to joke about rape, be aware that rape is common and rapists think everyone does it. So they put a different interpretation on casual mentions than other people do. I'm saying that realising rape is common also means realising that a lot of your audience may well be more knowledgeable about rape than you are, like the comedian with the retread bit mentioned earlier in the thread. Between those two aspects, I really think it's about time dudes stopped joking about it until they are less Dunning-Kruger about the whole subject.
posted by harriet vane at 6:43 AM on September 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Beastie Boys didn't intend their fans to think "hey rape is cool", because they're not rapists and it didn't occur to them that anyone would be that awful. They were in fact too nice to realise how it sounded. The vast, overwhelming majority of listeners didn't interpret those lines as if the Beastie Boys would approve of rape, even if a lot of them were hurt by the casual mention of it.
The article says if you're going to joke about rape, be aware that rape is common and rapists think everyone does it. So they put a different interpretation on casual mentions than other people do. I'm saying that realising rape is common also means realising that a lot of your audience may well be more knowledgeable about rape than you are, like the comedian with the retread bit mentioned earlier in the thread. Between those two aspects, I really think it's about time dudes stopped joking about it until they are less Dunning-Kruger about the whole subject.
posted by harriet vane at 6:43 AM on September 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
The article says if you're going to joke about rape, be aware that rape is common and rapists think everyone does it. So they put a different interpretation on casual mentions than other people do. I'm saying that realising rape is common also means realising that a lot of your audience may well be more knowledgeable about rape than you are, like the comedian with the retread bit mentioned earlier in the thread. Between those two aspects, I really think it's about time dudes stopped joking about it until they are less Dunning-Kruger about the whole subject.
But I think there's a slight conflation here, and I want to get at it a bit.
The article seems to be making the following argument (language in speech marks is my interpretation of what Doyle is saying, not a direct quote):
"comics (and everyone) should be more careful, and think about their material before using unpleasant language (rape, homophobia, racism)." I completely agree that it can't hurt for people to think more about what they're doing (and the Beastie Boys are probably a good example for this, because their later behaviour implies that their earlier material was unthinking).
The second part is where I maybe have a slight issue: "because some people may interpret your material differently, and it may contribute to their decisions re: violent activities". I... don't know how I feel about this. I think you can watch the material you use to avoid hurting people's feelings, or triggering people, or making people feel unwelcome. Those are all good reasons to think several times before using particular modes of language and thought. But there's a strong claim being made that this kind of material is contributory towards behaviours. I can't agree with that, because I think it's a dangerous road to travel. I think we could shut down a lot of speech by making those kind of arguments, and I'm naturally wary of them.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:04 AM on September 14, 2015
But I think there's a slight conflation here, and I want to get at it a bit.
The article seems to be making the following argument (language in speech marks is my interpretation of what Doyle is saying, not a direct quote):
"comics (and everyone) should be more careful, and think about their material before using unpleasant language (rape, homophobia, racism)." I completely agree that it can't hurt for people to think more about what they're doing (and the Beastie Boys are probably a good example for this, because their later behaviour implies that their earlier material was unthinking).
The second part is where I maybe have a slight issue: "because some people may interpret your material differently, and it may contribute to their decisions re: violent activities". I... don't know how I feel about this. I think you can watch the material you use to avoid hurting people's feelings, or triggering people, or making people feel unwelcome. Those are all good reasons to think several times before using particular modes of language and thought. But there's a strong claim being made that this kind of material is contributory towards behaviours. I can't agree with that, because I think it's a dangerous road to travel. I think we could shut down a lot of speech by making those kind of arguments, and I'm naturally wary of them.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:04 AM on September 14, 2015
But there's a strong claim being made that this kind of material is contributory towards behaviours. I can't agree with that, because I think it's a dangerous road to travel. I think we could shut down a lot of speech by making those kind of arguments, and I'm naturally wary of them.
