Louis CK on Tracy Morgan's Comments About What He Would Do If He Had A Gay Son

[Bad^Hat]

That's exactly what I'm doing. The difference is I'm not trying to frame it as a freedom of speech issue when that doesn't inform my opinion on the matter at all. The way you employ the word freedom is so broadly defined that it doesn't add anything to your position - rather, it can be applied to the opposite just as easily, yet you don't seem to acknowledge that.

For the record, no, I don't think rallying for him to lose his job is a fair reaction. However, like Laivasse pointed out, I don't think there's anything about Tracy Morgan keeping his cushy job that makes it a matter of personal freedom. Moreover, I happen to think that not allowing anti-gay sentiment to go unchallenged is more important than one person's reputation, particular when that person put his own reputation in jeopardy to begin with.

 

[Krynn72]

I just find it slightly ironic that you had a problem with Sarah Palin using targets on maps when Gabby Giffords got shot yet you would have no problem with a guy like Beck joking around about hanging out on the grassy knoll with a gun if Obama is re-elected and sacrificing himself for his country.

Well, firstly, I do believe you're either mis-remembering, or straight up bullshitting here. Where did I say I had a problem with that? I even did a search to find any such comment. Secondly, if I did have a problem with it, it would be because I doubt it was as unintentional as she played it off as, and it wasn't a ****ing joke. Like I said in the post above yours, my issue with this sort of thing comes from either not believing their intent was what they claim (the major issue), and the appropriateness of the remarks in context. The crosshairs were on a political poster that named names. If it really was just a "holy shit I didn't even realize that!" thing, then its rather excusable, despite being inappropriate. Its hard to tell if that actually was the case in this situation though, and I don't believe I've ever made a judgement one way or another on it. If you can quote me saying something in another thread, feel free to make me eat my words.

And, this has everything to do with politics. I'm not trying to be in any way a dick and not really sure why you seem to have taken offense to that, this is the politics section and we are talking about political subjects.

You know my meaning. Its not a "you're a liberal so you only find it wrong when republicans do it!!!!" thing, despite your attempts to make it appear so.

This is completely facile. The pervading view in this thread seems to be that anything becomes fair game when it's put in the form of a joke. That's absurd, as anyone who's ever been the victim of a hurtful joke will tell you. Pretending that the only possible outcome of a joke could be something as silly as "offence" is to ignore the very real discrimination that happens using discriminatory humour. Did none of you go to ****ing primary (grade) school? It all depends on intent and context, and by making out like the only context that's worth a damn is "he's a comedian" and "he's in a comedy club," you're ignoring every other possible implication of what he said.

But of course, you'd object, they're only possible implications. No one can say for sure what his intent was, and in that respect I'd agree. I'm actually willing to give Tracy the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume that he did intend for it to be dark satire. I'm not really familiar with his act, but the comments are a little on the absurd side to be taken seriously, so it seems much more likely he was just being outrageous for comedic effect. Fair enough. But this is his job, and the fact that he left any ambiguity about it is completely his fault. Louis CK, for comparison's sake, does this shit all the time. There's just about nothing that's off limits to him, but I've never once felt offended or even offput by his act because he knows how to frame it as comedy. If Tracy cared at all about what impression he was giving his audience, he would have made that completely implicit. He didn't, and he's paying the price for that. Simple as.

Um, so are you, or are you not saying that its OK for Louis CK to make such jokes? Because if you're saying its OK for him to make jokes because he does it all the time as comedy, then you're saying as long as such jokes are said in a comedic context, they're OK.

Your childhood example is fair enough in school environments and the like, but full grown adults are completely different. Children are still developing their minds and as such shouldn't be subject to such mocking, but again, not adults. You're allowed to tell disgusting jokes to adults and you're allowed to make fun of adults. People can recognize that jokes are not real, just as we can tell that people killing each other isn't real when watching a movie or playing a game. Its not like someone is going to hear Tracey's comment and be like "that dude is 100% serious, I guess I should stab a gay kid!"

