[HN Gopher] Rowan Atkinson: 'In a proper free society, you can m...
___________________________________________________________________
Rowan Atkinson: 'In a proper free society, you can make jokes about
anything'
Author : RickJWagner
Score : 40 points
Date : 2022-06-20 19:41 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.irishtimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.irishtimes.com)
| barrysteve wrote:
| You shouldn't be disallowed from joking about anything. Clamping
| authority down onto jokes kills them before they've had a chance
| to fail.
|
| The safety net of a failed joke is that it doesn't mean very
| much. Putting authoritative rules in place to prevent a failed
| joke makes it so much worse when a joke doesn't land, or
| accidently offends, because now it "shouldn't have been allowed
| in the first place" and the public senses a disruption in their
| own control over the world.
|
| Just let jokes go people, they don't matter and that's the
| gorgeous, beautiful truth we can share together. The network
| effects of treating jokes like they have authority and
| governmental consequence is deeply unpleasant for everyone,
| except a few political groups which benefit.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Who is making these rules about what jokes can be made, and by
| what mechanism are they enforced? I've never seen anything
| about that.
|
| There are _social consequences_ to making certain kind of
| jokes. Like there always have been? But _which kinds_ of jokes
| and what sort and degree of consequences are changing.
|
| You can have an issue with that and resist it, but the
| mechanics of this institution are not new. These unspoken rules
| about who can say what and what will happen if you transgress
| them are the invisible infrastructure of social connection and
| ultimately society. The rules are changing fast and by
| different players than is traditional, but the fact that there
| are rules and consequences for violating them is as old as us.
| mc32 wrote:
| In the US, a long list of comedians have fought hard through
| the decades, first radio, then TV to be able to tell risky
| jokes, naughty jokes, anti-establishment jokes, uncouth
| jokes, etc. They all fought against the prudes and
| establishment culture back then.
|
| Should they not have fought and won those victories? Should
| they have remained in vaudevillian repertoires only?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Etc is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Racist,
| homophobic, sexist, and transphobic jokes are really what
| we're here to talk about. Was it an intentional omission or
| an accident? Just curious.
| mc32 wrote:
| Lenny Bruce, Redd Foxx, Richard Prior, etc. Comedians of
| old engaged in all of the above. I do not know a comedian
| that existed prior to 10 years ago that did not have some
| sort of sexist joke (Obviously Andy Clay takes the cake,
| I think), short of maybe some pretentious super wholesome
| "comedian" doing "wholesome jokes"
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Let me summarize and repeat the argument to see if I'm
| getting it right. Because jokes were used to test
| boundaries in the past, there is no boundary that should
| not be tested today?
| mc32 wrote:
| I'm not a comedian. I cannot tell a joke. I would bet
| most comedians 10, 5 years ago would have said definitely
| yes. They probably would still say so today -but given
| the coals they have to walk on, you may find some
| trepidation amongst some.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| This is confusing. Is it that you agree with the
| comedian's logic or is it different from your own?
| earleybird wrote:
| Are you saying that the old "prudes" (for example) are the
| new folks who would "cancel"?
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| The idea of making jokes up vs. down seems to be predicated on
| there being a very hierarchical or class stratified society.
| While I realize my country (the USA) does have classes and class
| migration is terribly difficult, we also live under the ideal of
| a meritocracy.
|
| However I do think the younger generations are trying to tell us
| all that emperor has no clothes. I also think we are swinging too
| far the other way, where every detail of oneself is used to
| define our place in society, as evidenced by the proliferation of
| intersectionality in our culture.
|
| Anyway, my point is that both cultures have distinct but
| different ways of approaching the hierarchy of power but both
| (arguably) going too far in "protecting" the lower in the social
| order. My fear is that this has the (hopefully) accidental side
| effect of reinforcing that very social order. The idea the
| "elites" need to make rules and laws to "protect" the non-elites
| is just way to paternalistic for me. For those being protected,
| it is easy to internalize the protection as being necessary to
| defend against an intrinsically unfair society. For others, it
| can "confirm" their belief that those being protected are
| intrinsically lower than themselves.
|
| My overall point is that well-intended acts have undesirable
| consequences and the pace at which we move is faster than the
| pace at which we can account for these outcomes.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| > does have classes and class migration is terribly difficult,
| we also live under the ideal of a meritocracy.
|
| What does it mean to live under an ideal? Since "class
| migration" is so difficult, what is this meritocracy getting us
| that's relevant here? Why would we act within the context of
| something that we don't actually have?
|
| > as evidenced by the proliferation of intersectionality in our
| culture.
|
| Could you go more into that? I only know of intersectionality
| as an analytical framework, I'm not sure what it would look
| like for a culture to express it. But maybe you're talking
| about something else.
