Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veti

On reflection, I think you're right. Thank you for that.

But I'd put one proviso on it. It's great that people can say "I don't find that funny", or "I'm offended by that". It becomes more problematic when the word "should" gets introduced: "You shouldn't do that because it's offensive". Because at that point, you're presuming to impose your values on someone else, and that's... well, offensive.

---

On the other hand, "shouldn't" is toothless unless the speaker has actual power to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander

And on the other hand... How about that one Titanic animated movie (The Legend of the Titanic) in which a cartoon octopus prevents anyone from dying?

---

Oh, man. "And if we had enough magic, nothing bad would ever happen!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veti

On reflection, I think you're right. Thank you for that.

But I'd put one proviso on it. It's great that people can say "I don't find that funny", or "I'm offended by that". It becomes more problematic when the word "should" gets introduced: "You shouldn't do that because it's offensive". Because at that point, you're presuming to impose your values on someone else, and that's... well, offensive.

---

You know what; I was about to type out a whole huge lengthy ranting post to try to say what you just did in like three sentences. Thank you for saving me that time and effort.

The problem with censorship, that whole "You can't say that it offends me!" attitude is that it can really infringe upon someone’s right of freedom of speech; that first amendment right we Americans love to exercise so very much. So in a situation where person A makes an offensive joke and person B is offended and says “you can’t say that, it offends me!” Who is really stepping on whose toes? The person offending or the person being offended?

Has anyone ever read the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury? It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of rampant censorship. In this book anyone caught with books, magazines newspapers or any other print media that is not sanctioned by the dystopian government is arrested and the books burned all in the name of public happiness.

If not, then I urge you to go and read that book. It’s really good and strangely prophetic considering today’s society with TV, internet, social media and whatnot.


Edit:
I found this video on Youtube. I think it’s pertinent to the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs

Right. It's a fine line between actually hurting someone and "only" offending them, and that fine line is the line where "freedom" ends.
I think discussing the specific position of that line might be a little too political for this forum.

However, you are right, of course. Once people start saying "you shouldn't have made this joke, because it's too soon", that might be problematic. If they say "I'd prefer you didn't make this joke, because I think it's too soon", that would be awesome. The joker can then decide "do I value this joke over this persons feelings?" and if the answer is "yes" he can make the joke (and then people are free to decide what that says about the joker's personality).


I think that is what it boils down too - "too soon" is a spectrum. There will be a large percentage of people offended right after a tragedy happened, and a very small percentage offended after, say, a thousand year, in a steady decline (not sure if that's an exponantial or linear decline).
That makes it not a question of "when is it too soon?" but "what percentage of people is small enough to make the joke even though they feel it's too soon?"

That sounds pretty harsh, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheThan

The problem with censorship, that whole "You can't say that it offends me!" attitude is that it can really infringe upon someone’s right of freedom of speech; that first amendment right we Americans love to exercise so very much. So in a situation where person A makes an offensive joke and person B is offended and says “you can’t say that, it offends me!” Who is really stepping on whose toes? The person offending or the person being offended?

---

The first amendment is freedom from the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. Private citizens can attempt to restrict your speech as much as they want to. If they have the power to do so, they can, such as a private establishment owner kicking you out or banning you from saying certain things. There is no fundamental right to be able to say whatever the hell you want and have it protected. On the flip side there is also no fundamental right you have to not hear things you find offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chen

The first amendment is freedom from the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. Private citizens can attempt to restrict your speech as much as they want to. If they have the power to do so, they can, such as a private establishment owner kicking you out or banning you from saying certain things. There is no fundamental right to be able to say whatever the hell you want and have it protected. On the flip side there is also no fundamental right you have to not hear things you find offensive.

---

Once again go read Fahrenheit 451. Because that’s exactly the scenario. People made enough noise over things they found offensive that the government started to step in and strip away people’s freedom to say what they want to (freedom of speech); or their freedom to expose themselves to things they want to expose themselves to (like the written arts in this case). It took decades to do it but it worked and the people in that book ended up living in a police state where they were only allowed to experience state authorized media; any unauthorized media (all books) are taken and burned. any speech that was deemed inappropriate or subversive landed you in trouble. Heck in that book there’s a war going on and nobody seems to know a darn thing about it or even care enough to try to find out.

