I Am Not Offended (And If I Were...Who'd Care?)
Listen to the Jew…In the nearly two years I’ve been running this site, I don’t think I’ve been quite as annoyed as I was a few days ago. In the comment section of a recent article, a reader of the site made a joke.
A joke about vaginas.
Was it funny?
Who cares?
What’s more important is that another commenter felt it was absolutely necessary to take him to task for his offensive comment.
I say this to you all, but doubly and triply if you’re in college or a recent graduate of college: no one cares if you’re offended.
Ever.
Before I go too far down this road, I want to make certain my policies and motivations are clear. In the comment section here, I have a simple rule: if you behave in a way that I think is uncivil toward another member, then I delete your comment.
Why?
Not because it offends me. I do that because I have an objective desire to host a civil discussion, because I like civil discussions. There’s nothing immoral or shocking or horrifying about uncivil discussions. It’s just that I don’t want to host them, and this is my party and I’ll cry if I want to.
Ergo, I censor.
Same with the forum. If you break our rules (pretty much the same rules), then you get censored. Same reason.
What frustrated me about the complainer in this recent case was that she implied that there is some higher law than my own here. Apparently, there is a species of human that believes that if an individual is offended, then a crime has been committed.
Nope.
See, it’s perfectly fine to say “I don’t like vagina talk or Jesus talk or abortion talk or gay marriage talk in my house,” but if you go to someone else’s house and demand the same rules on the basis of some magical theory of “I’m offended ergo it is absolutely wrong,” then you become a tragic jerk that no one wants to be around.
You’d think writers would understand this.
Borat is, of course, Sacha Baron Cohen. And with his film, Cohen has done more to injure anti-Semitism than a thousand ridiculous Museums of Tolerance could ever hope to do. That is the power of comedy. It can subvert and undermine as well as anything, and our laughter is like a polygraph—we only laugh when the intent of the joke is clear.
Sacha’s intent is clear.
Of course, there are a lot of people who find Cohen’s comedy offensive. These are the kinds of people who are so addicted to the heroin of victimhood, they hate themselves for laughing.
Consider this missive from the Anti-Defamation League, which may be the most humorless perspective on a comedy I’ve ever read.
The premiere of Sacha Baron Cohen’s new film featuring his farcical character “Borat” has raised anew concerns among some in the Jewish community about the character’s notoriously boastful expressions of anti-Semitism and stereotyping of others.
When approaching this film, one has to understand that there is absolutely no intent on the part of the filmmakers to offend, and no malevolence on the part of Sacha Baron Cohen, who is himself proudly Jewish. We hope that everyone who chooses to see the film understands Mr. Cohen’s comedic technique, which is to use humor to unmask the absurd and irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias born of ignorance and fear.
We are concerned, however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry.
While Mr. Cohen’s brand of humor may be tasteless and even offensive to some, we understand that the intent is to dash stereotypes, not to perpetuate them. It is our hope that everyone in the audience will come away with an understanding that some types of comedy that work well on screen do not necessarily translate well in the real world — especially when attempted on others through retelling or mimicry.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Cohen chose to make jokes at the expense of Kazakhstan. It would have been better to have used a mythological country, rather than focus on a specific nation.
You know what that kind of absurd blather reminds me of?
Bad studio notes.
“Does he have to be Kazakhstani?”
“Will the audience get it?”
Anything that is subversive is going to offend someone. Anything. When people write me angry emails, astonished that I do not care that they are offended, what they’re really saying is either one of two things:
- I am a narcissist, so please adjust your world-view to my taste, or
- I don’t believe anyone should ever make any subversive statement, because being offended is worse than being scared of offending people.
Folks, I read things on the internet that offend me all the time.
WHO CARES?
No one is going to like everything, and no one thing will be liked by all. For those of us who make a living creating comedy for mass consumption, we’re all too aware of that. And if you write, it’s okay to worry if you’re offending others. Nothing wrong with that. Then make a determination about what you’re willing to put your name to, and live with it.
But for the love of Borat, please…don’t ever say the words “I’m offended” and expect anyone other than a college R.A. or your mommy to give a good sweet damn.
I’m DEFINETLY a 1. Except I don’t say ‘please’.
Well, yeah, except the people you work for, and the people who buy your product. Don’t get caught, say, drunk off your ass, badmouthing Jews, when you work in a business where most of the major players are in fact Jews.
And when providing key evidence for a case in front of a mostly black jury, try real hard to hide those tapes where you explore in detail your fantasies about “killing niggers” who associate with white women.
And if your audience is mostly good old boys who believe (naively, blindly) that the commander in chief is a good old boy too, who would never lead their friends and loved ones into pointless slaughter, never ever exercise you free speech rights by criticizing the C in C in public.
The real lesson here is, only offend people who can’t get back at you.
Alan:
Like I said…”bad studio notes.”
Did I find what Mel Gibson said offensive? I don’t know. It was stupid and certainly factually inaccurate, but I don’t think I’m offended. I’ve said some pretty stupid crap when I was drunk.
And I think some terrible things, doncha know. :)
Consequences are certainly a reality of life. I’m not arguing that we should be able to call people bad names and then expect to not get punched in the face.
On the other hand, I wish people would just lighten up about all of it. All of it. I have no idea who can “get back at me” for the things I write on here, but I don’t care. More to the point, I just don’t want anyone presuming that if they are offended, then something’s gone wrong.
Maybe something has…or maybe something hasn’t. Life’s funny that way.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/39/
The vagina joke in question was easy, lazy, corny, groan-inducingly lame and not at all funny…
That is until someone was offended by it. And then once that person infected another person with offense, it got almost borderline funny in the fart-in-a-crowded-elevator sense. The kneejerk, First Wave Feminism-inspired outrage made it funny.
But I digress.
I was under the impression that this was a webiste frequented by writers. Most good writers deal with issues that are slightly-to-incredibly messy. That lack easy answers.
My point is as follows…
I would hate to read the work of someone who would be offended by a groan-inducing vagina joke. A joke, which, by the way, many people probably thought about, then dismissed as easy and simple.
I certainly would hate to read the work of someone who was moved to ad hominem attacks because of a lame joke.
Writers — scratch that, all reasonable adults — should not be afraid/offended of words. No matter how corny or lazy or dirty or offensive they are.
That’s just my two cents. If it helps in advance, I’ll offer some talking points for anyone who would like to respond:
I have acne, despite the fact that I am a grown man. I have manboobs. I have a receding hairline. My beard is patchy. I cut my own hair. My nose was smashed and mangled when I was a boxer years ago. I’m a premature ejaculator.
There ya go. Put me in my place. I am an insensitive twat.
You…cut your own hair????
Wow. Gross.
With a Flobee, cutting your own hair is simple.
[First time I’ve ever used html tags, so I hope this is readable.]
