I thought everything had to be remade. Aren’t Adam Sandler and Kevin Hart signed for this?
I may have mentioned his before, but one of the most important books that I’ve ever read with regard to structuring my world view is a book about the ethics of eating animals.
Why is that relevant here? Because one of, possibly the main thesis of that book is that: we think it’s okay to eat some animals but not others. But this doesn’t break down over any meaningful, logically consistent divisions. There is no truly logically consistent framework that adequately explains how we feel about eating animals. No matter what rubric you come up with, you’re going to be a hypocrite.
But that’s ok. Hypocrisy is ok. Everybody is a hypocrite. It isn’t inherently bad, because people compartmentalize and parse things all the time, every day. People say that hypocrisy is bad, because it often is accompanied by bad things, but usually the hypocrisy itself isn’t the problem.
Because very few things are black and white enough to be wholly good or wholly evil. The real world concept of hypocrisy is a by-product of logic the way that asking “what color is freedom?” is an artifact of language. They don’t describe anything meaningful in the real world. People aren’t, and cannot be, perfect logical behavior machines.
Seeing nuance in things isn’t a moral failing. Holding contradictory beliefs about things at the same time isn’t either.
(edit: I’m sure that I’ll be raked over the coals for slippery-sloping, or de-railed into a hundred conversations about individual instances of hypocrisy, or whatever.)
I liked what you wrote. I agree with what you wrote. But that is probably a bad sign for you. :)
I like how Roseanne was fine because she’s a comedian, but for Jeong it’s terrible because reasons.
Also how he got the thing with Roseanne like 1000% wrong. Also we’re all horrific racists for defending someone who was attacked by racists.
This has been productive.
Rather than asking for us to forgive you, maybe you shouldn’t call us trash in the first place?
-Tom, who isn’t defending Sarah Jeong because he doesn’t want to wade into this mess, but if he did, it would be on the side of people comparing Sarah Jeong and Blazing Saddles #yepijustwentthere
It’d be like blazing saddles, if blazing saddles was just the one line of the townsman screaming “the sheriff is a n*gger!”
Again, blazing saddles didn’t have good people act racist to parody racists.
It has racist characters, who are the idiots and antagonists of the film, to highlight their idiocy. It overtly makes fun of them. It doesn’t just mirror their behavior.
You really should consider the possibility that if other people think it is an apt comparison, it might be an apt comparison.
I considered it. I came to the conclusion that you are mistaken, and then i explained why.
One was a brilliant comedy by a group of comedians at the peak of their creativity. One is some schmuck on Twitter. Not really a comparison.
Yes, but the explanation is unconvincing. There’s more than one way to mock racism.
But don’t you see? They both involve racism. Thus, they are the same.
Jeong concern trolling is mainly that. Fake concern. Yeah at face value its not going to fly with joe public and well she will pay the price for saying what can be percieved as the wrong thing in her real name, but most of the noise is coming from alt right and anti-SJWs, and they know full well she was trolling.
/pol/ had about 100ish threads over 3 days on how to whip up some outrage so I knew who I was going to stand with. Jeong fucked up, but I’m not going to stand with those vermin in the crowd shouting at her now.
I’m pretty sure I’m trash though. I’m quite convinced that Jeong wasn’t racist unless you use a definition of racism that serves the interests of racists. I think some adhere to the incorrect and over-simplified definition, as I’ve said before, because they think we need a definition that everyone can easily understand, while others adhere to it because it preserves the full range of their entitlement to be aggrieved.
You don’t need that complex definition unless you think that it’s really important that you be able to say things that appear racist under the simple definition.
I don’t think you actually need to do those things. I don’t think there’s any value in those actions that merits redefining terms like racism.
Like, maybe just don’t say shit about people based on their race. Send like a pretty simple rule that doesn’t require jumping through any hoops.
Wait, isn’t there a YouTube video about who and what you can make fun of?
Anyway, as a white person, I can speak for all white people and say, it’s all cool!
But. Can someone who has been attacked by racists perhaps return in kind? Just due to anger? And then maybe, having made a bad mistake, walk it back? Does that make them a racist? Or maybe just a person who made a stupid mistake?
Sounds reasonable. As long as you’re a member of the dominant racial grouping, where the default societal assumption is white.
Sort of like over in the Oscar thread, where any movie that doesn’t fall in line with flattering the preconception of straight white males is labeled “political”.
I feel like this is a simplistic view of things. It is a fair way of looking at things in a lot of ways, but context should be taken into consideration, in my opinion. Otherwise you end up with people like Cernovich destroying everyone on the internet forever.
My response to Guap got flagged. I wonder if these comments also got flagged? I’m not asking for them to be flagged, and I wouldn’t flag them myself. Just…curious.