Political Correctness

[Johnnypenso]

I'm mostly in agreement with your recent replies... but we can do something about bringing those expressions of wealth into school. You're right that it doesn't do anything about how kids will react to one another's home lives but it takes the more obvious signs of distinction out of the school. Which is a start, if not a fix.

What is the next big issue, fancy pencil cases?

 

[Famine]

What is the next big issue, fancy pencil cases?

Done that one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Done that one.

George Orwell would be proud.

 

[TexRex]

George Orwell would be proud.

I imagine he'd be too preoccupied by the fact that he's been plunged six feet into the earth to have any thoughts regarding current social issues.

 

[TenEightyOne]

George Orwell would be proud.

How so?

 

[Johnnypenso]

How so?

I don't think it's too hard to imagine the Ministry of Truth compiling some new regulations regarding what coats you can wear and what pencil cases you can carry in order to maintain conformity and uniformity.

 

[TexRex]

One wonders if the future George Orwell got the idea for maintaining conformity and uniformity by way of regulated attire and accoutrements during his early education at a convent in Oxfordshire. I'm given to understand such regulations have been implemented in schools in Britain for nearly 500 years.

 

[Imari]

One wonders if the future George Orwell got the idea for maintaining conformity and uniformity by way of regulated attire and accoutrements during his early education at a convent in Oxfordshire. I'm given to understand such regulations have been implemented in schools in Britain for nearly 500 years.

Or perhaps just general observation of the society around him with some extrapolation and fictional flourish for flavour?

 

[TenEightyOne]

One wonders if the future George Orwell got the idea for maintaining conformity and uniformity by way of regulated attire and accoutrements during his early education at a convent in Oxfordshire. I'm given to understand such regulations have been implemented in schools in Britain for nearly 500 years.

Eric Blair was from a rather poor family and got his school place through "connections", along with a deal to only pay half-fees and be a day boy. The fact that his poorness was picked up on by other pupils was something that seemed to have rankled with him in his later political thinking, that's why I was intrigued by @Johnnypenso's comment about how Orwell would have been proud. I read a sarcastic tone in that post but I thought that at face value JP might have been right.

 

[TexRex]

The fact that his poorness was picked up on by other pupils was something that seemed to have rankled with him in his later political thinking,

Not only pupils, but school runners as well, if his writings on the subject are to be believed.

that's why I was intrigued by @Johnnypenso's comment about how Orwell would have been proud.

Well that's mighty generous.



Edit: Whoops! Apologies if "anyone" got an alert as having been quoted. That was the result of an initial response having been removed from the draft, but not completely until the edit that followed.

 

[zzz_pt]

About Kevin Hart

 

[huskeR32]

About Kevin Hart

Not all of the Kevin Hart tweets in question were retweets. Further, there's a difference between content that has been deemed "not very good" for artistic reasons, and content that expresses intolerance or hatred toward a group of people.

There's room to criticize how Kevin Hart has been treated during this situation, but ignoring pretty important context and details so that you can make a smug, unfunny video about it misses the mark.

 

[zzz_pt]

Not all of the Kevin Hart tweets in question were retweets. Further, there's a difference between content that has been deemed "not very good" for artistic reasons, and content that expresses intolerance or hatred toward a group of people.

There's room to criticize how Kevin Hart has been treated during this situation, but ignoring pretty important context and details so that you can make a smug, unfunny video about it misses the mark.

How do you judge the context of tweets by a comedian who makes jokes about pretty much everything?

How do you know what he wrote was hateful or intolerant and not some stupid jokes? Because he used some particular words?

I'm honestly curious to know your response. How do you determine the intention or context of a "tweet" to be hateful or intolerant?

No one thought that 10 years ago apparently.

I find the whole situation completely bizarre, to say the least.

 

[mustafur]

What's unfunny is this nonsense.

 

[huskeR32]

How do you judge the context of tweets by a comedian who makes jokes about pretty much everything?