I'm not saying that people don't have a right to be butthurt crybabies, they've got just as much right as Tracey has to make dumb jokes. My point here is that everyone is stupid for getting offended by anything. Seriously, being offended is like the stupidest reaction to anything I've ever seen.

 

[No Limit]

Well, firstly, I do believe you're either mis-remembering, or straight up bullshitting here. Where did I say I had a problem with that? I even did a search to find any such comment. Secondly, if I did have a problem with it, it would be because I doubt it was as unintentional as she played it off as, and it wasn't a ****ing joke. Like I said in the post above yours, my issue with this sort of thing comes from either not believing their intent was what they claim (the major issue), and the appropriateness of the remarks in context. The crosshairs were on a political poster that named names. If it really was just a "holy shit I didn't even realize that!" thing, then its rather excusable, despite being inappropriate. Its hard to tell if that actually was the case in this situation though, and I don't believe I've ever made a judgement one way or another on it. If you can quote me saying something in another thread, feel free to make me eat my words.

You are ready to raise questions about what was intentional on Palin's part and what wasn't. It doesn't seem like you are willing to do the same with Morgan, it seems to me you already made the judgement that it was totally innocent.

The thread I'm talking about on the Palin targets is the Giffords one started shortly after she was shot:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...esswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-in-the-head/

Specifically your reply here:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...ffords-shot-in-the-head&p=3242429#post3242429

What seemed to set you off was that right after Giffords said she was a bit upset about Sarah Palin having a gun sight over her district Chuck Todd went in to the apology mode about how political rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangable for a long time. You can fast forward to 2 minutes in on that youtube video to see what I am talking about.

At the time I thought you were spot on. But if I didn't understand you correctly fair enough, I assumed part of your outrage was about the map since that was what Chuck Todd was responding to, I could be wrong on that.

But I would just like to stress my point here which is that saying something is a joke doesn't give you a free pass to say any ignorant and idiotic shit you feel like saying.

You know my meaning. Its not a "you're a liberal so you only find it wrong when republicans do it!!!!" thing, despite your attempts to make it appear so.

If it came off that way I certainly didn't mean it that way. Me an you had our disagreements before, and at times you do bug the shit out of me. But I don't see you as some kind of politcal hack that is cheering for a sports team, I never have. And as lame as it sounds I do respect your opinions and I listen to what you have to say.

Um, so are you, or are you not saying that its OK for Louis CK to make such jokes? Because if you're saying its OK for him to make jokes because he does it all the time as comedy, then you're saying as long as such jokes are said in a comedic context, they're OK.

Here is what I think about Louis CK. I have seen all his stand ups as far as I know. And he loves to use the word f*ggot. But as bad hat said I never heard him say a routine and take offense to it. The jokes he makes in this area are funny, but they are not hateful. And the keyword here is hateful. From his stand up you can tell he has nothing against gay people, eventhough he makes fun of them. Nobody is trying to suggest certain subjects are off limits, they aren't. The issue is the meaning behind the jokes around those issues. And in this case what Morgan said did seem hateful not only from the transcript but also according to the people that were there.

 

[Krynn72]

You are ready to raise questions about what was intentional on Palin's part and what wasn't. It doesn't seem like you are willing to do the same with Morgan, it seems to me you already made the judgement that it was totally innocent.

The thread I'm talking about on the Palin targets is the Giffords one started shortly after she was shot:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...esswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-in-the-head/

Specifically your reply here:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/sho...ffords-shot-in-the-head&p=3242429#post3242429

What seemed to set you off was that right after Giffords said she was a bit upset about Sarah Palin having a gun sight over her district Chuck Todd went in to the apology mode about how political rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangable for a long time. You can fast forward to 2 minutes in on that youtube video to see what I am talking about.

At the time I thought you were spot on. But if I didn't understand you correctly fair enough, I assumed part of your outrage was about the map since that was what Chuck Todd was responding to, I could be wrong on that.

