Is there anything you are humourless about?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Please do not think that I am implying that discrimination is ever funny, as this is not the case as it poses a real threat and is a negative element of our society.

However I don't necessarily think humour is always harmful with regards to the discriminators themselves. I think that when someone shows the position of a sexists for example as humourous it can actually show the ridiculousness of a view. This approach is often taken towards capitalists here for example, even though capitalism itself is a very serious and harmful problem.

I think that the variety of approaches that exist is a key element in forming a new view towards discrimination.

CDL springs to mind, amongst others, that seem to be extremely millitant in every case towards discrimination, and this is positive. However I think that other approaches should also be acknowledged. Showing discrimination itself as funny shows that those strongly opposed to it also have a sense of humour, which is something that I know has been denied towards the left in general, despite its massive contribution to satire.

What do you peeps think about such a view, is showing discrimination itself as laughable (in the illogical position, not its effects) a bad idea?

[loveme4whoiam]

I think you are right on the money. I do, of course, decry all discrimination, but there is no harm in having a laugh at the same time. In fact, as you say, showing how laughable discrimination is is, I think, one of if not the most effective way to combat it. I remember a poster im my Social Education classroom years ago (it's called Preparation for Life now ), in response to the bullshit claim by racists that black people have smaller brains. It showed three brains all of the same size, with the captions "White", "Black", and "Asian" under them. Next to them is a forth, which is tiny and says "Racist" underneath. See, funny, and very very effective.

However, I will admit to being amused by the really radical feminists, the seperatists and the supremacist feminists. Those ladies are just funny and a little bit scary.

[TC]

There really aren't a lot of things that people have a good excuse to be humorless about.

[diamond_rabbit]

Originally posted by loveme4whoiam@Mar 1 2006, 04:53 PM
However, I will admit to being amused by the really radical feminists, the seperatists and the supremacist feminists. Those ladies are just funny and a little bit scary.

I'm going to begin off topic, in response to this comment about 'radical feminists'. Your statement is not well-informed and demonstrates that you are uninvolved in feminist struggle. Of course, separatism is not a good political solution and the uncommon belief that men are somehow inherently inferior to women is highly problematic and untrue. However, these tenets are not what radical feminism is about. Radical feminism is about understanding the root causes of gender oppression and making radical change at this deep level that creates inequality. There is also recognition that gender roles under patriarchy attribute more nurturing/natural characteristics to women and more competitive/rational characteristics to men. there is nothing natural about this. however, some women 'separatists' (they are few and far between, in reality) do not want to deal with men, as they are socialized to be under patriarchy.

not only do you not seem to understand radical feminism, but your reference to women as 'ladies' is offensive to feminists. i don't mean to be repetitive, but read this from a thread from November:

"lady" is an oppressive term because of its classist and sexist implications. according to wikipedia, "a lady is a woman who is the counterpart of a lord; or, the counterpart of a gentleman. " both 'lady' and 'gentleman' are terms that are attached to bourgeois values.

think of how girls and young women are told to "act like a lady". or when a woman conforms to normative gender expectations, she will be called a lady. a "lady" is compliant, polite, and conforms to dominant group expectations of what a 'good' woman should be.

as for the topic at hand, i think it all depends on who is using the humour and in what way. a non-feminist joking and laughing at feminists, for example, is not funny. it is just oppressive and reinforces hegemony, by dismissing the struggle against patriarchy. however, if a feminist jokes and laughs at the macho sexism of men, or if radical feminists joke about how some cultural feminists do believe in biological characteristics that make women superior to men (again, they are very few of them), then this is a different story. i think it's fine to make fun of biggoted viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are actually very oppressive and have terrible implications in people's lives, and i think it's fine for people involved in struggle or a non-dominant group to make fun of their own characteristics/ ingroup dynamics sometimes.

[Monty Cantsin]

Radical Feminist donse not represent only the “understanding the root causes of gender oppression”. It represents one take on the roots of gender oppression…one we don’t have to agree with.