I'm not quite clear on what your objection is. Do you think the argument (that art can influence behaviour) is not true, or do you think it doesn't matter if it is true? Or do you think we shouldn't make or investigate such claims, because of the potential effect on free speech?
posted by misfish at 12:14 AM on September 14, 2015
I'm not quite clear on what your objection is. Do you think the argument (that art can influence behaviour) is not true, or do you think it doesn't matter if it is true? Or do you think we shouldn't make or investigate such claims, because of the potential effect on free speech?
posted by misfish at 12:14 AM on September 14, 2015
I'm not quite clear on what your objection is. Do you think the argument (that art can influence behaviour) is not true, or do you think it doesn't matter if it is true? Or do you think we shouldn't make or investigate such claims, because of the potential effect on free speech?
I don't think it's true, or rather that it is unproven. I mean, on some level the idea that the media you consume will change who you are is obviously, trivially true, and we don't really need to demonstrate it. But when one starts making claims that consuming media X leads to attitude Y.. well that's harder to demonstrate, and still not done to my satisfaction. It's difficult, because it's very hard to dissuade cause and effect (does consuming violent media make me violent, or does my tendency towards violence make me consume violent media). I demand a high level of proof for this kind of argument because frequently arguments about the direct harm media might cause are used to call for banning said media. But not only do we need to link cause to effect, we also need to determine the size of the effect.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:41 AM on September 14, 2015
I don't think it's true, or rather that it is unproven. I mean, on some level the idea that the media you consume will change who you are is obviously, trivially true, and we don't really need to demonstrate it. But when one starts making claims that consuming media X leads to attitude Y.. well that's harder to demonstrate, and still not done to my satisfaction. It's difficult, because it's very hard to dissuade cause and effect (does consuming violent media make me violent, or does my tendency towards violence make me consume violent media). I demand a high level of proof for this kind of argument because frequently arguments about the direct harm media might cause are used to call for banning said media. But not only do we need to link cause to effect, we also need to determine the size of the effect.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:41 AM on September 14, 2015
In the case that Doyle examines, though, the implication is that the Beastie Boys song had a direct influence on the specific details of the rape, that the rapist got the idea to use a specific weapon from that song.
If you had written that song, and then someone who loved that song and regularly repeated the line in question to his friends, had raped someone in the manner you wrote about, would that change how you wrote lyrics in the future? Do you think people would be wrong to ask you to be more thoughtful about your lyrics in the future?
posted by misfish at 2:23 AM on September 14, 2015
If you had written that song, and then someone who loved that song and regularly repeated the line in question to his friends, had raped someone in the manner you wrote about, would that change how you wrote lyrics in the future? Do you think people would be wrong to ask you to be more thoughtful about your lyrics in the future?
posted by misfish at 2:23 AM on September 14, 2015
In the case that Doyle examines, though, the implication is that the Beastie Boys song had a direct influence on the specific details of the rape, that the rapist got the idea to use a specific weapon from that song.
If you had written that song, and then someone who loved that song and regularly repeated the line in question to his friends, had raped someone in the manner you wrote about, would that change how you wrote lyrics in the future? Do you think people would be wrong to ask you to be more thoughtful about your lyrics in the future?
I personally? Of course I would. And, again, I think there are lots of reasons to be thoughtful before writing material which might exclude/trigger people. I think doing that kind of unthinking harm to people is not, generally speaking, a good thing.
But let's say I have an artistic reason for writing those particular lyrics and have thought about the emotional harm they might inflict on people who have had those or similar experiences, and to the way my language choices help contribute to a culture which excludes women. Would I, having decided that my lyrics are still worth it, then worry that someone might take them as an instruction to go commit those acts? Probably not, barring some specific set of circumstances (I'm the leader of a cult movement who take my pronouncements very seriously, say) which leads me to believe that my words are going to translate into somebodies actions.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:32 AM on September 14, 2015
If you had written that song, and then someone who loved that song and regularly repeated the line in question to his friends, had raped someone in the manner you wrote about, would that change how you wrote lyrics in the future? Do you think people would be wrong to ask you to be more thoughtful about your lyrics in the future?
I personally? Of course I would. And, again, I think there are lots of reasons to be thoughtful before writing material which might exclude/trigger people. I think doing that kind of unthinking harm to people is not, generally speaking, a good thing.