Even if my post there wasn't a rant on my broader feelings about political rhetoric (which it was, it wasn't about that specific "crosshairs" case but vitriolic rhetoric in general), it would still fall in the confines of potentially not being a real gaff (as in, intended use of crosshairs as part of the message) and inappropriate comments for the context. As such, she should have recieved some amount of flak for it. Unintentionally using crosshairs = some minor flak to remind her to be more careful next time when choosing imagery, or major flak for being a lying bitch intentionally suggesting aggression in a serious and already tense context. Either way, nobody has a right to say that she can't say mean shit. Its only when she is specifically inciting violence, with results, that I think anybody can begin saying she has no right to say such things.

But I would just like to stress my point here which is that saying something is a joke doesn't give you a free pass to say any ignorant and idiotic shit you feel like saying.

And I'll re-stress my point that I agree with you, but only in cases where it is not already assumed to be comedic.

If it came off that way I certainly didn't mean it that way. Me an you had our disagreements before, and at times you do bug the shit out of me. But I don't see you as some kind of politcal hack that is cheering for a sports team, I never have. And as lame as it sounds I do respect your opinions and I listen to what you have to say.

*brofist*

Here is what I think about Louis CK. I have seen all his stand ups as far as I know. And he loves to use the word f*ggot. But as bad hat said I never heard him say a routine and take offense to it. The jokes he makes in this area are funny, but they are not hateful. And the keyword here is hateful. From his stand up you can tell he has nothing against gay people, eventhough he makes fun of them. Nobody is trying to suggest certain subjects are off limits, they aren't. The issue is the meaning behind the jokes around those issues. And in this case what Morgan said did seem hateful not only from the transcript but also according to the people that were there.

Well then there we have it. You think he didn't say it as a joke, and is only claiming it was one post hoc, while I think he said it as a joke and that he at no point was actually supporting the killing of gay people.

 

[Vegeta897]

I think No Limit just doesn't have much experience with comedians that are really brutal like that. I've heard plenty of stuff from other comedians that was just as bad or worse, but in the context of a standup routine you know he's just doing it to get a reaction (shock followed by laughter)

 

[Bad^Hat]

Um, so are you, or are you not saying that its OK for Louis CK to make such jokes? Because if you're saying its OK for him to make jokes because he does it all the time as comedy, then you're saying as long as such jokes are said in a comedic context, they're OK.

The comedic context isn't the only thing that matters. It's about having an implicit understanding with your audience that what you're saying is facetious and not necessarily an accurate representation of your true feelings. Louie is actually a brilliant example of this because he plays a very well-defined character in his act, so it's always easy to put the things he says into context (this might be true of Tracy as well, again I'm not familiar with him). The other thing that he exemplifies about comedy is that there's often an element of truth to it. Louie, by contrast, jokes about people gettin' mad at gays and how he can't understand why they'd care about what other people do in privacy. The joke itself is about dicks touching and stuff, so it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously at face value, but it's plainly obvious to anyone who's heard the bit that he really feels this way about the issue. He's articulating it as a joke to make it funny, but that doesn't mean every word that comes out of his mouth should be processed purely as a string of funny words. As a comedian who relies on shock value it's his responsibility to make it implicitly clear that what he's saying is meant to be taken as satire, or parody, or whatever - not to avoid offending people, but to avoid losing his ****ing audience. Tracy evidently did not, and he's paying the price.

Your childhood example is fair enough in school environments and the like, but full grown adults are completely different. Children are still developing their minds and as such shouldn't be subject to such mocking, but again, not adults. You're allowed to tell disgusting jokes to adults and you're allowed to make fun of adults. People can recognize that jokes are not real, just as we can tell that people killing each other isn't real when watching a movie or playing a game. Its not like someone is going to hear Tracey's comment and be like "that dude is 100% serious, I guess I should stab a gay kid!"