[Monty Cantsin]

CompañeroDeLibertad, do you have to swear so much? it Belies your ability to argue rationally or a least be respected as someone who rationally argues a point.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by Monty Cantsin@Mar 2 2006, 03:54 PM
CompañeroDeLibertad, do you have to swear so much? it Belies your ability to argue rationally or a least be respected as someone who rationally argues a point.

Yeah stop the fucking swearing! :wacko:

[Monty Cantsin]

:P <_< -_- :angry: :wacko:

just wanted to do it, wanted to do more
but the borad doesnt fucking allow me to what kind of shit is that.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by Monty Cantsin@Mar 2 2006, 04:07 PM
:P <_< -_- :angry: :wacko:

just wanted to do it, wanted to do more
but the borad doesnt fucking allow me to what kind of shit is that.

For the dictionary definition of bizzare look above.

I see swearing as a beautiful form of expression myself...FUCK, BASTARD&#33;

Now wasnt that a thing of beauty?

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad@Mar 2 2006, 04:15 PM
Oh well, I type how I speak. Grow up and deal with it.

"Swearing" (what are you 5?) has nothing to do with the rationality (or lack of) of someone or their arguments.

Well I find it discriminatory you swearing all the time. It’s not conductive to a ME friendly environment, which is the worst form of discrimination*, seeing as it discourages me from taking you seriously and responding seriously.

* The worst form of discrimination is that which affects me, to paraphrase bender the almost perfect fictional robot.

I see swearing as a beautiful form of expression myself...FUCK, BASTARD&#33;

Now wasnt that a thing of beauty?

only when it comes from you darling.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by Monty Cantsin@Mar 2 2006, 04:27 PM

I see swearing as a beautiful form of expression myself...FUCK, BASTARD&#33;

Now wasnt that a thing of beauty?

only when it comes from you darling.

yes it&#39;s fabulous darling. :P

[Monty Cantsin]

sorry had to post i hate the number 13....it&#39;s an irrational fear i know.

it might be caused by my deep seeded sexist view which means i hate anything assosiated with paganism and &#39;the devine femminie" or It might be anti-catholic bigotry. dane brown told me that 13 become the unlucky number after the Catholics killed of the knight’s templar. but it&#39;s probarly not that because i love the church and dont belive they could be responsable for killing people regarded as heritics.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Why is everyone spamming here? I was asking a serious question with regards to a serious issue, although it may not have appeared this way.

CDL I was simply posing the position that others take towards religion or capitalism. Religion is not a funny matter considering its effects, but the "flying spaghetti monster" was not a serious criticism to this effect, it was simply a joke.

Capitalism is not good either, but contextually here, obviously dogmatic and flawed right-wing arguments are seen as funny because of the self evidently ridiculous nature of them. No one is suggesting that these matters are funny in themselves, and I already highlighted the benifits of approaches such as yours, and in fact the necessity.

[boosh logic]

I don&#39;t think that laughing at a stereotypical joke is generically racist or wrong. Laughing at a stereotypical joke doesn&#39;t always mean being offensive, it can be just laughing at the stereotype. If someone laughs at a blonde joke that stereotypes blonde women as morons, it doesn&#39;t neccessarily mean that they hold this stereotype in their head, and that they would carry this idea into real life, e.g. to claim that brunettes are smarter than blondes.

It&#39;s a tricky issue, as what some victims of a joke may find funny, or appreciate the humour, others might take offence to it. It could just be the intention of the joke that makes it become harmful, e.g. if told by a racist to the victim with the intention of causing trouble (much like the Danish cartoons) then this is outright wrong, but if just told openly and not at an individual, then this could be seen as harmless.

But there is obviously no clear boundary as to what is humourous and what isn&#39;t, so it most probably comes down to using common sense and realising the context that it is being told in.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution@Mar 1 2006, 06:40 PM
However I don&#39;t necessarily think humour is always harmful with regards to the discriminators themselves. I think that when someone shows the position of a sexists for example as humourous it can actually show the ridiculousness of a view.

