On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think Gottfried's got it exactly right. About three weeks ago, I posted > a joke on Facebook involving seeing a person with a white and red cane > crossing Wacker Drive suddenly hustling when the signal turned red. A > former high-school classmate took me to task in the comments about the fact > she may not be totally blind, the cane could be for assistance, etc. and > that I should know better because her brother (who was also a classmate) is > legally blind but can still see. And I felt obligated to explain that, yes, > I totally understand that, but it's a joke, and blah, blah. > > Fast forward a week, and I posted a link to the complaint against Cards > Against Humanity for having a white card for "Passable Tranny" and how the > game creators admitted the card was removed in later editions because they > didn't realize how insensitive that word was when they created it. I have > several friends who are LGBTQ, and one in particular who is T. The same > classmate proceeded to bitch about how people are becoming too sensitive > about things and what's wrong with that card. My friend quickly and > politely explained how deeply offensive that term was. I looked for the > Facebook app that would've allowed me to slap my classmate silly for her > failure to get it, but no such app exists yet. > But I am not convinced your example tracks precisely with what Gottfried wrote. 1. There is a difference between your two stories (which I think is maybe part of the point) - a joke, similar to a piece of art, invokes a different set of standards and expectations. I took a week long trip to Paris recently, and in preparation did some art research, and came upon what I take it is a famous bit of performance art tied to the "L'Origine du monde" at the d'Orsay (for those who are not familiar, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUES1sbl6g, but it is probably not safe for many work places). The original painting, and the performance piece, may or may not be your cup of tea, but (the original at least, though I would include the latter too) are to be understood as art. A realistic painting of a woman's open vagina hanging in a museum must be responded to differently than, say displaying a beaver shot from Hustler magazine in the office break room. A viewer may be offended by the painting (indeed, at least part of the point must be to offend some or many viewers) but that offense in no way should be seen as occasioning an apology from the artist (though perhaps an apology from the museum if they did not adequately warn the viewers about what they might see). In the latter example though, even if objectively less explicit, expression of offense does legitimately call for an apology (and taking down the picture). Similarly, the first of your two anecdotes about a joke, does not really require an apology. Its a joke, if people don't like it, don't laugh at it, and don't hang around people who tell jokes like that. In the second example the offensive word was not the point of the exercise (which apparently is a game), and once explained, I think most reasonable people would want to say something like: "I am really sorry, I did not realize how offensive that term is, and I will make a change". 2. Gottfried is describing an event in which he apologized even though he was not really sorry for what he said. The reason he apologized was he wanted to continue to benefit financially and professionally from the public's goodwill. I am old enough to know that sometimes we have to eat shit to keep our job (or make more money, or whatever), and I am not going to judge anyone who does that, as I have had to do on occasion. But I don't see any room here for him to bitch about it. If telling those Tsunami jokes was an important enough principle to him as a comic, then he should have refused to apologize and either ignore the reaction or attempt a serious or comedic way of trying to education the public. If he decided to issue an insincere apology in order to preserve his Q-Rating (or whatever), then he has nobody but himself to blame. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