Children are far more susceptible to insult than adults, but there's not a magical age barrier you pass after which you stop being insulted. If someone is being made the victim of a mean-spirited joke, should their only recourse be to ignore them and decide not to be offended? I'm sure you'd agree that it's not always that simple, especially for people who receive this kind of verbal abuse on a regular basis. Same goes for a group of people who've been marginalized - when it's as prevalent as it is with gay people (in certain societies), they can't always just ignore jokes at their expense because they "aren't real." Often there's a very real sentiment behind it, though a subjective one at that.

I'm not saying that people don't have a right to be butthurt crybabies, they've got just as much right as Tracey has to make dumb jokes. My point here is that everyone is stupid for getting offended by anything. Seriously, being offended is like the stupidest reaction to anything I've ever seen.

Right. Except persecution is more than just offence, it's making people feel unwanted for having the audacity to exist. "Sticks and stones" doesn't apply equally to every verbal exchange just because it's a joke - again, intent matters.

 

[Krynn72]

- again, intent matters.

I'm quoting this first, because I want to point out that this is the same thing I've been saying the whole time, and to question the logic of the following argument.

As a comedian who relies on shock value it's his responsibility to make it implicitly clear that what he's saying is meant to be taken as satire, or parody, or whatever - not to avoid offending people, but to avoid losing his ****ing audience. Tracy evidently did not, and he's paying the price.

Intent matters, as you say, and his intent was not to be taken seriously. If you want to question his execution, that's one thing. But I think it was clear he was not serious and did not believe what he was joking about.

Your last comment about persecution simply doesn't apply. What you're taking about are "jokes" in name only, where a person believes in what his is pretending to joke about. To go back to the Palin example, if she was lying about it being a mistake, then she was inciting violence. Just replace Palin with Tracey, and "lie" with "joke" to make it relevant. Oh, and the notion that every joke contains a bit of truth is just another typical over-generalized, assumptive bullshit.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I didn't say every joke contains some truth, I said comedy often does. I'm not sure if we've seen many of the same comedians, but I find a good portion of their jokes tend to be a humorous exaggeration of something they clearly hold to be true. Obviously this is more true of some jokes and of some performers than others, I wasn't saying it was universally true. In this case I agree with you that it seems much more likely that he was just saying something outrageous for shock value, but what if he wasn't? Say he actually believed the things he was saying, but thought they would be funny at face value. Would it stop being a joke, or would it just start being a hateful one?

Anyway, I think this is an issue of semantics now. You seem to be saying that something can only be considered a joke if it's not intended to be taken seriously, and I'm saying that there are degrees of that which can't be so clearly defined. A statement isn't either a joke or not a joke depending on whether the person saying it holds certain facets of it to be true. Say a racist person tells you a racist joke - it's still funny to them and other racists, right? Whether or not he's saying it to be spiteful or mean, is it not still humorous in some respect? How could you say it was a joke "in name only" just because they meant it? The same is true of the opposite - jokes condemning bigotry are still considered jokes regardless of the joker's intent.

Jokey joke joke joke. And now that word has lost all meaning to me. :v

 

[Krynn72]

Say he actually believed the things he was saying, but thought they would be funny at face value. Would it stop being a joke, or would it just start being a hateful one?

Then it wouldn't be a joke, and not fall under the same purview.

Say a racist person tells you a racist joke - it's still funny to them and other racists, right? Whether or not he's saying it to be spiteful or mean, is it not still humorous in some respect? How could you say it was a joke "in name only" just because they meant it? The same is true of the opposite - jokes condemning bigotry are still considered jokes regardless of the joker's intent.

Well, I guess it just is an issue of semantics then, because I wouldn't consider it a joke if they really believed it. I would say its a racist remark hiding behind a jocular facade. As a smart man once said; "its all about intent." Their intent was to make a racist statement.

 

[Bad^Hat]

What is the Daily Show to you? Is he telling jokes, or isn't he? If so, is his intent merely to amuse?