Hi Craig,
Based on some of my posts in your forum, you won’t be surprised that I disagree. :-)
You wrote: “Consequences are certainly a reality of life. I’m not arguing that we should be able to call people bad names and then expect to not
get punched in the face.”
Well, Craig, I think that when people say that they’re offended, that’s the civilized equivalent of punching the other person in the face. Moreover, some people are very obtuse and/or ignorant and simply have no idea that what they’re saying is offensive. Assuming they have some concern for other people’s feelings, they deserve to be informed so that at least any offense in the future will be intentional, not accidental.
I shudder to think where Jews, Blacks, women, gays, and any number of groups would be today if they’d thought, “Oh, I can’t complain because
I’m going to be dismissed as some whiny little person who’s ‘addicted to the heroin of victimhood.’” That’s total B.S. And what a clever way of robbing people of what may be the only weapon they have — the ability to protest.
As for the “missive,” I say, bravo, ADL. It was intelligent, nuanced, and addressed a real problem — the reinforcement of stereotypes. Since when is a civil rights organization required to put over its message like a stand-up comedian?
I also agree that the country should have been made fictional. Having read articles on Slate and other places that Borat’s Kazakhstan
bears little resemblance to the real place http://www.slate.com/id/2152789/;
http://www.slate.com/id/2152765/
the treatment seems very unfair. Where exactly is the amusement in making fun of some obscure little country (in terms of population — now that I’ve had to look up the damned place on Wikipedia, I’ve learned that it’s the ninth-largest country in the world in terms of landmass) that doesn’t actually have a history of anti-semitism? Considering that many American’s can’t quite grasp that Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t German, I wonder if they’ll understand the difference between stereotyped Eastern Europe and sterotyped Central Asia.
And how is expressing anger or distress at hurtful comments a form of “narcissism”? Further, how does it follow that because someone is complaining about one particular comment that s/he is saying that no person should ever make any subversive statement, and why do you assume that mere offensiveness, or vulgarity, or crudity
(which Borat has in spades) is subversive instead of just tasteless?
Sure, we all read things on the Internet that offend us. Sometimes, if we have the time, we should respond, especially if few other people are. That’s when it counts most.
Speaking of the Internet, I read a comment by someone who said that Borat is being used as a stupid litmus test: If you like it, you’re cool; if you don’t, you’re humorless and intellectually unsubtle.
It is stupid. What a lot of folks don’t seem to understand is that the people who dislike Borat fully understand the joke and they don’t want everything to written at the level of Sesame Street; they just don’t think this joke’s very funny.
See ya.
I loved Borat. It made me proud to be an American. It’s proof that we don’t lock up the stupid people — they have the freedom to hang themselves… and on camera!
Writer777:
I think your point is “different strokes for different foks.”
If so, where does an absolute sense of offense figure in to that?
Answer…it doesn’t.
Look, folks, be an absolutist or be a relativist, but don’t move back and forth depending on which is most convenient at the time.
elli:
“I certainly would hate to read the work of someone who was moved to ad hominem attacks because of a lame joke.”
nobody was. firstly, the ad hominem reference was regarding emails that were deleted, so i’m not sure why you feel inclined to comment (b.t.w. the most offensive, or should I say uncivil, word in those two emails was: “idiot”).
secondly, they were not written in response to jeff’s joke, but in response to the fact that miriama’s complaint about said joke was treated with less tolerance than the, apparently civil, joke itself.
so get your shhh….tuff straight, no offensive.
p.s. you SHOULD be afraid of words, especially in politics, law and relationships. on a blog, maybe not so much. unless it bears a swastika. point is: don’t generalize.
What a great post.
I couldn’t agree more. There’s nothing more annoying than people who feel the need to express their outrage over a joke.
Nothing.
“p.s. you SHOULD be afraid of words, especially in politics, law and relationships.”
Um…yeah. Of course that has nothing to do with expressing outrage over a joke.
kev, read elli’s post my hasty friend… and the point i’m making in my post scriptum, it’ll all come together.
Ethnic jokes do target certain ethnic groups, just as gender jokes target certain genders. That’s the nature of joking. You might be offended if you’re the butt of a joke. Like, if I was a woman, I might be offended with: “Why don’t women like skydiving.” Shurg shoulders. “Because they whistle all the way down.” Now, I might become offended, if I was a woman; but then I might draw that absurd picture in my head and even hear that improbable sound and be forced to laugh my head off.
The inability to laugh at a joke, which always makes someone the target, is close to the Lacanian definition of psychosis: the foreclosure of the signifier, or the inability to understand that signifier/signified structure of language. Comes from political correctness, or liberal psychosis.
Craig,
You wrote:
“Writer777:
I think your point is ‘different strokes for different folks.’
If so, where does an absolute sense of offense figure in to that?
Answer� It doesn’t.
Look, folks, be an absolutist or be a relativist, but don’t move back and forth depending on which is most convenient at the time.”
Actually, I don’t think that’s what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed to be an absolutist. I believe in looking at the context.
The following is what I think happens: People are hesitant about making judgments — which is a good thing — you should hesitate before making judgments about people and situations you’re not familiar with and you should also be prepared to revise your opinions when new information requires it.
This is hard and extremely tiresome.
To make things easier, there’s a drift to a position that has people saying, “If I say everything’s acceptable, nothing’s offensive, I’ll rid myself of the bother of having to make judgments or, in some cases, of the consequences of those judgments.”
I think that’s a ridiculous position. It also doesn’t work in the real world. Like it or not, we all make judgments and are ourselves judged. People who think we’re offensive are gonna complain. Although we may wish they’d shut up, that doesn’t actually make them narcissists. :-) And assuming they’re not barking crazy, villifying them as victimhood-addicts is neither fair nor helpful.
Civility’s a bitch.
Bye, and take care. :-)
“Ethnic jokes do target certain ethnic groups, just as gender jokes target certain genders. That�s the nature of joking. You might be offended if you�re the butt of a joke.”
—If this were an even-handed phenomenon, there’d be little room for complaint. It’s the fact that certain groups are made the target time and time again that prompts complaints. It’s simply ridiculous to think that complaints haven’t changed tastes over time. Try watching a really racist or sexist movie or cartoon from the past. Yes, people may always want to laugh at something; let them laugh at something else.
Just a reminder…I had to delete a recent comment because it didn’t pass my “civil” test.
Yes. Yes it does. See, no one cares. If I walk into a house that I think is dirty, I don’t start talking about how the house is dirty. The people who live there made a choice. Now I’ll make my choice to stay or leave. The thought, however, that my disgust is enough to make them reconsider their cleanliness…well, yeah, that’s just narcisissism.
Announcing your offense at something is pointless and narcissistic 80% of the time…but there’s only a 40% chance of that.