|
| > The idea the "elites" need to make rules and laws to
| "protect" the non-elites
|
| I have seen very very few if any expressions of a desire for
| laws to enforce these changing social standards. Mostly what I
| see is the general idea that expressing some ideas should come
| with _social_ consequences. There _is_ a growing american
| movement to use the state to directly ban certain forms and
| subjects of speech but I don 't think there's much overlap
| right now.
|
| > My fear is that this has the (hopefully) accidental side
| effect of reinforcing that very social order.
|
| Treacherously close to the good old "the ones talking about
| racism are the real racists!" don't you think? I'm not trying
| to attribute that intention to you, but predicting that
| attempting to address an inequality will actually make it worse
| is a classic rationalism-lite technique to dismiss legitimate
| calls for change. If something is wrong it should stop; lack of
| a validated better alternative is not itself a good enough
| reason to resist its change.
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| > What does it mean to live under an ideal? Since "class
| migration" is so difficult, what is this meritocracy getting
| us that's relevant here? Why would we act within the context
| of something that we don't actually have?
|
| What it means is that the narrative we tell ourselves is that
| society rewards hard work, no matter who you are. This is
| _prima facie_ not reality. But narrative is powerful at
| defining our sense of self. As such, a culture that sees
| itself as a meritocracy, whether it is or not, may not see
| that there _are_ systemic issues preventing the ideal from
| being reality. It is the whole "Americans all see themselves
| are temporarily disgraced millionaires" or some variation on
| that theme.
|
| > Could you go more into that? I only know of
| intersectionality as an analytical framework, I'm not sure
| what it would look like for a culture to express it. But
| maybe you're talking about something else.
|
| Academic analytical frameworks make their way from the
| academy into the the governments and corporations that define
| our social condition. What it looks like in society is the
| belief that a) "otherness" is additive and b) people
| internalize the belief that "otherness" is an inexorable
| aspect of oneself and thus will never allow them to succeed.
|
| It also informs our language in how we discuss these things.
| Lantix being a term that a vast majority of hispanics do not
| accept or even want. BIPOC being a term that attempts to be
| inclusive but inadvertently groups many disparate peoples
| into a single monolith, when their challenges and cultural
| are not monolithic. These terms did originate in the academy
| and they do inform the conversation we have around Diversity,
| Equity and Inclusion (another term from the academy)
|
| > The idea the "elites" need to make rules and laws to
| "protect" the non-elites
|
| I said _rules_ and laws. We do have rules, corporations make
| rules about what can be said on social media. Yes, some of
| these are very important, some of them may be overreach. But
| what can't be argued is that there are rules being developed
| with the intent of protecting specific individuals and
| groups.
|
| > Treacherously close to the good old "the ones talking about
| racism are the real racists!" don't you think? I'm not trying
| to attribute that intention to you, but predicting that
| attempting to address an inequality will actually make it
| worse is a classic rationalism-lite technique to dismiss
| legitimate calls for change. If something is wrong it should
| stop; lack of a validated better alternative is not itself a
| good enough reason to resist its change.
|
| Nope, not at all. I _never_ stated or even implied that we
| shouldn't talk about racism. I am not rejecting calls for
| change. I am not saying that the rules and mores we put in
| place are necessarily destructive. What I _am_ saying is that
| much like the narrative of "the USA is purely meritocratic"
| informs our view of self and thus how we express ourselves,
| the idea that "the USA is fundamentally, systemically and
| intrinsically racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic, and
| being in one of those groups means you will always be
| 'other'" can inform an internalization of that belief which
| can server as a means to reenforce the flaws in our society.
|
| I 100% believe that things that are wrong should be fixed. I
| believe that where systemic racism does exist it needs to be
| removed. In some cases, like the Voting Rights Act (which was
| disappointedly repealed), this is done via _de jure_ laws. It
| can also be done through a (albeit more slowly) concerted
| effort to change opinions via education, outreach and
| normalization. For an example of this, I am very confident
| that, given the same Supreme Court balance as it was at the
| time Obergefell was decided, the decision would have gone the
| other way if adjudicated in 2000 or 1995. By the time
| Obergefell was decided gay marriage was supported by an even
| or majority of Americans, that was not the case in the early
| 2000s. This was accomplished via many slow things, such as
| increasing number of people being "out" and thus humanizing
| the discussion for those who had never been exposed to the
| concepts. Another example that I hope to see is that
| abortions continue to be legal, but becomes generally un-
| needed via the introduction of more comprehensive and
| reality-based sex education, access to quality health-care
| and access to effective birth control in a confidential
| manner. If the Republicans had focused on _preventing the
| need_ for abortions vs. trying to legislate abortion, I am
| confident abortion rates would have fallen faster than they
| already have.