 

[Krynn72]

Sometimes he tells jokes, most of the time hes just making statements behind a jocular facade. Its comedy, but not "jokes" in the sense I'm talking. And I'll concede that perhaps "jokes" isn't the best word to describe the kind of humor I'm talking about. I'm not sure what what word would be better though.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yeah, hence the semantic disagreement. Meh, at this point it's probably easier to just concede that we have different ideas of what constitutes a joke. In any case, my salient point was that saying something in a humorous way doesn't make you any less culpable if people react poorly, unless it was clearly facetious. Which, in this case, it probably was. So yeah.

Edit: Or rather, it wasn't clearly facetious (if the audience reaction is anything to go by), but he probably intended it to be.

Okay, now I'm done.

 

[Mr Stabby]

 

[Laivasse]

This guy never intended to be taken seriously either (0:54-1:09):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZ1zL5wWrcNot everything should get a free pass into the 'so absurd it's funny' bracket. Jokes like these were rooted in a belief that Manning genuinely held. The wider context of his jokes about non-whites is that they regularly do get discriminated against, by people echoing sentiments similar to those found in Manning's jokes. The wider context of Morgan's joke is that gays actually do refuse to come out, or even sometimes kill themselves, based on fear of their parents' reactions. OK, so maybe this is not a reflection of Morgan's real views - Bad^Hat agrees with Krynn and Stig that they probably aren't; I'm inclined to believe they probably are rooted in truth, and it's uncharacteristic of any dark satirist to disown their own joke as 'not funny in any context' - but it doesn't really matter anyway when the act is indistinguishable from one motivated by genuine prejudice.

Again, this isn't about whether Morgan is 'allowed' to make these jokes, but whether he should be allowed to make them and stay a performer on a major mainstream comedy show. I don't for a second think Bernard Manning should have been somehow gagged so he couldn't perform on the live circuit - somewhere he got very rich - but I don't think it was unjust that he was treated as toxic by TV broadcasters either. It's an issue to be decided by Morgan's employers, anyhow.

@Stabby - I would give Carlin the benefit of the doubt, in assuming he didn't misunderstand the right to free speech as the right to have your views go unchallenged. It's a shame to hear him talking that crap about Muslims 'outbreeding us' though.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Why does free speech, only apply to legality of speech. Anytime people are prevented from saying something, their free ability to speak, is not being exercised. Carlin even states how he believes rights are social constructs (which he is right about).

In the case of manning, let us suppose in the 70s, the majority of english poeple like watching him be racist on TV. You think it's OK for the moral minority to decide that no one should be allowed to hear him on TV. Sounds to me like censorship.

Also, Nick Griffin on question time, I think it's free speech issue for the left to demand he can't be on TV. If uou don't like waht someone has to say, it's not up to you, to decide if everyone else can hear it or not. Again I'm not saying the left can't complain, I'm just saying their advocating censorship.

 

[Laivasse]

Why does free speech, only apply to legality of speech. Anytime people are prevented from saying something, their free ability to speak, is not being exercised. Carlin even states how he believes rights are social constructs (which he is right about).

Where I fundamentally disagree with you is the idea that anybody is being 'prevented from speaking' here. Taking someone off the TV is simply removing one platform for speech - something that producers are entitled to do based on ratings, popularity, taste, or indeed whim.

Rights are indeed social constructs but the clip you posted has Carlin sounding pretty confused, half-arsed and self-contradictory. It doesn't make sense to dismantle the idea of rights while simultaneously complaining about being censored. I think he was just talking over all angles of a certain issue and not making any real point.

I agree with the fact that the 'right not to be offended' (also re the Penn & Teller vid) is complete horseshit. In fact it's something I feel very strongly about. It's not the issue here though. When certain views have been identified by the prevailing social value structure as debilitative to society - for example, racist or homophobic views - then it stands to reason that becoming linked with such views means you're playing russian roulette with your TV career. People don't have a right not to be offended but they certainly have the right to contact Morgan's bosses and ask 'wtf is the deal with his comments about gays?'

In the case of manning, let us suppose in the 70s, the majority of english poeple like watching him be racist on TV. You think it's OK for the moral minority to decide that no one should be allowed to hear him on TV. Sounds to me like censorship.