I am pleased that the nigger jokes (sorry, yeah, there are also some about kikes with small penises who need to compensate for their sick oedipal complexes — I’m like the non-Jewish Sarah Silverman) I’ve been saving for a rainy day finally have a place to call home — as dirty as it is! Thanks Craig!
Love,
A Dot Head
Boy, that must have been some vagina joke. I wish I’d seen it.
“If I walk into a house that I think is dirty, I don’t start talking about how the house is dirty.”
The people I know are a helluva lot ruder. :-)
Craig, if I understand what happened, the more precise analogy might be that you, the host, invited some folks over to your house. While there, one of the guests said something that another guest found offensive and the latter complained to you, because, as you said, it’s your party. You think that Guest No. 2 is being overly sensitive.
I consider the comment above with the racial slurs to be gratuitously offensive. There is a line. You can’t expect people not to complain when they see things like that.
Okay, so now what?
Unless you can somehow go back in time and change Priya so that she doesn’t say those things or even want to say those things, the best you can hope for is that she’ll…
…what? Feel guilty about it or something?
Don’t you see that your complaining is impotent? That Priya thinks that certain things are funny, and your offended nature isn’t ever ever ever going to change that?
For the serious reply — intended with all due respect:
You said:
“Anything that is subversive is going to offend someone. Anything. When people write me angry emails, astonished that I do not care that they are offended, what they’re really saying is either one of two things:
I had a dinner party once. One of my guests (obviously, this was in my home) got pretty drunk and started making some kind of weird, oddly inappropriate racial jokes, apropros of nothing. Occasionally, they’d be on topic. For the most part not. This guest continued to drink. And, another guest took me into another room to talk to me about the drunk guest. It wasn’t out of order, I didn’t think them narcissistic. I thought them concerned about the evening devolving (even moreso than it had). Thing was, I was the host. So, it was up to me to deal with.
The same goes here. Miriama was offended. Meaning, a guest in your house was offended. You, as the host, can either choose to deal with it, or not. The whole falavar could have been avoided by you simply saying “Hey guys, keep it on topic.” But, you singled out Miriama, and the evening’s devolved.
In terms of narcissism, there’s nothing more narcissistic than having a private email debate with someone, then posting about the whole thing on your blog (which is a pretty narcissistic endeavor itself) in the hopes of starting a discussion about it.
Oh, you can pretend that you’re just informing the masses about your stance on not being offended by anything and why no one else will care if they are — which means that my post above, and any subsequent post I make about niggers, sand-niggers, kikes, ragheads, what-have-you, will remain in tact, right?
But, if you pretend you’re just informing the masses, why then use this specific example, that’s quite clearly been weighing on your mind when the email exchange took place a few days ago?
If you’re truly that objective, you’d have just made a blanket statement about the matter. But, no, this was something you’d been thinking about, and you needed affirmation. Well, as the posters above mostly agree with you, you’ve gotten your validation. I disagree about how it was handled. But, as you’ve said, it’s your house, you’re the host, and I’m truly looking forward to being able to make the most offensive comments I can think up, because you’ve clearly stated that it’s a-okay on this site — as long as it’s civil to other members.
P
writer777, for the record, I’m not a racist, I don’t use those slurs. I posted that wondering if there was a line. Thank you for saying there is, because I believe so, too. Craig does not.
Um, Craig. You do understand that Borat is a satire, right? I mean, it’s whole purpose is to expose and hold up to ridicule the prejudical behavior you are defending here on your site.
Well, I honestly don’t mind if someone pulls me aside and complains. For instance, writer777 pulled me aside in the forum and complained about something, and I handled it.
The way you did at your party.
On the other hand, Miriama decided to take on that issue herself. Hopefully you see the difference.
I’m sure there are few things more narcissistic than my current post. And no, if you think my stance is that nothing offends me, then you didn’t read the post carefully enough.
Lots of things offend me…and I said as much above.
What I don’t do is bitch about it.
Nothing’s entirely objective. Of course my exchange with Miriama triggered this post. I’m not sure why that invalidates anything I’ve said. If you’re accusing me of using my bully pulpit, well, guilty as charged. For $15 a month, you can get your own and go nuts on me at a URL of your choosing.
I don’t need affirmation. I am self-affirmed on this issue. The whole world could disagree with me, and I won’t change my mind. I don’t blog here to seek affirmation, Priya. I blog here to influence people. Hopefully I have.
As for your experimental litany of offensive words, I’m sorry if I blew your point by not deleting it…but hey…what can I say?
I’m actually consistent.
Of course, I do believe there’s a line. The line is civility.
Intent weighs on that.
I didn’t think your racist slur comment was a challenge. I actually made the mistake of thinking you were being defiantly proud of your right to free speech, and so were making exaggerated claims with racist language.
Either way, you weren’t intending to harm other posters with cruelty, so I left it.
Whereas another poster referred to other posters as “morons,” and so I deleted that.
Love,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Small-Dicked Kike,
C.
Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that any philosophy that claims that “being offended” means that the speech in question is automatically “offensive” can be just as easily applied to a satire like Borat as it can to a stupid pussy joke.
I’m not defending “prejudicial” behavior. I’m defending the right of Americans to make jokes about vaginas, okay? Hopefully good ones. I make my living, in part, by telling jokes. Some of the jokes I tell are OFFENSIVE to people.
Some of them aren’t satirical. Some of them have no point. Some of them are as stupid and silly as, say, a skinny man and an obese man have a nude fight on a bed.
I’m sure that offended someone. And I don’t care.
Craig,
You didn’t blow my point at all, it wasn’t a challenge, it was a litmus test. I wanted to see where your line was, and your line is at being uncivil to other people (I could make the point that my post was pretty uncivil toward people of various flavors, myself included); the bonus was getting to see you being a hypocrite.
You claim you’re all for free speech, and that you’ll let extremely offensive words fly, but you draw the line at someone being uncivil towards someone else? Where’s the free speech in that? By deleting someone’s post calling people morons, you’ve effectively shoved a gag in that person’s mouth. Come on, if you’re going to defend free speech, that means ALL free speech. That means not having this restraining disclaimer: “We encourage comments and debate, but please keep the tone civil. The publishers will not edit your comments for content but do reserve the right to delete any comment deemed inappropriate for this forum.” Free speech is free speech. Not free speech with caveats.
As for getting my own blog (didn’t you tell Olsen to do that when he disagreed with you? Glad to be lumped in to an esteemed club) so that I can rail against Craig, I don’t need to — I can do it here, on your dime. ;)
Geez. Do you guys even read my posts?
I quote from the post…
Kind of takes the wind out of your “you’re against free speech” point, hmm?
Yes, I censor. No, I’m not for free speech here on my site.
I’ll say it again, cuz it’s not sinking in.
What I am against are people protesting that because they are offended by someone else’s speech, that someone else has necessarily done something wrong.
