The way Tweeden described the kiss sounded pretty cringe worthy, but the outrage over Franken 'groping' her breasts over the flak vest is just dumb. That's at worst a joke in bad taste. That's not sexual assault. It's refreshing to see O'Neill decided not to backpedal and acknowledged that there is a difference between 'this guy fucked up' and 'needs to be set on fire and clubbed to death'. I swear, the way the narrative goes at times you would almost think people are equating rape to a situation where a woman felt uncomfortable. What exactly does "unwanted sexual attention" even mean? Hopefully once the witch hunt dies down the changes will be for the better. Maybe women will be encouraged to report crimes when they happen instead of 3 decades later...
No, worst it might have been sexually humiliating for her, regardless of whether it was intended as a joke.
I'm not saying it wasn't inappropriate, I'm saying the hyperbole describing the situation is severely confusing what happened. I can see how my post might have come across that way, but I'm not meaning to defend Franken as if his indiscretions are a non-issue. That said, I think it's telling that Tweeden went out of her way to say she isn't calling for him to step down.
Do you feel the same way about Michael Richards? I don't even care that much about the Tosh thing -- I actually understand the spirit in which it was intended, even though I think the execution was terrible and caused the offensiveness -- but the idea that comedians can "say anything" to a heckler seems wrong to me. If you think that Michael Richards was over the line, I think it should be easy to see how somebody else could think Tosh was. Franken should either resign or make it clear that he won't be seeking reelection. Bill O'Neill is a ridiculous and cringe-worthy human being but there's nothing inherently offensive about absolutely slaying puss in a hayloft.
Richards was some sort of weird tantrum anomaly. Over the line because I don’t know WHAT the fuck that boiled-over ragefest was. And he’s one of the worst stand-up acts ever. ...but there’s also such thing as a funny rape joke, and If it hits too hard to home it doesn’t take a lot of effort to NOT listen to it. And just as people shouldn’t get to argue science with the scientist, people don’t get to tell comedians what’s funny and interrupt performances. And to quote Patrice: “You don’t find it funny? Leave, faggot. And fuck your mother on the way out the door.” ...and everyone else laughed.
Patrice O'Neal was incredibly overrated, this is my take. Anyway, my point is that clearly there's a line when it comes to responding to a heckler. Also, it's perfectly reasonable to call out comedians who suck, or that are doing a bad job.
I'm not sure there is a line, or at least not one be all end all line. It's different for everyone and as such there should be some leeway for comedians who go to the furthest extreme in assuming that their audience is made up of adults who can take a joke. Also, if it's perfectly reasonable to call out comedians who suck, it's also perfectly reasonable to call out audience members who suck.
You can call out comedians who are doing a bad job maybe on social media or tell them to their face if they do a meet and greet after. But to heckle and ruin a show just sucks, especially if the audience is generally having a good time. If the comedian is bombing, let them bomb. Not getting any laughs is more damaging to a comedian’s psyche than an asshole audience member yelling drunken shit from their seats.
Oh, I agree that heckling is stupid, I more meant writing blog posts afterwards. Tosh tells a joke, that's his right. Somebody who was at his show says "hey Tosh sucks and his jokes are lazy," that's their right. Comedians tend to whine way too much about political correctness, but interrupting everybody else in the middle of the show is basically the very worst way to go about proving your point. Yeah, I just think Tosh did it in a lazy way that I can easily see why somebody would have been offended at. For comparison's sake, Jimmy Carr is very effective at handling hecklers, in no small part because he just lets them talk and they're completely unprepared for it. Also he has a microphone.
I dont think I've seen someone dismantle another human being the way Jimmy Carr does. The guy puts on a clinic for dealing with hecklers. As for Tosh, yeah it was just lazy and a bit mean-spirited. Michael Richards was completely unhinged.