If we agree that rights are social constructs then I don't see how we keep coming back to the idea of censorship - especially this kind of toothless censorship, where all that happens is you lose your prime time billing - as if it's something every human has a right to be free from.

This is a false proposition though. I can't hypothesise about a situation which is unlikely to have happened. There was a lot of racially awkward stuff on TV in the 70s, which mirrored how society in general was clumsy in the way it got to grips with diversity. Even in that context, I can't be sure that a majority of people would have agreed with Manning that a black person could never be English. Even supposing they did, why suppose broadcasters would bow to minority demand? There are just too many suppositions here, I don't see how this is useful.

There is one situation nowadays where I think what you're saying is applicable, which is broadcasters being unwilling to dole out criticism - even justified criticism - towards Islam or other minorities, because they are afraid of a backlash. However, in that situation I have just as much power to criticise broadcasters for intellectual cowardice as Muslims do to try and protect their sacred cows. That's not the Morgan issue though.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Where I fundamentally disagree with you is the idea that anybody is being 'prevented from speaking' here. Taking someone off the TV is simply removing one platform for speech - something that producers are entitled to do based on ratings, popularity, taste, or indeed whim.

To me, it is in all practicality advocating of censorship to try and remove platforms from people saying things you don't like.

Rights are indeed social constructs but the clip you posted has Carlin sounding pretty confused, half-arsed and self-contradictory. It doesn't make sense to dismantle the idea of rights while simultaneously complaining about being censored. I think he was just talking over all angles of a certain issue and not making any real point.

he is more succinct here

freedom of speech isn't a right, where do rights come from? It's an idea, a good idea in my view.

I agree with the fact that the 'right not to be offended' (also re the Penn & Teller vid) is complete horseshit. In fact it's something I feel very strongly about. It's not the issue here though. When certain views have been identified by the prevailing social value structure as debilitative to society - for example, racist or homophobic views - then it stands to reason that becoming linked with such views means you're playing russian roulette with your TV career. People don't have a right not to be offended but they certainly have the right to contact Morgan's bosses and ask 'wtf is the deal with his comments about gays?'If we agree that rights are social constructs then I don't see how we keep coming back to the idea of censorship - especially this kind of toothless censorship, where all that happens is you lose your prime time billing - as if it's something every human has a right to be free from.

This is a false proposition though. I can't hypothesise about a situation which is unlikely to have happened. There was a lot of racially awkward stuff on TV in the 70s, which mirrored how society in general was clumsy in the way it got to grips with diversity. Even in that context, I can't be sure that a majority of people would have agreed with Manning that a black person could never be English. Even supposing they did, why suppose broadcasters would bow to minority demand? There are just too many suppositions here, I don't see how this is useful.

There is one situation nowadays where I think what you're saying is applicable, which is broadcasters being unwilling to dole out criticism - even justified criticism - towards Islam or other minorities, because they are afraid of a backlash. However, in that situation I have just as much power to criticise broadcasters for intellectual cowardice as Muslims do to try and protect their sacred cows. That's not the Morgan issue though.

How do you define censorship? What if a book is forbidden to be published is that censorship, is it only censorship if it's political, not when it's offensive? Just cause someone has opportunities, to speak, not afforded to most of us, inhibiting those opportunities is still censorship. When Bill O'Reilly cuts people mics off is he censoring them, or just talking away an opportunity most of us will never get anyway, so who cares.

THis reminds of of Nick Griffin at Oxford thread. Our resident marxist Solaris was so incensed by Griffin's views, he was advocating censoring them.
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?135117-BNP-to-speak-to-Oxford-students/page2&highlight=nick+griffin

 

[Sulkdodds]

Partly because the thread looks long and tiresome, and I have not read it, I'm not sure precisely what is being argued here. That media companies operating in a market should not be able to pick and choose what they put out there? That a small number of liberal barons control the media landscape to the extent that their opposition means absolute censorship? That Morgan's views have somehow been 'censored', despite the fact that we're all hearing about them? That there is in any sense a lack of access to such views in today's media? That other individuals should not just uphold Morgan's legal right to say such things, but also withhold themselves from exercising their right to publicly criticise him, their right to refuse to share a platform with him, or their right to employ and commission who and what they like? That private bodies can't uphold rules that limit legal freedom of speech? That their should be no limit at all on free speech when that free speech can very easily be construed as threatening direct violence against a social group who have done nothing wrong and against whom violence is carried out often? Perhaps I'm trying to squeeze your general philosophical musings into a straightjacket of 'debate', but since everyone is acting like this is a debate I would like to see its grounds clarified.