Oh, and just to be clear, the whole “get your own blog” thing isn’t about saying, “Shut up and go away,” but rather a reasoned response to anyone who thinks they’re entitled to something at this one.
But, Craig. Of course, I did something wrong. I even said so above.
And, I do read your posts: “I actually made the mistake of thinking you were being defiantly proud of your right to free speech, and so were making exaggerated claims with racist language.” I took that to mean exercising my rights to free speech on this site. Because if I’d said something inappropriate for this forum (which I did), surely it would have been deleted, right?
No, I don’t really care if you exercise your rights to free speech on this site, per se. It only comes in to play as a question of your intention.
For instance, if someone says, “Look, let’s not call each other morons. Hell, we’re all morons.”
that’s different than
“Shut up, moron!”
I look at the intention of the comments, and determine if the intention is to be uncivil. In other words…I guess.
So yes, if you had said something that I thought was meant to be intentionally uncivil, then I would have deleted it. As it so happens, I was right that your “racist” comment wasn’t intended to be uncivil. I was just wrong in my guess as to how it was intended…but that’s really irrelevant.
But, why delete something intentionally uncivil? The only reason I can think of is that it’s offensive to the moron in question. Please disabuse me if I’m incorrect.
You are incorrect. You can find the answer to your question in the post.
You delete something intentionally uncivil, because you like civil discussions in your household, got it. And, you take people to task for “complaining” about being offended, because you don’t “complain” when you’re offended.
If Miriama had “pulled you aside” would that have sat better with you? Instead of her “complaining” about being offended?
Okay, y’all take a cold shower, preferably together, go down to the drugstore and buy a big bottle of chill pills. This whole spiel (save for the inciting post by Mr. Mazin) has been one huge-ass boring read. People are dying, starving, getting blown up, and y’all think this discussion makes an ant’s twat bit of difference to anyone? At all? Civilization is itself a narcissistic concept perpetuated by the folks making money at it, and the idiots who believe that pretending to be part of this group or that protects them from the bogeyman or at least makes them less lonely. Offended? Well whoopdee do.
Craig,
Love this post. At any point if I get teed off about something you wrote here that I completely disagree with (and hey, you have and probably will in the future) then I will come back, read this and fall in love again.
I don’t understand why folks don’t get it - basically, Craig is saying you can discuss offensive & uncivil topics, but not direct offensive or uncivil posts to each other, specifically or personally …
Yes, some topics may be offensive to you personally, but if it’s not directed at your person, it’s up for grabs, right?
Exactly, Joshua. I can talk about niggers* forever and ever, and it will always be okay. But, I cannot call an esteemed member of the community a nigger, unless my intention is of a jovial nature.
Just like everyone can talk about towelheads and dotheads all they want, but they cannot call me a dothead unless it’s jovial in nature!
And I can talk about the non-existence of the holocaust, because I might not believe it happened. ** And, I can talk about how the kikes are just whining about a bunch of shit that never happened. But, far be it from me to call Craig a kike, unless I’m just kidding around.
And the best thing is? Craig will do nothing about it. And, if anyone says anything, he’ll just call them a bunch of whiners.
Does that about sum it up, Craig?
The reality is this is your house, this is your party, Craig. But, when someone pukes on the carpet and passes out? The person who points out the puke isn’t a whiner. And, it’s not his job to clean it up. You own the house, you clean it up.
** I believe the holocaust happened.
Craig,
I opted for Babel this weekend - now that was amazing!! I kinda shrugged off Borat - although my brothers noted I should wear a diaper to Borat - it was off their seat hysterical.
Anyway, to the point, I was reading a commentary and one journalist noted Cohen to be a ‘genius’?
I had to stop reading as per that was way too heavy a title - I thought……….
I came across your post last night in winding down from a full day of clients and found myself enwraptured by the below phrase inside a very poignant post - I must have read it in awe seven times - truly prodigious! :)
“Of course, there are a lot of people who find Cohen’s comedy offensive. These are the kinds of people who are so addicted to the heroin of victimhood, they hate themselves for laughing.”
Jesus, YOU RULE SIRE Mazin, and the writing gods are in full agreement!
Now that is wicked genius - you can actually ‘see’ your words swirl off the page.
DAMN!! Thanks.
xoxoLL
Craig, you’re wrong about one thing.
That passage from the ADL? Absurd blather? I think not. It’s a hilarious joke. C’mon — five paragraphs explaining to the “unsophisticated audience” why Borat is funny? That’s brilliant!
It’s a put-on. I don’t know how you missed it. Nobody can be as humorless as the character who wrote that?
Could they?
Craig,
There’s funny and then there’s dumb. Borat is funny. Soul Plane is dumb. Now, your own narrow perspective may condemn those who have a longer historical view of movies like the Soul Planes of the world (Stepin Fetchit movies come to mind) to this fallacious “heroin of victimhood”theory you’ve devised, but I find that you’ve come up with a trite and cheap way to dismiss a legitimate viewpoint. It is well within my right to be offended by something and express that. And if enough people feel the same thing, perhaps future decisions about what is made and what is not made will take in consideration my offense. You’re patently wrong when you say that no one cares. Anyone who has to bankroll a project cares. Speaking of that, has anyone seen that Soul Plane II sequel?
What I don’t understand is why Priya continues jabbing at Craig? You don’t agree. Big deal. Why continue? You’re not going to get the answer you want.
In fact, what seems to be oozing from your words is some kind of unsettled anger.
It seems the point of the post has been lost, tails have been chased (namely you chasing yours) and anger is flaring (once again, yours).
You may not like a comment made, that’s fine. That’s your right. But if the comment wasn’t directed at you, then you have no right to silence that person.
However, if a comment zeroes-in to specifically offend you, Craig as the MODERATOR of this site, has a right to censor it.
He can’t have anarchy here, no matter how much you want that to happen.
I guess I would ask what the point of complaining is.
Going back to the example of the joke that started this all, what did the complaint accomplish? Was anyone’s mind changed? Will people not make jokes like that in the future? (And is the site better if they don’t?) Or did all that happen was our attention was drawn to the complainer and her moral outrage?
Personally, I don’t want this site or any other I spend time at to devolve into a constant back-and-forth of comments followed by statements of moral outrage. And I guarantee that if we all start posting our offense every time we’re offended, that’s what it’s going to end up being. Nearly everything is offensive to someone.
What I don’t understand is why Priya continues jabbing at Craig?
It’s called a debate. No anger, no nothing. Just a debate. And, for the record, I was one of the few who thought the joke was funny. But, a friend was not okay with the joke. She addressed the poster and was admonished for doing so. And was basically told to quit complaining (which she wasn’t). That’s where the spirit in my debate comes from.
However, if a comment zeroes-in to specifically offend you, Craig as the MODERATOR of this site, has a right to censor it.
