Jump to content

Equal Opportunity Offenders: Too "Problematic" in a Post-Colonial Context?


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

After the Charlie Hebdo thingie, some opinionators made a point of saying "I'm against murder. It's terrible. A bad bad thing! BUT I just can't stand with those cartoonists because they made offensive caricatures; they punched down!"

 

This revived some of the old criticism of South Park-style "go after everybody who is hypocritical or stupid" satire. The idea that a socially responsible satirist only punches up (i.e. to individuals and institutions that are in positions of power), and that being an "equal opportunity offender" is contemptible because it is "incoherent," potentially offensive and hurtful to protected institutions/classes of people, and "props up the (current, bad) power structure."

 

I find it fascinating that this is a thing, and that "socially responsible" satirists/comedians are now (supposedly? really?) self-censoring their potential down-punches. It totally reminds me of the 'Nam Flashback "socialist pedagogy" exchange between the two Viet Cong chipmunks (uh, beavers?) from Meet the Feebles, which I won't link to, 'cause they could be viewed as racist caricatures:

"I still say that private enterprise is acceptable at a village level, provided it is strictly controlled by the party."

"We must not let petty bourgeois aspirations taint socialist pedagogy."

 

I love the word "problematic" btw. I don't remember when it became such a tell, but it so is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When religion takes itself so seriously they'd declare jihad on a dude who publishes cartoons I see satire in the making. I mean is it more terrible that these guys published knowing they'd offend some Muslim dude (who's marginalized by his religion already and is a radical) to the point they'd risk their lives or is it more terrible that they attack a western country in a suicide mission like the one that took place a few weeks ago to take the life of the guy who published a cartoon? I like people that push art and thought. But really this goes back to the same argument as the one that was had a few years ago about the guy who put a crucifix in a bell jar and pissed in it. Is it art or is it offensive? And what happens when the reaction is so strong that disaster happens?

 

Jesus. I am not sure of what point I am trying to make but I don't mind the joke. I can live with it even if it is so offensive it is not even funny. It's what Western Civilization is meant for. Expression and the rights of others to express opinions. Maybe jihadists should find themselves wandering in the desert hoping for manna from heaven instead of living with indoor plumbing and air conditioning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This revived some of the old criticism of South Park-style "go after everybody who is hypocritical or stupid" satire. The idea that a socially responsible satirist only punches up (i.e. to individuals and institutions that are in positions of power), and that being an "equal opportunity offender" is contemptible because it is "incoherent," potentially offensive and hurtful to protected institutions/classes of people, and "props up the (current, bad) power structure."

Yeah. Reminds me a lot of the "minorities can't be racist" line so popular with the academic social justice set. Judging actions based on where their perpetrators fall on some ideological abacus of social power and privilege ... gee, where have we seen this before? Sure worked out well, didn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiculturalists and liberals are totalitarian when it comes to speech issues, news at 11. Yawn.

For reals, yo.

 

I think the line for equal opportunity offender is to to truly be equal in how you offend. If you want to pick on Muslims, pick on Muslims. But you better pick on others, too. If Charlie Hebdo is guilty of anything, IMO, it's consistently beating up on the same group. That starts to cross the line into racism, sexism, and other prejudice-isms.

 

As for punching up vs punching down, punching down makes you a bully. Punching up just makes you annoying. Social justice crusaders just think that punching up makes you a hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiculturalists and liberals are totalitarian when it comes to speech issues, news at 11. Yawn.

Whatevs. Yeah, the tiny, blackened totalitarian hearts of the evolved, tolerant ones is certainly old news, but I find it pretty interesting in this context. Several of my favorite comedians and satirists -- even if highly opinionated/partisan -- at least gave the appearance of not giving a damn about who they offend, so long as it is humorous and/or makes a point. To me, it's a big part of their appeal. That there are people out there consciously limiting their, uh, targets in order to be "socially responsible" just tickles my brain area. Or at least it would if my brain could feel the tickles. Knowing this creates many questions:

  • Is this why the social justice crowd appears so, well, humorless?
  • Assuming a cadre of "socially responsible" comedians/satirists actually exist, do we never hear about them because they are so self-limiting in the humor they allow themselves to use?
  • How does this work as a defense mechanism? I.e. when they are inevitably unsuccessful, do they blame their moral high ground and undeserving (un-evolved) audiences for their lack of success?

Would you like to know more? I know I would!

 

As for punching up vs punching down, punching down makes you a bully. Punching up just makes you annoying.

I don't like this, because it nudges the reader to a conclusion of "don't punch."

 

There are a lot of people who need to be punched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I disagree with this:

I think the line for equal opportunity offender is to to truly be equal in how you offend.

I think anybody who consciously tries to equally offend everybody is either an insult comic (a different breed of cat than satire/topical comedy) or being dishonest. Everybody has biases; everybody has values and a personal philosophy even if they are not aware of it.

Going back to the South Park "punch everywhere" example: while they make fun of anybody who annoys them -- police officers, priests, hippies, government officials, pedophiles, school teachers, handicapped people, political extremists left and right, etc. -- if you watch enough episodes, it also becomes clear that there is a personal brand of libertarianism informing much of their humor, and Stone's "I hate conservatives, but I really ****ing hate liberals" attitude really shines through at times.

So, when asked if they roast everybody equally, the answer (I am paraphrasing, but I think this is accurate) is: "No, we roast everybody who needs it." or something along those lines.

It's the same to an extent with openly partisan entertainers like Bill Maher -- he clearly has a lot of progressive/left-wing viewpoints, but he also has no problem going after members of "his own tribe" who annoy or disappoint him. An effective, if well-worn example of this was him being one of the first comedians (left or right) to start making fun of Obama. So, while he has his favorite targets and undoubtedly made 100 times more Sarah Palin jokes in 2008-09, he isn't afraid to start punching (pissing, some might say) inside his own tent.

I could be totally wrong in how I've understood the meaning of "equal opportunity offender," but I've always considered it to be somebody who puts few (or no) limits on those they satirize when they feel it is funny/warranted, not somebody who is a dick to everybody just because. That's Don Rickles' job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with most of what you said, but you used a lot more words so you have more nuances. I write a lot less paragraphs lately.

 

The point I wanted to make was Charlie Hebdo picked on Muslims A LOT. They were antagonistic and they knew it. Controversy sells. (And, honestly, so does Islamaphobia, in this US and Europe.)

 

What I said about punching up vs punching down more applies to the point of view of the one being punched, and some third-party observers. When you punch up, you're an annoying ant that probably needs squished. When you punch down, you're a big mean ol bully picking on the unfortunate. Who decides who is up and who is down? Current attitudes at the time, and lately that is the liberal camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.