 

[Laivasse]

To me, it is in all practicality advocating of censorship to try and remove platforms from people saying things you don't like.

But TV scheduling is dictated by market forces, so there will always be this sort of 'censorship' on some level. It's rarely sensible, from a ratings perspective, to broadcast things that most people actively despise, such as outmoded, hurtful opinions or people known to be associated with them. Sometimes a broadcaster will cater to minority interest, or indeed court the rage of the masses by broadcasting something everyone hates, if they have a sound financial or intellectual footing for doing so, but you can't count on it.

he is more succinct here

freedom of speech isn't a right, where do rights come from? It's an idea, a good idea in my view.

It's not something I disagree with. But if you accept that the right to speak freely is not divinely granted and instead arises from sociopolitical ideals, then that leaves you on even shakier ground when complaining about the 'censorship' which comes when you are marginalised for being unfashionable or unpopular. Who can you appeal to? You can use reasoned argument to try and win people around to your side, and by so doing cease to be marginalised. This is near impossible for Morgan's routine if it represents a genuinely prejudiced viewpoint, since there is little intellectual merit in it. He could have attempted to reason with people using the dark satire/self-satire explanation, but didn't - most probably, IMO, because it wasn't true anyway. What he did was attempt to win people around by appearing contrite. Might work, might not. I don't see an injustice either way.

IMO it's not a free speech issue where there is a conflict of ideologies, with one ideology emerging massively more popular. The other ideology is still there to be heard, it's just discarded by most people as worthless and receives less opportunity for exposure as a result (but it still has some opportunity).

How do you define censorship? What if a book is forbidden to be published is that censorship, is it only censorship if it's political, not when it's offensive? Just cause someone has opportunities, to speak, not afforded to most of us, inhibiting those opportunities is still censorship. When Bill O'Reilly cuts people mics off is he censoring them, or just talking away an opportunity most of us will never get anyway, so who cares.

The short answer is 'it depends'. If circulation of a book is completely banned then it's censorship. Let's vault the 'rights' discussion and agree that censorship is undesirable. For me, it's hard to conceive of any situations where such a ban can be justified. If, however, the book simply fails to have been picked up by any publisher, due to perceived unpopularity, then that is not censorship. If an author gets dropped because his publishers thought they had something marketable, but it turns out they didn't or that the author writes a load of shit they didn't expect, that imo is not censorship either.

To help us think about this, let's break down social discourse into 'vectors of information', through which individuals can express themselves. The internet is one vector, TV is another. So is getting published. There might also be many different vectors within those categories - getting your book picked up by a massive publishing house or a small one, getting broadcast on a very popular channel or one nobody watches, etc. One vector could be talking on a soap box in a town square. One vector is talking with your friends and family.

In a society like ours which values free expression, still only some of these are inalienable and available to everyone. Others are a matter of opportunity - opportunity granted by popularity, influence (over information vectors), wealth or luck. Being denied access to a lot of vectors because you are unlucky, poor or stupid can be a shame, it can be unjust, but does it constitute censorship? Not IMO if the basic vectors of expression are still available. In some societies, at times, it hasn't even been safe for certain individuals to talk freely with their family. Perhaps some gay people are still in that situation! :upstare:

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think we do more or less agree philosophically and it's a matter of practicality , which is the issue here (which doesn't matter too much IMO on an internet forum). I have nothing more to say, I haven't already said somewhere in this thread. I'm done, I don't care anymore.