It offended Miriama. That was enough for me. I’m not saying delete the post. I’m not saying Jeff should be drawn and quartered. I’m just saying Miriama shouldn’t have been singled out for pointing out something that affronted her. Instead a simple “Keep it on topic, guys” would have sufficed for everyone.
Yes, the argument has devolved. But, I still find it interesting to note that I’m saying pretty offensve things here. Like, criminally offensive things, and Craig [and apparently you] is [are] going to defend my right to say those things as long as it isn’t directed at a specific member of this public forum. There’s just something off about that.
But, you’re right, it’s gone on long enough.
I think the point Priya is making is that there are certain words/jokes that are never funny… “nigger jokes” falling into that category.
(If someone can point out a situation in which a “nigger joke” is funny, knock yourself out.)
I also don’t see any evidence that Priya wants “anarchy”… that’s kind of a silly conclusion.
Ryan got it right when he posted that “nearly everything is offensive to someone”… more generally, I’d like to suggest that:
Nearly everything is not funny to someone.
I tried to watch THE ARISTOCRATS, a few weeks ago. Got 20 minutes in and turned it off.
Dadburn, but that film is a turd.
Not because some parts were offensive to me, but because the predominantly “for the sake of shock” humor that is the point of the whole “aristocrats” joke is, on the whole, boring.
Boring, boring, boring.
And here’s where I channel Don Rumsfeld, ‘cause he needs the work:
Was I bored by the film?
Yes, I was.
Would I recommend it?
Hell no, I would not.
I was bored to tears, waiting for the movie to get funny.
Shock humor is lower than the pun.
(shrug)
Some folks get off on it, though.
Or maybe you just have to be a comedy writer to feel the way Craig does, that anything goes, as long as it doesn’t get personal.
Back to what I think Priya’s point was… some jokes are personal, no matter if they are directed at an individual, or not.
(Okay, that’s prolly enough of me second-guessing Priya’s thinking… I’m gonna go find more uses for my Don Rumsfeld-like Q&A sessions.)
What happened to the Craig Mazin Punch In The Face Rule?
“If you think saying something in person would get you punched in the face, then don’t say it online, okay?”
Clearly many comments on this thread and on the previous mentioned thread would result in face-punching if said in person.
Hey Priya,
If you wish to use racial epitephs to support your point of argument regarding a film or writing philosophy, I don’t care and I don’t think Kevin would care, either - he’d probably just giggle - it’s the point that counts -
If your point is to demean Kevin specifically, he probably would care (and still giggle, but that’s how Kevin rolls, I bet) and take issue with it. And has.
If you state something ridiculous like, the holocaust doesn’t work or trickle-down economics works great, or something equally ridiculous, you’ll either get A) lots of sourced repudiation or B) ignored for making idiotic statements, but to ban all idiotic statements is a hard call in a room full of writers.
Get it?
Poor Jeff’s joke insulted only two people, his girlfriend and, in a way, himself - his girlfriend (if, indeed, such a person exists) isn’t a participant in this discussion. I’m sure, whereever she is, she can stand up for herself, too.
Jeff did damage to himself by making an easy, rude joke that wasn’t really that funny.
Would the people who did object to Jeff’s joke have been upset if Jeff had made a joke about his boyfriends anus?
Why not, if all offenses are equal?
The thing that I find very humorous about this whole deal is people complaining to the writer of Scary Movie 3 and 4 about a bad vagina joke on his site … I mean, come on!
Well, your solution of “Keep it on topic, guys” assumes that Craig (or the rest of us) want a site that’s entirely on-topic.
And if the site is entirely on-topic, where’s Tim Talbott going to post?
“Yes, the argument has devolved. But, I still find it interesting to note that I’m saying pretty offensve things here. Like, criminally offensive things, and Craig [and apparently you] is [are] going to defend my right to say those things as long as it isn’t directed at a specific member of this public forum. There’s just something off about that.”
What’s off about us not wanting to be the language police? I find all sorts of things offensive, I just choose to ignore them rather than drawing attention to myself by publically or privately complaining or calling the offensive post out. I don’t have to publically acknowledge something to be against it.
I also think some people might be expecting too much to want a comedy writer who sometimes writes offensive jokes to get on to people for making jokes that might be offensive.
Oh, well, sure… I try to answer for Priya and she goes and does something nutty, like answer for herself.
Strike my previous post.
Except the stuff about THE ARISTOCRATS.
That movie still blows.
The Aristcrats rocked, and the audience I saw it with in New York City would agree …
And I thought the “dead nigger storage” bit in Pulp Fiction was pretty funny when I saw in three times at the movies - though since I’m white, mayhap my opinion doesn’t matter, but I saw it out in Queens with an audience full of color and they all howled along with me, so I’ll go with the flow on that one.
Chris Rock has a wonderful and funny bit about how he hates “niggers” and loves black people, which if you haven’t heard, you must. Rock is a genius.
I think it’s the height of arrogance to say there is no decent joke about any subject. There is, and will be, I believe.
“p.s. you SHOULD be afraid of words, especially in politics, law and relationships. on a blog, maybe not so much. unless it bears a swastika. point is: don?t generalize.”
Okay, I guess I mispoke.
You should not be afraid to use or be exposed to words. Even those you find distasteful. Is that better?
I’m not going to deny that words, when used in tandem with symbols, charismatic/hypnotic public speakers, pre-existing fears and prejudices, mob mentality and the unrelenting repetition of catchphrases and talking points can create a very scary and effective spectacle — one that can move people to act in ways they normally wouldn’t. Words are a small part of that equation. When I hear “cut and run” or “stay the course” I laugh because those words seem desperate and ridiculous.
As far as law goes, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Although it uses a lot of Latin, and I’ll cop to the fact Latin is a hellafied hard language to learn. I’m guessing you mean the manipulation of words, which is something attorneys get paid a lot of money for.
And then you lost me on the relationships thing. What kind of relationships are we talking about? Personal? Professional?
But here again, even if I was wrong to generalize, I can say that there is no word or idea that I find myself particularly frightened of. And if those words did ever frighten me, I would react with my own words. That’s how freedom of speech works: You combat words and ideas you don’t agree with/like with words and ideas you do.
Abraham Lincoln once said that “If you’re a racist, I will attack you with the North” and these are the principles I carry with me on this board.
Well, your solution of “Keep it on topic, guys” assumes that Craig (or the rest of us) want a site that’s entirely on-topic.
Or, it’s, you know, not dissimilar to what Craig said to Miriama (exact quote: “It wasn’t to your taste, but let’s not get off topic.”).
Ronson, you said it just fine, sir. I needn’t have posted.
It seems pretty simple folks. Craig’s not going to allow personal flame wars. Craig will allow offensive speech. No one but Craig is allowed to be the filter that decides which is which.