I'm not judging the context of the tweets, I'm judging the lack of similar context in the video. "I used to be a less-talented designer" and "I used to tell jokes that could be construed as homophobic" don't even begin to equate, whether you think the current criticism of Hart is fair or not.

How do you know what he wrote was hateful or intolerant and not some stupid jokes? Because he used some particular words?

I don't. I said it expresses intolerance and hatred. Whatever his true feelings are, only he can say.

I'm honestly curious to know your response. How do you determine the intention or context of a "tweet" to be hateful or intolerant?

I never spoke of his intention. I spoke of the differences between the video and the situation it was aimed at. Satire doesn't really work all that well if you have to change the premise of the actual situation in order to make your point.

No one thought that 10 years ago apparently.

I'd imagine that plenty of people did. It's just become more socially acceptable to say so out loud now.

 

[TexRex]

I'm given to understand they're having trouble finding a replacement now, and nobody wanted to host before they got to Hart.

Maybe this is signalling the show's (or even shows') demise, which is just gravy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not all of the Kevin Hart tweets in question were retweets. Further, there's a difference between content that has been deemed "not very good" for artistic reasons, and content that expresses intolerance or hatred toward a group of people.

There's room to criticize how Kevin Hart has been treated during this situation, but ignoring pretty important context and details so that you can make a smug, unfunny video about it misses the mark.

I didn't realize there was a set of rules that comedians had to follow in order to not be considered smug or unfunny. But, then again, this is the political correctness thread.

 

[huskeR32]

I didn't realize there was a set of rules that comedians had to follow in order to not be considered smug or unfunny.

I think you missed the "Opinions" part of "Opinions & Current Events."

But, then again, this is the political correctness thread.

Pointing out the ways that a piece of satire missed its mark is now political correctness? What?

 

[Moglet]

Not all of the Kevin Hart tweets in question were retweets.

Far from it. His history with homosexual comments goes a bit further than just a few Tweets. A reddit user recently did a great breakdown of everything that lead up to this point. (The below has been edited to remove some swearing and to remove personal opinions of the OP)

• Kevin Hart told some jokes where the punchline is that he wouldn’t want a gay son. Nobody really reacted at this point.
  
  
• Kevin Hart tweets daily for two years calling people fags and faggots.
  
  
• Kevin Hart says multiple times seemingly not in comedy formula or for some reason devoid of any set up or punch lines that he would hit his son if he caught him playing with dolls.
  
  
• Kevin Hart gets called on it, and in a Rolling Stone interview in 2015 says he wouldn’t say those jokes anymore because "the times [then] weren't as sensitive as they are now" but THEN in the same article proceeds to say he would be a failure of a father if his son turned out gay: ""But me, being a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will."
  
  
• For some reason people took the above 2015 interview as an apology despite him not apologising.
  
  
• Kevin Hart gets hired to host the Oscars. People remember the stuff he said and didn’t apologise for, so they bring it back and a whole new audience sees his tweets and so-called “jokes”. There is backlash and the Oscars give him a call and say hey we still want you to host but please apologise for those tweets, we have a big LGBT following and it’s not a good look.
  
  
• Kevin says he’ll “pass on the apology” because he “already addressed it” (despite not actually apologising) and he says people should just focus on positivity and be happy for him. He didn’t express any positivity towards gay people up until that point so you can see why gay people may not want to send any positivity his way.

• Kevin then steps down from hosting. He flips on his previous refusal and apologises on twitter after stepping down

 

[Tornado]

As I understood it a lot of Hart's stuff on Twitter wasn't framed in the context of "actually being jokes, even mean-spirited hack ones" unlike, say, Daniel Tosh's heckler rape thing from a bunch of years ago that blew up. I don't know Kevin Hart well enough as a comedian to argue that point myself.

I'm given to understand they're having trouble finding a replacement now, and nobody wanted to host before they got to Hart.

I assumed as soon as it became a thing that was why their initial response was like a parent scolding a child kind of thing instead of just dropping him like networks usually do.