I appreciate the thought that went into your post, not normally found in the politics section of this forum.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Man, now I'm going to have to actually read the thread if I want to understand what's going on.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I wouldn't bother, it descends into trolling,logical fallicies and name calling for a large part.

 

[No Limit]

Even if my post there wasn't a rant on my broader feelings about political rhetoric (which it was, it wasn't about that specific "crosshairs" case but vitriolic rhetoric in general), it would still fall in the confines of potentially not being a real gaff (as in, intended use of crosshairs as part of the message) and inappropriate comments for the context. As such, she should have recieved some amount of flak for it. Unintentionally using crosshairs = some minor flak to remind her to be more careful next time when choosing imagery, or major flak for being a lying bitch intentionally suggesting aggression in a serious and already tense context. Either way, nobody has a right to say that she can't say mean shit. Its only when she is specifically inciting violence, with results, that I think anybody can begin saying she has no right to say such things.

Yeah, but that requires you to be making a judgement that is highly subjective. You are giving Morgan a pass while being far more questionable of Palin's intentions. I realize that why you are doing this has nothing to do with their politics but becuase of the fact that one is a political figure the other is a comedian. But I don't think that distinction really matters when judging something on wether or not it is hateful.

The line between political figure and comedian is a thin one. Comedians make political points all the time. And in this case it's not really a matter of politics, it's a matter of saying something hateful about gay people.

Take a look at this routine by louis CK (probably one of my favorites):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFloXOuLgA

He uses the word f*ggot like it's going out of style. But the meaning behind it is actually positive, it is no way hateful. He is saying that when he uses that word it has absolutely nothing to do with gay people.

What is the meaning behind what Morgan said? It's clear, he is saying if you have a effeminate son you should not be okay with that. Him being a comedian and him telling a joke doesn't in anyway change the meaning behind what he is saying.

And I'll re-stress my point that I agree with you, but only in cases where it is not already assumed to be comedic.

.....

Well then there we have it. You think he didn't say it as a joke, and is only claiming it was one post hoc, while I think he said it as a joke and that he at no point was actually supporting the killing of gay people.

That's not really what I meant. What I meant is even though it was a joke and yes, I dont think he ever was seriously saying you should kill gay kids, the joke still had a message behind it. That message was being gay is not okay unless you do a really good job hiding it. Again, saying it was just a comedy routine doesn't change the message behind it and certainly doesn't excuse it.

I know you don't agree with that message and think it is hateful, so what difference does it make if a comedian said it?

I think No Limit just doesn't have much experience with comedians that are really brutal like that. I've heard plenty of stuff from other comedians that was just as bad or worse, but in the context of a standup routine you know he's just doing it to get a reaction (shock followed by laughter)

I'm a big stand up fan so I'm pretty sure I've seen whatever you are refering to. Let me know what you are talking about specifically and we can discuss it.

 

[Krynn72]

We're also on like the 18th different argument.

Edit : That was talking to Sulk, I'll read your post no limit when I'm of my computer, don't feel like reading and replying to a huge post like that using my phone.

 

[Yuri]

Does No Limit also hate fat jokes?

 

[Sheepo]

I find this thread pretty ridiculous. You can't really have a meaningful argument without firmly establishing what's being argued. I cautiously say that I agree with No Limit, though I'm not sure if I fully understand what that means.

Did Morgan have the right to say what he did? Yes.

Does he have to take responsibility for what he said? Yes.

Was the joke funny? No. I mean, we don't have full context. But I'm trying to imagine a situation where "stab that little nigga to death" could possibly make me laugh and pretty much failing. Let's be honest.

Is it wrong that he's being condemned for what he said without fully appreciating the intended joking context? No. It's clear that the humor was not made apparent. As a comedian it's his job to make it so. If he was being condemned despite the joke being funny and understood by the audience, that would be a different story (although I would still probably say he knew the risk when made a joke with such a punchline, and sometimes you have to restrain yourself for the public eye or learn to deal with it).