The point of his post is not whether you have the right to be offended or complain. It is about the futility of believing that others need to respect your personal limits of what is offensive. Sure there are times when we have an interest in respecting certain individual’s limits, but as a general rule for the whole of the world’s population — that’s unrealistic and does imply an attitude that your viewpoint is correct regardless of someone else’s, and therefore is the only one that matters.
Craig’s point of contention deals with the expectation that your personal limits of offense need always be respected by default no matter where you are, what the situation is, or who you are talking to.
“I think it’s the height of arrogance to say there is no decent joke about any subject. There is, and will be, I believe.”
Joshua,
Your optimism offends me.
;)
Here’s the thing that rings false to me about Craig’s original post…
“No one cares if you’re offended. Ever.”
Yet clearly in the comments of this thread it has been shown that a lot of people actually do care if someone else is offended. Thus, there seems to be a subset of humanity who does care when other people are offended. I’m not sure I’m one of those people, but that this group exists shows that Craig’s original statement is provably false.
The more accurate statement is that Craig doesn’t care if you’re offended. Ever. (Apparently unless the offense is via a direct personal attack.)
I’m also not really sure why we keep using the house party analogy. I have never been to a house party where I’ve been told that all comments should be “on topic”. Since we’re supposed to be “on topic” that leads me think this is more like a discussion group.
If I were in a discussion group about screenwriting, and someone stood up to say “My girlfriend’s vagina is larger the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.” I would be pretty confused.
If someone else then stood up to say “Should we really be talking about just how gaping this man’s girlfriend’s vagina is? That seems off topic and offensive.” I wouldn’t be as confused.
What would be most surprising is if the moderator of the discussion decided to chastise the second person.
“Or, it’s, you know, not dissimilar to what Craig said to Miriama (exact quote: “It wasn’t to your taste, but let’s not get off topic.”).”
No, except that it expands the request from a request not to make it into a thread about complaining/defending the joke to a request that both the jokes and the complaints not be made.
“My girlfriend’s vagina is larger the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.”
Now, THAT’S comedy.
Jcardella’s explanation makes the most sense to me.
I’m offended that I didn’t make it.
So, it all comes down to “what craig’s assumed intention of your potentially uncivil comment is”.
Fair enough.
What’s odd is craig’s stance on complaining, or bitching as he calls it, about people who express they were offended. I mean, WHAT DO YOU CARE? Let one guy say vagina and the next girl say that was lame. What’s the big deal?
Again, none of this would have developed into a debate if you hadn’t singled out Miriama for complaining by telling her to stay “on-topic” - a point you could’ve easily made about Jeff’s joke, but no, jokes are fine, complaining about jokes isn’t, we got it:
You don’t like when people say they’re offended!
It’s almost like you were, dare I say, offended by it…
p.s. keith: nice analogy, good stuff!
“Let one guy say vagina and the next girl say that was lame. What’s the big deal?”
Because one is making a joke, the other is essentially telling someone what they should or shouldn’t say. And I could see where the owner of the site wouldn’t want users to tell other users what they should or shouldn’t say.
Then I won’t mention my lame vagina
My favorite comment in all of this is the guy who berates us all for talking about this while there are wars going on in the world or something.
I call that the “My Perspective Is Bigger” argument, aka HEAT DEATH. :) One of my favorites. It’s not convincing, but someone always trots it out. Goes like this (in extreme):
“Hey, who cares about something as small and petty as war on the planet Earth when supernovas are swallowing multiple planets and the universe is rushing endlessly toward the inevitable and horrific result of incessent entropy: heat death!
How can we talk about the children when we all face HEAT DEATH????”
So, there. I have trumped your war concerns with my HEAT DEATH!
All good comments and good discussion. And no, I don’t think I would punch anyone in the face yet.
One comment to call out…
I agree. Absolutely within your right. I don’t even care so much when a neutral statement of “I am offended” is made. It’s the “and therefore, I want an apology or redress” that bothers me, because the presumption is that a state of offendedness is equivalent to a state of victimization.
Yes, you might be a victim. Or, possibly, you might be oversensitive and wrong.
And now, for today’s reading pleasure…
The year is 1929. A guy walks into a bar in Germany and sees a slightly deranged man with a little moustache sitting at the bar and writing furiously in a notebook. He sits down next to the guy and says, “Whatcha working on?” The guy says, “My name is Adolf Hitler, and I am creating a Master Plan to kill six million Jews…and one clown.” The first guy asks, “Why one clown?” And Hitler slams his hand down on the bar and says, “See? No one cares about the Jews!”
Hi Writer777!
I knew I would find you here.
How are you?
Craig, true or false…
In your opinion, mel calling the female officer ‘sweet tits’ was the most objectionable thing he did, saying ‘the jews started all wars’ was okay, but for the jewish community to complain about the second remark was narcissistic.
?
Joshua:
You pegged me dead on. Especially about all the giggling.
I think this is the real point. In this forum, if someone is offended by a joke, Craig doesn’t give a fuck. If I was running this forum and someone was offended by a joke, I wouldn’t give a fuck.
I understand all the arguments back and forth and what not but everyone does understand that this isn’t a government forum, right? It’s a screenwriting forum. Yeah, yeah, words hurt, nigger this, spic that, and if I heard these words come out of my State Senators mouth, you better believe I’d want her outta there.
But this is a Screenwriter’s Forum.
So, seriously…who gives a fuck if you’re offended by a joke? Everyone can extrapolate different theories and hypothetical situations but we’re talking about being offended by a joke. On a Screenwriter’s Forum!
Recently, I’ve just been hired to direct a sitcom. At our production meeting yesterday it got so raucous and outrageous, the paint started to peel. But if someone in that production meeting made a point of telling me or the show’s creator that they were offended by one of the jokes I damn sure wouldn’t want to work with that person. If you get offended by a joke (which doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong) just keep it to yourself. This isn’t about invalidating someone’s feelings. You can feel a certain way about anything. But once you deem it necessary to tell someone else, who isn’t your friend or lover, that you’ve been offended…about a joke…it’s just a waste.
Again, Miriama isn’t wrong for feeling offended.
She isn’t even necessarily wrong for telling Craig.
But Craig isn’t wrong for not giving a fuck either.
Jesus Christ
By the way, it’s “Mariama”. And she hasn’t been wading in at all on this thread simply because, since the rules of the site have been made clear, she has decided not to hang out here any more. Her choice.
The bottom line is that it is Craig’s site, and he makes the rules. Are some of these rules not to everyone’s liking? Obviously. Are some of them arguable? Absolutely.
But at least they are out there, and it’s up to you whether this is somewhere you want to hang out. But that’s fair — again, it’s Craig’s party, and his parameters.