But let's say I have an artistic reason for writing those particular lyrics and have thought about the emotional harm they might inflict on people who have had those or similar experiences, and to the way my language choices help contribute to a culture which excludes women. Would I, having decided that my lyrics are still worth it, then worry that someone might take them as an instruction to go commit those acts? Probably not, barring some specific set of circumstances (I'm the leader of a cult movement who take my pronouncements very seriously, say) which leads me to believe that my words are going to translate into somebodies actions.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:32 AM on September 14, 2015
Why not? Why are you concerned about hurting rape victims, but not about amusing rapists?
posted by misfish at 2:46 AM on September 14, 2015
posted by misfish at 2:46 AM on September 14, 2015
Why not? Why are you concerned about hurting rape victims, but not about amusing rapists?
I thought we were talking about whether people would make actions based on what I said, not on whether they'd enjoy it or not?
I don't think worrying about the precise outcomes are of words you write are useful unless they are overwhelmingly clear.
So, to me at least it is clear that if I write about some violent act
1-I am very likely to hurt the feelings of those who have been affected by a violent act in their past
2-I am likely to exclude a portion of my audience who do not want to hear about said violent act in any context
So I would worry about those two points before writing/talking about this particular thing. But I wouldn't concern myself with the acts of a violent person who would listen to my lyrics because it's simply not clear what their reaction would be. Perhaps they would take it as a script, perhaps they would take it as a way to release their impulses by enjoying my work rather than going out and acting on it.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:56 AM on September 14, 2015
I thought we were talking about whether people would make actions based on what I said, not on whether they'd enjoy it or not?
I don't think worrying about the precise outcomes are of words you write are useful unless they are overwhelmingly clear.
So, to me at least it is clear that if I write about some violent act
1-I am very likely to hurt the feelings of those who have been affected by a violent act in their past
2-I am likely to exclude a portion of my audience who do not want to hear about said violent act in any context
So I would worry about those two points before writing/talking about this particular thing. But I wouldn't concern myself with the acts of a violent person who would listen to my lyrics because it's simply not clear what their reaction would be. Perhaps they would take it as a script, perhaps they would take it as a way to release their impulses by enjoying my work rather than going out and acting on it.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:56 AM on September 14, 2015
Perhaps they would take it as confirmation of their view that everyone thinks like they do, that raping people is jolly japes and good times. I don't understand why that is not a concern.
Remember, Doyle is advocating thoughtfulness, not censorship. Rapists are in your audience. You are speaking to them. What are they hearing?
posted by misfish at 3:30 AM on September 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Remember, Doyle is advocating thoughtfulness, not censorship. Rapists are in your audience. You are speaking to them. What are they hearing?
posted by misfish at 3:30 AM on September 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Perhaps they would take it as confirmation of their view that everyone thinks like they do, that raping people is jolly japes and good times. I don't understand why that is not a concern.
Remember, Doyle is advocating thoughtfulness, not censorship. Rapists are in your audience. You are speaking to them. What are they hearing?
I think using "I" here is a little misleading, so I'm going to drop it, as I'm not really talking about myself, but the voices I'd like to be in creators heads.
Famously, Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" was withdrawn from the UK market after some murderers were supposed to have been inspired by it. This is a terrible outcome, to my mind. The film features both murder and rape, and is a classic of cinema if ever there was one. I don't think Kubrick should have worried while making the film that people might be inspired to copy certain scenes from it. I believe that those people who would do so would simply find inspiration elsewhere, and to worry about the behaviour of people who will commit such acts after seeing your film is the wrong way to approach art. If you are worried about such people, you do something about the society in which they exist.
I'm not really qualified to defend the Beastie Boys as an artistic venture, but I know some do hold them in extremely high regard.
I'm going to quote Kubrick himself on this, because he puts it rather well:
"To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life, but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures."
posted by Cannon Fodder at 6:00 AM on September 14, 2015
Remember, Doyle is advocating thoughtfulness, not censorship. Rapists are in your audience. You are speaking to them. What are they hearing?
I think using "I" here is a little misleading, so I'm going to drop it, as I'm not really talking about myself, but the voices I'd like to be in creators heads.