"You're really going to have to apologize young man"

And then he made a statement saying he wasn't going to and people could get bent if they wanted one now.

And then they did nothing in response.

And then he quit himself.

 

[TexRex]

I didn't realize there was a set of rules that comedians had to follow in order to not be considered smug or unfunny.

The drone strike makes sense and is obviously satire. But the creation of a fake narrative about someone burning their shoes and ending up in the hospital as a result goes beyond the traditional level of exaggeration one might find in satire and crosses over to just a blatant falsehood IMO. Posting a real picture of a burn victim's feet is something most people wouldn't find funny...or at least I don't think so. Just thought I'd point it out since some people will surely believe it's real and someone was really injured.

So there aren't any rules unless there are rules?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So there aren't any rules unless there are rules?

Clearly framed as my opinion as the "IMO" would indicate.

 

[TexRex]

Clearly framed as my opinion as the "IMO" would indicate.

The "IMO" indicates the manner in which the protest was satirized, in your opinion, crosses over into blatant falsehood. What followed was a definition of what methods can be used to make light of a situation.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm not judging the context of the tweets, I'm judging the lack of similar context in the video. "I used to be a less-talented designer" and "I used to tell jokes that could be construed as homophobic" don't even begin to equate, whether you think the current criticism of Hart is fair or not.

You think the context of the video is different because you're judging the tweets as something other than jokes (even if poor ones). That's why I asked about what knowldge do you have of those tweets's context to make a point about them showing intolerance and being homophobic, or, in other words, offensive.

All great comedians today have made poor jokes in their careers, especially over 10 years ago. But they all make fun of gays, as they make fun of other groups of people. Louis CK (IIRC) likes the word "fag" and I'm pretty sure he's not homophobic.

I don't. I said it expresses intolerance and hatred. Whatever his true feelings are, only he can say.

That's the problem. I don't see any expression of hatred or intolerance in those tweets, because I read them as jokes (but I usually don't take what people write on twitter serious, especially comedians). Even if his feelings 10 years ago led him to write those tweets as something other than jokes, the fact he didn't make anything similar in the lat 10 years would suggest he changed (who doesn't change in 10 years?) and shouldn't have problems with the Oscars.

I never spoke of his intention. I spoke of the differences between the video and the situation it was aimed at. Satire doesn't really work all that well if you have to change the premise of the actual situation in order to make your point.

The people who made the satire took the tweets as jokes. You didn't, and find them expressions of intoletance and hatred towards gay people. That's why I think the satire makes a good point - because I don't think the tweets, made 10 years ago, were anything other than poor attempts at jokes.

I'd imagine that plenty of people did.

Yeah, everything is potencially offensive to a lot of people.

It's just become more socially acceptable to say so out loud now.

And that's part of the problem. Giving way too much air time to the offended by trivial things.

 

[huskeR32]

You think the context of the video is different because you're judging the tweets as something other than jokes (even if poor ones).

I called them jokes myself in my second post on this topic.

I don't know how many different ways to say this. Call them jokes or don't. Deem them funny or don't. Imagine him saying them after sucking some helium from a balloon, or don't. None of that matters to the point I'm making, which I've stated many times now.

That's why I asked about what knowldge do you have of those tweets's context to make a point about them showing intolerance and being homophobic, or, in other words, offensive.

One more time - I am not, nor was I ever, commenting on the context of the tweets themselves (i.e., do they actually show true homophobia, or are they "just jokes"). The context I'm referring to is the difference between the video (somebody's technical competence in their profession improving over time) and the reality it's attempting to satirize (a comedian's homophobic jokes, which has nothing to do with competence or ability at all).

The thing that's a bit ironic here is that in order for the video to actually work as satire, the viewer does have to accept that Hart's jokes were in poor taste, as that creates the analogous situation where somebody did something bad in the past, but they don't do that bad thing anymore. So, by insisting that his jokes were fine in the first place (which, again, isn't anything I've commented on one way or another), you're kinda strengthening the point I've been trying to get you to understand all along (the video's attempts to be satirical fall flat).