Most comedians who say no joke is out of bounds believes that because they don't see themselves agreeing with that point of view, they're doing it strictly for comedy or shock value... it's like an artistic performance that is trying to elicit a response. I agree with them. They are more than welcome to say anything they want, as long as it's legal. The way people should "censor" them is by not buying their shit, or attending their shows. Period. Richards was a prime example... he had every right to say what he wanted, but he's now paid the price for that. I think the big difference with Richards was that when you saw what he did on stage, it was a glimpse into who he really was, and people saw that... it wasn't just a facade, and it was distasteful. It is not, nor should it ever be, illegal to offend someone. That, in and of itself, is offensive to me.
Of course, and in the US at least, it isnt. You can say (nearly) anything you want, racist or not, and you wont go to jail. I hate the trend of people's lives being ruined over the things they say, but in his case, it was well warranted.
I say that because it seems more and more people in the US are losing sight of that, and are demanding "safe spaces", etc. "You can say what you like, as long as I agree with it and don't find it offensive, and then it's wrong."
I actually think the safe space thing is starting to dampen and was never quite as prevalent as it was made out to be. Sure its still going strong in academia, but thats a poor representation of American society. Larger companies that operated in that realm (i.e. Google, etc.) are slowly pulling back on it. If some moronic 19 year old wants to have their opinions shielded, they will be awarded a dose of reality when they hit the real world anyway.
By and large the idea of safe spaces is completely misunderstood by the people who denigrate them. Are there dumb college kids? Yes, almost all of them, so they're obviously going to have bad opinions. But the idea of safe spaces qua safe spaces is a worthwhile one. The idea of safe spaces, particularly in their conception, has nothing to do with people not being allowed to say offensive things on stage. It's more the idea that people -- particularly minorities -- do better when they have spaces where they can discuss issues that pertain to them without harassment. That's it! As a matter of fact, we do something similar on this board. There are rules of engagement here, and if you don't like it, you're banned. If you're a young gay kid on a college campus, I think it's overall a positive thing to have a place where you can hang out and discuss your issues, without having to give equal time to people that think you're going to hell. Or if you're a young Muslim kid, to have a place where you can talk without having to argue with somebody that thinks you want to institute sharia law just because you don't eat pork. Shows like South Park really do a disservice to what is at its core a very reasonable idea.
All above examples are ones I think few reasonable people would (or should) have a problem with and serve a meaningful purpose. The context of what Nett and I were going on about was the bastardized version whereby dissenting opinion is silenced or prevented in a single-thought forum. Variations of which happened at Berkeley, Evergreen, Yale, etc. And its not just a left wing phenomenon. For anyone interested, the Bret Weinstein episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast really dives into how these events started and then escalated.
I was under the impression that they started and escalated by handing bullhorns to the special ed kids. Spoiler
Well... no kidding. I have never heard anyone even remotely criticizing what safe spaces started out as... I'm criticizing what they've been allowed to become. When college students are allowed to dictate their syllabus so that they can eliminate any ideas that may offend or disagree with them, that is both sad and laughable, and doing nobody any service. The fact that university administrations are giving in to it is insane, and needs to stop. We need people of character to grow a backbone and push back on the insanity, or we're fucked. As much as I don't like HuffPo, this article is pretty interesting: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-intolerant_us_58d957a6e4b02a2eaab66ccf Specifically this interview... everyone should watch it, and he articulates my stance better than I can:
Richard's situation is in part due to the taboo of heckling someone on stage. He is a comedian that doesn't have it in there act to deal with people in the crowd to begin with, little or no crowd work etc. He didn't have some purpose behind what he said, it wasnt some bit, he just lost it and reacted like an idiot. I really don't think "comedians should have a wide latitude" applies here. Drugs were probably involved and his career, if he was trying to do anything with it anyway, went nowhere. But a lot of comic just have an act and crowd interference gets in the way of the flow of their jokes. I saw some working comedian once and I forgot to turn my phone on silent. It went off and and he made some comment and shot daggers at me but it was right at the punchline of a joke and it staggered him for about 10 seconds. I felt like fucking shit.