Though I disagree that no one cares if you are offended by comments. There are a long line of sexual harassment suits in the workplace, for one thing, that show this to be untrue. Plus, if I say something that offends someone, I want to know about it. Maybe it won’t make me change my mind about what was said… but maybe it will.
“In your opinion, mel calling the female officer ‘sweet tits’ was the most objectionable thing he did, saying ‘the jews started all wars’ was okay, but for the jewish community to complain about the second remark was narcissistic.”
This is a Screenwriter’s Forum.
How many more hypotheticals that have NOTHING to do with this specific situation do we have to sit through?
Why don’t we just ask Craig how he felt about Danny Bonaduce ramming his head through a bathroom stall door? Were you offended by that Craig?
Hey Craig,
Are you offended by Reality Shows?
Are you offended by The Knicks?
Are you offended by the color blue?
Are you offended by seagulls?
dear Craig, your write:
“…I don’t even care so much when a neutral statement of “I am offended” is made. It’s the “and therefore, I want an apology or redress” that bothers me…”
not to beat a horse that’s on its last fading gasp, but I just re-read Mariama’s original post, all it said was she was ticked off, no demand for an apology, not even to have the post removed. So… why did you get down on her?
p.s. I said GET not GO so holster the joke guns, people… geez. ;)
kevin, just for you… it was obviously a rhetorical question, an anaolgy phrased as a question if you will.
What I find scary are concepts like “hurtful comments” (whatever happened to sticks and stones?) and “criminally offensive” (the idea that someone being offended amounts to an actual crime is the sort of insanity that Craig’s original post addressed).
Does anyone truly not understand the difference between comments that might be deemed offensive and comments made as a personal attack against a specific person?
BTW, does that public official being fired for using the word “niggardly” count as a funny “nigger” joke?
-The Other Funny Silverman
Actually, Kevin, this is a thread about whether people care about offensive comments. Talking about screenwriting is off-topic, and should be avoided at all cost.
And yes, I am offended by seagulls. One of them stole a churro from my hands at Sea World when I was a child, and I have since sworn a genocide on their entire avian-flu-carrying species.
Applause to Craig for the post, jcardella for the explanation, and keith for the BRILLIANT continuation of the vagina jokes. I’m glad this post was put up, because I was annoyed by Miriama all day yesterday. After reading all the comments, I felt the need to put in my take: It’s not that the joke was made, it’s not whether or not you thought it was funny, it’s not even that someone was offended. It’s that the person who was offended had a pole up their butt and chose to be offended on behalf of all womankind. I, personally, do not find vagina jokes at all offensive—I can confidently state that I have laughed heartily at all manner of cavernous echo imitations, hamburger analogies and fish references, even when directed specifically at me. Does it matter that I think they’re funny? Only as much as it matters that others don’t. What matters, and the reason the Offended One got called out instead of the Jokester, is that the manner of protest was superior and condescending. A post that said “Do you mind staying on topic? Some people don’t like crude humor” would most likely not have been met with nearly as much ridicule and annoyance as the “How Dare You, Sir!” that is, as Craig noted, blatantly narcisstic. “My opinion holds far more weight than your opinion because I Care About People’s Feelings!” And for the record, I think the particular beauty of the mildly amusing one-liner and the reason this argument got so stupid in the first place is that he referenced his girlfriend, a specific person none of us know. Someone making a racist joke with a generic stereotypical character=usually crosses the line. Someone making a joke about their particular friend of color=possibly also crosses the line, but usually gets a laugh. That’s why Borat is from Kazahk—specificity is funny.
Kevin,
I need to get something off my chest that’s probably bothering me a lot more than it is you. In a post, I was going to use you as an example. Then I put the little asterisk thingy next to it, and the notation at the bottom saying that I like you. I decided that it would be unfair of me to single you out in that post, since you probably have no idea who I am, and it would just seem, well, weird.
So, uh, I deleted your name. Posted. Realized that I’d forgotten to take out the “and I like Kevin.” I emailed Craig immediately and asked him to please take it out of my post. I don’t think he got the email before other people commented on it.
In any event, I’m very sorry that I singled you out, even in jest, given the subject matter of my posts.
I realize that I’m probably bothered by this a lot more than you. But, in case you were offended…
I am sorry.
Priya,
I’m just happy that someone likes me.
I honestly thought you were going to write:
“I need to get something off my chest that’s probably bothering me a lot more than it is you…kill yourself”
In any case, the explanation of your post was funny and non-offensive.
Like a wizard’s sleeve.
Well, I wrote that, but emailed Craig to change it. Thankfully he got to it in time.
I knew it!
lol
Back to the debate…
Jeff made a joke. Miriama berated him. Craig berated her for berating him and told her to stay on topic, when Jeff’s the guy who went off topic originally. Craig then posts that, essentially, saying you’re offended about something is akin to bitching and whining. Also, that no one cares if you’re offended.
A. Miriama NEVER said she was offended.
B. Being offended and stating that isn’t aking to bitching and whining. And, it’s definitely not complaining if one’s offended.
C. People DO care if you’re offended. And, some even want to know if they have offended you so they can rectify it.
D. I think that Craig could make a much better argument saying that those of us who worry that we personally are offending people are much more narcissistic than our “bitching and whining” counterparts.
Important Announcement:
Mel endearment was “Sugar Tits” not “Sweet Tits.”
Please continue.
Mr. Insufferable
Tits by any other name…
I am utterly fascinated by this. I must admit I didn’t read all the comments (I’ve got writing to do!!! Though clearly not now since here I am, hahaha). Craig, I totally agree with everything you said and am amused by the person who asked where Blacks, Jews, etc… would be if people had said that “offensive” speech was okay. Well, okay, I”m not a Jew. though some of my best friends are Jews — hopefully you can tell this is a joke, maybe it’s even ironic, given that I’m black (and the aforementioned is a rif on the annoying comment “some of my best friends are Black.” For the record, we’d all be just fine. The Civil Rights movement or the Abolitionist movement before it were not about nasty speech, they were about tangible problems like Slavery and Jim Crow. Quiet as it’s kept, though these institutions have been abolished, racism lives on. You can’t control what people think and you can’t fix racism or anti-Semitism, or sexism or anything else by controlling what people say. Also, bottom line, this is Craig’s site. He can run it however he wants. The KKK also gets to have their very own website, which they can run however they choose (which I’m betting would offend me). What they cannot do is come to my house and lynch me.
honestly, i think Priya, whose point of view generally I agree with, is now quibbling a little bit….
Craig, in case you missed my question earlier, when you say:
“…I don’t even care so much when a neutral statement of “I am offended” is made. It’s the “and therefore, I want an apology or redress” that bothers me…”
when did she do that? not to beat a horse that’s on its last fading gasp, but I just re-read Mariama’s original post, all it said was she was ticked off, no demand for an apology, not even to have the post removed. or was they way she expressed she was offended not “neutral” enough? Or did her original post make you assume she wanted an apology? Is that it?! Then what in her comment made you assume that?