All great comedians today have made poor jokes in their careers, especially over 10 years ago. But they all make fun of gays, as they make fun of other groups of people. Louis CK (IIRC) likes the word "fag" and I'm pretty sure he's not homophobic.

I can name plenty of comedians who have not made fun of gays or used the word "fag." But since my point was never that Hart is a bad comedian, or that he's uniquely homophobic, or whatever your strawman here is, I'm going to just move on.

That's the problem. I don't see any expression of hatred or intolerance in those tweets, because I read them as jokes (but I usually don't take what people write on twitter serious, especially comedians). Even if his feelings 10 years ago led him to write those tweets as something other than jokes, the fact he didn't make anything similar in the lat 10 years would suggest he changed (who doesn't change in 10 years?) and shouldn't have problems with the Oscars.

Well that's just silly; whether they're jokes or not (i.e., whether he's actually a homophobe or not), they're premised on gay = bad, otherwise there's no joke. How is there any humor at all in him being scared of having a gay son, if being gay isn't somewhat undesirable?

As for the ten years ago part, I actually agree with you. He's clearly expressed that he wouldn't tell jokes like that anymore, so I wouldn't have a problem with him hosting the show. Because, one more time, I was always criticizing the video, not Kevin Hart or his tweets.

The people who made the satire took the tweets as jokes.

So did I.

You didn't,

Yes I did.

and find them expressions of intoletance and hatred towards gay people.

They are expressions of intolerance and hatred, otherwise there's no joke.

I think you're conflating my use of the word "expression" with the notion that he meant them to hurt people. If I'm angry or sad, but I wear a fake smile on my face, I'm expressing happiness. Am I actually happy? No. But I'm telling people that I am.

 

[twitcher]

I’m not fully up to speed on the Kevin Heart situation, but in regards to comedy in general...

...how do we know a joke is a “bad joke” until it’s told? And if a new joke turns out to be bad, after it’s told for the first time, we somehow hold the comedian responsible for testing those particular waters (keeping in mind that’s basically one of the pillars of a comedy, to constantly test social boundaries).

There are a lot of taboo subjects that we’re not supposed to joke about, yet people routinely find ways to make unfunny things, funny. Take rape for example, you’re not supposed to be able to joke about that. But Chappel did an entire stand up routine where the punch line was a joke about a super hero who rapes people...and it was pretty damn funny. That doesn’t mean I thin rape is funny, but chappel’s jokes were pretty funny.

So until a comedian actually tests the waters of a given subject, we don’t know whether or not a joke will be funny or not. In my opinion though, I think it’s a mistake for condemning the act of testing the waters.



Also, completely unrelated, but I just learned that R-Kelly discovered Aliyah when she was 15, they had an open relationship (when he was not a minor), her first studio album was called “Age is Just a Number”, and the cover is her leaning on the wall of what looks like a school, while R Kelly is out of focus in the background. If Kavanaugh has to answer questions about Fffffff and boofing that happened 30 years ago, why is no one asking R Kelly and his record label some very serious questions? I wonder what Aliyah might have to say about #Me Too if she were alive today.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If Kavanaugh has to answer questions about Fffffff and boofing that happened 30 years ago, why is no one asking R Kelly and his record label some very serious questions? I wonder what Aliyah might have to say about #Me Too if she were alive today.

Because she, and presumably her parents, consented to the marriage. Child marriage is certainly not unheard of in the US, far from it. We've been over that before at this forum... I'll see if I can find a link.

EDIT: The discussion was about a year ago in other threads, here are the sources

Link 1 , Link 2

 

[Johnnypenso]

For all you GTPlanet fans of political correctness, here is the updated version of Baby, It's Cold Outside, written and performed before the current controversy:

 

[Whitestar]

Practially shoving her out the door, yeah that's really hot! She must feel sooo wanted.

 

[TexRex]

I think you missed the "Opinions" part of "Opinions & Current Events."

Only when it's convenient to "miss" it.