Famously, Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" was withdrawn from the UK market after some murderers were supposed to have been inspired by it. This is a terrible outcome, to my mind. The film features both murder and rape, and is a classic of cinema if ever there was one. I don't think Kubrick should have worried while making the film that people might be inspired to copy certain scenes from it. I believe that those people who would do so would simply find inspiration elsewhere, and to worry about the behaviour of people who will commit such acts after seeing your film is the wrong way to approach art. If you are worried about such people, you do something about the society in which they exist.
I'm not really qualified to defend the Beastie Boys as an artistic venture, but I know some do hold them in extremely high regard.
I'm going to quote Kubrick himself on this, because he puts it rather well:
"To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life, but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures."
posted by Cannon Fodder at 6:00 AM on September 14, 2015
You may not realize that this is a pretty major point in the ongoing critical discussion of rape culture? It wasn't invented by this author.
Here is an overview, with a bunch of linked studies.
Here's a succinct direct address of the problem, including linked studies. This was originally a comment on Shakesville 5 years ago (for those who are familiar, it's the "To all those men who don't think the rape jokes are a problem" essay) that made wide rounds and really solidified the things people - mostly women people - are trying to say when they talk about rape jokes.
But the response "but but but I have a right to watch rape for entertainment if I want, I'm not going to rape anyone myself, you can't oppress me or my wishes that the world was completely different than it is" to these attempts to communicate about rape culture isn't new either.
posted by Lyn Never at 1:02 PM on September 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here is an overview, with a bunch of linked studies.
Here's a succinct direct address of the problem, including linked studies. This was originally a comment on Shakesville 5 years ago (for those who are familiar, it's the "To all those men who don't think the rape jokes are a problem" essay) that made wide rounds and really solidified the things people - mostly women people - are trying to say when they talk about rape jokes.
But the response "but but but I have a right to watch rape for entertainment if I want, I'm not going to rape anyone myself, you can't oppress me or my wishes that the world was completely different than it is" to these attempts to communicate about rape culture isn't new either.
posted by Lyn Never at 1:02 PM on September 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
But the response "but but but I have a right to watch rape for entertainment if I want, I'm not going to rape anyone myself, you can't oppress me or my wishes that the world was completely different than it is" to these attempts to communicate about rape culture isn't new either.
I am reasonably confident that is not what I'm saying. I mean I'm aware of these arguments, and I've read if not that Shakesville piece then something similar, and I mostly agreed. Again, there are lots of good reasons to not thoughtlessly engage in exclusionary humour. Also that article is expressly about jokes between a group of friends rather than art performed to audiences, which I would categorise very differently.
Basically, Doyle seems to be expressing that she wants one of the voices in an artists head to say "what if a rapist heard what you were saying and acted upon", but I don't think thats a good voice to listen to most of the time. I do want a voice that says "people are affected by rape and it's consequences, and will be hurt by that material, and may feel excluded from engaging with that material and the part of culture that you are connecting to, so think twice before including it."
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:33 PM on September 14, 2015
I am reasonably confident that is not what I'm saying. I mean I'm aware of these arguments, and I've read if not that Shakesville piece then something similar, and I mostly agreed. Again, there are lots of good reasons to not thoughtlessly engage in exclusionary humour. Also that article is expressly about jokes between a group of friends rather than art performed to audiences, which I would categorise very differently.
Basically, Doyle seems to be expressing that she wants one of the voices in an artists head to say "what if a rapist heard what you were saying and acted upon", but I don't think thats a good voice to listen to most of the time. I do want a voice that says "people are affected by rape and it's consequences, and will be hurt by that material, and may feel excluded from engaging with that material and the part of culture that you are connecting to, so think twice before including it."
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:33 PM on September 14, 2015
But I'm gonna bow out now as I'm aware I've said a lot in a row, and I can see a lot of people disagree with me.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:35 PM on September 14, 2015
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:35 PM on September 14, 2015
« Older How little can I touch this machine to get it to... | It can't happen here Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Drinky Die at 8:49 PM on September 5, 2015 [10 favorites]