|
| Anyway, the whole point of that above paragraph is that there
| are many ways to address unfairness, racism etc. in our world
| and country. We should be aware of these approaches as well
| as the unintended consequences that come along with those
| approaches. To continue the abortion thought process, I have
| heard it said and read (though I do not necessarily agree)
| that if the Democratic Party had a place for anti-abortion
| voices within the party that the GOP would have a hard time
| winning many elections. This based on the idea that abortion
| is a single-issue issue for many voters, and the absolutist
| view of both parties results in many people who would
| otherwise vote democrat (due to economic policies, healthcare
| policies etc.) end up supporting the GOP candidate.
|
| I appreciate you not trying to attribute intention to me, or
| anyone, in online debates. The "assume best intention"
| perspective really does make room for more healthy debate
| without descending into chaos and tribalism.
| vannevar wrote:
| In a proper free society, you can also criticize anything.
| Including humor.
|
| Cancel culture isn't new, it only seems different now because the
| internet has created one giant market where there used to be many
| independent ones. When a comedian made an ethnic joke on TV, most
| people never heard the criticisms from the people being made fun
| of, their criticism stayed within their community. Now everyone
| can see everything. It was never the case that everyone laughed
| at all the jokes. The difference now is that we can actually see
| the people who aren't laughing, and that feels like a downer. You
| can tell any joke you like, but you aren't guaranteed that
| everyone will find it funny. Welcome to worldwide two-way
| communication.
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| The biggest difference is that cancel culture is slightly
| inconveniencing the powerful.
|
| The less powerful have been "canceled" for decades, not just in
| the US, but everywhere. How many courses on Marxism/Communism
| do you see in US academia? In the meanwhile, US colleges have
| entire departments dedicated to Capitalism (Business school).
| In the Soviet Union, the opposite was true. (For the record,
| I'm extremely pro capitalism, and to the extent I criticize it
| it's because I believe that it can get better, whereas AFAICT,
| other economic systems have largely failed except in very
| specific and limited scenarios).
| mc32 wrote:
| Sort of... The gist of what you say is true... One potentially
| has a world-wide audience. However, it's not always the case.
| If an Indian comedian tells awful ethnic jokes about Americans
| or Brazilians, do you think any one of us will get wind of it?
| Same with Chinese making jokes about just about anyone else in
| the world --the likelihood anyone in the rest of the world will
| find out, is very slim. There is the slightest possibility
| where someone with a foot in both worlds would be offended plus
| feel that they need to bring it to light.
| superb-owl wrote:
| I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think such a society has
| ever existed. Every society has taboo and heresy.
|
| I imagine it's something of a structural feature, not something
| we could do away with the right policies or education.
| techdragon wrote:
| You should be free to make the jokes, but that doesn't mean we're
| going to laugh, or ever give you any money ever again. So choose
| carefully... :-)
| pvaldes wrote:
| Rowan Atkinson could literally sit in a room watching their
| little toes and people still would give him money.
| joecot wrote:
| There wouldn't be an endless series of unfunny comedians making
| "Comedy" specials called "Trigger Warning: How I'm Canceled by
| Snowflake Cucks" for Netflix if people weren't watching it.
|
| Our primary problem isn't that there's a bandwagon of male
| comedians whose whole show is crying about snowflakes
| cancelling them or making exactly one joke about trans people.
| It's that there's a ready audience excited to watch them do it.
| If there wasn't Netflix wouldn't keep making the specials. I'm
| still going to call the comedians and Netflix immoral hacks for
| cashing in on it, though. And I hope the cancellations keep
| rolling in so Netflix can see us vote no with our wallets.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| Comedians already know this from day 1. It's incredibly
| difficult to say funny things for 5 minutes straight, let alone
| a whole hour special.
|
| The people trying to limit the speech of comedians aren't the
| same people who are going to comedy shows usually. That's the
| core of the issue. The people who don't like comedians having
| free speech typically aren't into comedy at all.
| M3L0NM4N wrote:
| Fair point, but society should ask itself if it avoids laughing
| at jokes because they're not funny, or fear of others thinking
| they agree with the joke as if it were a factual statement. And
| did someone make the joke because it was ironic, or because
| they believe it? Some of us seem to have lost the definition of
| a joke, and if I make a joke that is deemed offensive towards a
| minority group, would you never give me money again because I
| now _so obviously hate_ that group of people I made a joke of?
| Societal anecdotes would say yes, but this doesn 't make sense
| logically.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > ... and if I make a joke that is deemed offensive towards a
| minority group, would you never give me money again because I
| now so obviously hate that group of people I made a joke of?
|
| Of course, and you shall be shunned like that Black Mirror
| episode where the people were blurred out.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| It used to be common for Brits to defensively respond to some
| things with a quick "Well, it's a free country!"
|
| Now we never hear people say this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-20 23:02 UTC)