I agree. In fact, I think, this is the effect when stand up comics like Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock talk about discrimination of all sorts---the ridiculousness of it all. But, there might also be a negative side of humor being okay and no-holds-barred: the danger of taking a serious issue as mere subject of public entertainment, and in the process blunts the true nature of harm it causes those affected. A lot of times, as I understand it, harm is gradual, not sudden and not directly and immediately understood.

[Black Dagger]

Um, is Monty Catsin going to get a warning for spamming, i mean, what the fuck is wrong with him?

i think it&#39;s fine to make fun of biggoted viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are actually very oppressive and have terrible implications in people&#39;s lives, and i think it&#39;s fine for people involved in struggle or a non-dominant group to make fun of their own characteristics/ ingroup dynamics sometimes.

I think these sort of situations are the only situations were prejudiced comments can ever be &#39;funny&#39;. The problem is that such contexts really only exist in real life, not on message boards. On a message board it is unlikely that everyone posting and reading the board will know each other, and thus understand each others positions, real-life experiences and so forth, so as to not misinterpret a sexist/etc. &#39;joke&#39;. When something &#39;sexist&#39; is said between two feminists in a sarcastic way, everyone privy to the &#39;joke&#39; has been &#39;cleared&#39; for that discussion - this is why i dislike comedians and other people who express their views to a large unknown audience- who use prejudiced humour, sexist, racist, queerphobic etc.

Because the people who are privy to the &#39;jokes&#39; of comedians, and that could be A LOT of people, are- given the nature of our society, more likely to in fact be sexist, racist etc. then to be people who militantly oppose these prejudices in society. When prejudiced people hear prejudiced humour this legitimises or at least contributes to the legitimisation of not only prejudiced humour, but also the prejudice itself. That is the key difference, context, and on the internet we are anonymous, well practically, so i dont think prejudiced humour should be acceptable here.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Black Dagger I completely 100% agree with your last post. I was never intending to justify anything of this nature here. I feel that there should be preventitive measures taken against members who want to champion ideas that can be understood as reactionary on this message board, but I do think that in real life the issue is less straight foward.

This is something it took me a while to get to. I admit that until I evaluated my own oppoinions some were less than sound (every child has experienced this). I then underwent a complete shift, and became aggressively opposed to anything I thought could in theory compromise these.

I later found out that meaning is contextual, and this became the thing that interested me next in my developement. At the moment I realise that sometimes even contexts aren&#39;t acceptable, and this board would be a case in point.

Whereas before I was more critical of the more millitant approaches, I now champion them (so long as they remain reasoned). I accept that within certain real life circumstances though that other approaches can be more acceptable, and sometimes even effective.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Black Dagger@Mar 3 2006, 01:52 PM
Um, is Monty Catsin going to get a warning for spamming, i mean, what the fuck is wrong with him?

What&#39;s wrong with what?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+Mar 2 2006, 10:41 AM--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ Mar 2 2006, 10:41 AM) Saying "I laugh at the sexism, but not its effects" is as idiotic as saying "I think the rapist is funny, but not the rape." [/b]

I am reminded about my messenger exchanges with Exploited Class long ago. The absolute insanity of social inequality often came up with a humorous slant.

The mockery of reactionary positions is almost a hobby of mine and I like to find humor in the absurdity of reactionary ideology, as the people I talk with can attest to.

The consideration of so much social injustice is a terribly depressing issue to have on your mind so often and as someone who enjoys a good jab the reactionary worldview, I find that humor can be useful in addressing many social issues.

Of course, the atrocities wrought by social predators could never be funny. Thinking about the real-world context of such induced suffering, just makes me sick.

Hegemonicretribution

Why is everyone spamming here? I was asking a serious question with regards to a serious issue, although it may not have appeared this way.

You will have to forgive me but I find the absudity of this spamming circumstance painfully funny. Here we have some of the members most dedicated to addressing these horrid social problems and they come to a great thread like this just to spam... I&#39;m not sure quite why but I find it strangely amusing