I thought I had your stance on it all figured out, please help me understand!
Wow. My dumb, predictable, puerile, off-the-dome joke created a stir?
What I don’t understand is how people can be offended by shit like that. Mind-boggling, I say.
BTW, I frequently check the site but rarely ever read the comments section, so you can imagine my surprise reading this post.
Sounds like this Miriam chick really let me have it. :(
P.S. Yes, some people do know if they’ve offended you. In my actual life (i.e. offline), when I’m having an actual relationship (i.e. offline), I care. But this is a public forum. The whole idea of free speech has to do with the public discourse. The rules of private relationship do not apply. The purpose of having a free and open public discourse (in the town square or on this website) is to allow the kind of free exchange of ideas. The purpose of caring about the feelings of those you talk to in your private life is to nurture the relationships. Both goals are valid, just don’t get it twisted. This is the town square, not a love affair. The guy who wrote the vagina joke doesn’t even know you. Of course he doesn’t care about your feelings.
Was Mel calling the officer “sugar tits” worse than suggesting the Jews start all of the world’s wars?
I dunno on any absolute scale. It would be worse in here, that’s for sure. In here, ideas aren’t censored. Personal attacks are.
It’s obvious that some people care about offending others. So let me amend my statement.
Those of us who don’t care if people are offended also don’t care about the caring by other people for people who are offended. :)
Johnny:
I got a mailbox-full from her after I asked her to stay on topic.
Okay, so now I have a question for Priya and Johnny:
Should a writer express that they’ve been offended by a joke in a writing session?
Note: This may be a trick question…
Craig:
you also told her, and i quote:
“Feel free to email me at admin@artfulwriter.com if you’re offended. I take all complaints seriously.”
anway, horse is dead.
Joshua, said:
“Poor Jeff’s joke insulted only two people, his girlfriend and, in a way, himself.”
How did I offend myself, Joshua? If her vagina was like a widening chasm it would mean I have a very large penis.
Because honestly, I’m the only one tapping that. :)
… I think. :(
Paula,
I’ll be one of your best friends if you’ll be one of mine.
Only through interpretive dance.
Craig said, “…don’t ever say the words “I’m offended” and expect anyone other than a college R.A. or your mommy to give a good sweet damn.”
Dang.
It occurs to me that my entire view on this was put in motion, long ago, by the fact that I actually was a college RA.
All those wanting someone to give a good sweet damn, please email me.
I have a line on some primo good sweet damn.
This is honestly some of the most retarded internet I’ve ever read.
Did I offend any retards just now? Good. I hate the retarded.
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.
~Voltaire
The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship.
I think that Hegel was right in as much as he saw the great moral battles between men as being less a case of who was “right” and who was “wrong”, and more of an endless circle of who was “RIGHT” and who was “RIGHT”. I don’t have the strength to fuel any of this, but I would like to say that Mr. Craig Mazin is in exceptionally good company (as follows):
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
~Noam Chomsky
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
~Voltaire
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.
~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.
~Tommy Smothers
Aaron,
I’ll be your best black friend if you tell me how to do that “big quote” thing.
Putting aside considerations of morality, cynicism and juvenalia for the moment, I believe that…
— Mariama has the right to be offended by the joke, and to express her opinion.
— Craig has the right not to care.
— Mariama has the right to decide that she doesn’t like his attitude, and the rules, and to complain about it, and to leave.
— Craig has the right not to care.
I can’t see that anyone’s rights have been violated, though I don’t really like the suggestion that Mariama’s original complaint isn’t valid. I think she has every right to make it, just as Craig has every right to disregard it if he chooses.
Because honestly, I’m the only one tapping that. :)
… I think. :(
I rest. My case.
If I recall, Scott, Mariama expressed displeasure on behalf of WOMEN, not just herself … it’s the validity of that statement I take issue with … again, Jeff’s comment wasn’t directed at her, nor was it directed at women everywhere, just his poor girlfriend.
That’s the distinction. Would she had had the same reaction had Jeff made the same joke about his boyfriend’s anus?
It doesn’t matter if her complaint is valid for everyone; she felt strongly enough about it to post, with her sole motivation being to express her feelings about what she had just read.
And I think she has the right to do that. What’s really up for debate is whether or not she has the right to expect that anything be done about her complaint. And given the nature of this site, the answer is no, probably not.
But I think she should still be allowed to express her feelings on the point. To me, the process worked; she made her feelings clear, Craig responded, she made the decision not to stay.
Where the trouble starts, I think, is to start picking at the process, to say that she shouldn’t have been allowed to make her comment, or that somehow her comment is more egregious than the joke. Again, it’s fine that posters have no expectation of their being offended actually creating change, but I think people have the right to raise their hand if something bothers them.
I don’t disagree with that, Scott - people should always raise their hands when something bothers them - it’s why I defended a lame vagina joke I didn’t think was funny … because I don’t think it was offensive to women (and if my being male disqualfies me, I know a few female comedians I can trot in her who will back that up) everywhere, nor do I believe we should censure lame jokes that border the offensive, whether they’re funny or not, because that does bother me.
I don’t think I maintained she shouldn’t or couldn’t say what she wanted, just that I believed her point was wrong - I think it’s fine that she says she is offended and says something about it.
But as Craig mentioned above … it could be that you were offended, and it could be you’re simply over-sensitive.
Kevin,
A magician never reveals his secrets. Schlubs like me, on the other hand, are all too happy to share. Use the “blockquote” HTML tag to do the “big quote” thing.
Congratulations on being my new BBF! (Now if I can just get Paula on board, I can say “some of my best friends are black.”)
…and the circle continues…
Scott,
It sounds to me as though Craig was mainly perturbed by private emails he received from Mariana, as opposed to what she posted here.
Kevin,
No. The writers’ room is sacred. This is a public forum. Albeit a screenwriting forum, but we’re not trying to break a story here. Just Craig’s brain.
Johnny,
“Quibbling?” I’m so offended!
Also, poor Jeff. Well, at least he has his sense of humor.
;)
In the end, the original “joke” the guy made was a reference to his girlfriend’s vagina as it equated to Craig’s title of the “Widening Chasm.”
He didn’t say any one’s specific vagina was wide. Or a chasm. He just said his girlfriend’s was. And the girlfriend, as far as we know, is an imaginary devise used to make people laugh.
And now look at all the posts we’ve wasted here stemming back to some guy saying something about his girlfriend’s vagina.
Putting the joke back into perspective: could anyone truly, really, really, really, truly be offended? Really? Because then I say our literary hands are tied. What’s the use in being able to think and write if we worry we “may” offend someone?
If there was a bullseye on anyone’s head and a comment was directed at them in regards to their privates, then the issue is relevant.
But otherwise…