Go read that book; the parallels to today’s society and some of the issues we face are staggering.

I'd probably go by the Mel Brooks rule. The Producers came out in 1967. In the hands of a master comedian near the top of his game, 20 years or so is about enough time for even the most horrific tragedies. If you are not a master comedian near the top of your game, consider waiting a bit longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheThan

Once again go read Fahrenheit 451. Because that’s exactly the scenario. People made enough noise over things they found offensive that the government started to step in and strip away people’s freedom to say what they want to (freedom of speech); or their freedom to expose themselves to things they want to expose themselves to (like the written arts in this case). It took decades to do it but it worked and the people in that book ended up living in a police state where they were only allowed to experience state authorized media; any unauthorized media (all books) are taken and burned. any speech that was deemed inappropriate or subversive landed you in trouble. Heck in that book there’s a war going on and nobody seems to know a darn thing about it or even care enough to try to find out.

Go read that book; the parallels to today’s society and some of the issues we face are staggering.

---

And when the government starts restricting offensive jokes you can complain about it. There are plenty of private spaces where things are censored. Hell this forum censors anything religious or political. Or you know blatantly racist or sexist. Or any number of other things. People have agreed to that censorship.

I don't think there's any argument for preventing people from telling offensive jokes or even generally being offensive. But in the same vein, people are free to condemn that same telling of offensive jokes. Even from a government point of view there are restrictions on free speech (fire in a crowded theatre, inciting violence or other illegal acts etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheThan

Edit:
I found this video on Youtube. I think it’s pertinent to the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs

---

I find it enlightening, tnx for the link.
It says many things i feel, but with so much clarity in exposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killer Angel

I find it enlightening, tnx for the link.
It says many things i feel, but with so much clarity in exposition.

---

Thank you, I’m glad I could help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chen

And when the government starts restricting offensive jokes you can complain about it. There are plenty of private spaces where things are censored. Hell this forum censors anything religious or political. Or you know blatantly racist or sexist. Or any number of other things. People have agreed to that censorship.

I don't think there's any argument for preventing people from telling offensive jokes or even generally being offensive. But in the same vein, people are free to condemn that same telling of offensive jokes. Even from a government point of view there are restrictions on free speech (fire in a crowded theatre, inciting violence or other illegal acts etc).

---

By then it could be too late. There’s a great poem by noted anti-Nazi Theologian Martin Niemöller, it goes something like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by First they came

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

---

This speaks of the dangers of doing nothing when you see something wrong. If we allow authorities to dictate to us what we can say, where we can say it and to whom we say it to; then we run the risk of losing everything we hold dear. The reason why the government doesn’t want us to yell fire in a crowded room or incite a riot is because that can cause physical harm to other people and property not because it’ll hurt someone’s precious feelings. This forum has their reasons for banning certain topics; I have agreed to their terms when I joined these forums many years ago. If I did not agree to their terms I would not have joined. I have willingly submitted myself to the rules they set forth (and have occasionally crossed the line when I felt strongly about something).

But that’s the difference, I’ve chosen to submit and censor myself (and found myself holding back more than once); I am not being forced to be silent by a committee or organization or someone who wishes to silence anything they don’t agree with. Such is the case of someone saying “you can’t say that it’s offensive”.

Now I don’t feel that comedy has to be offensive or focus on recent tragedies to be funny. However I don’t think that comedy must be perfectly clean either. Comedians should be able to choose to sensor themselves based on their style of comedy, and I’ll choose for myself who I find funny and who I don’t. just as I view that Lego Titanic as an amazing work of art showcasing a tragedy that happened over a hundred years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chen

And when the government starts restricting offensive jokes you can complain about it. There are plenty of private spaces where things are censored. Hell this forum censors anything religious or political. Or you know blatantly racist or sexist. Or any number of other things. People have agreed to that censorship.

I don't think there's any argument for preventing people from telling offensive jokes or even generally being offensive. But in the same vein, people are free to condemn that same telling of offensive jokes. Even from a government point of view there are restrictions on free speech (fire in a crowded theatre, inciting violence or other illegal acts etc).

---

No, I think I'll complain about it when I damn well feel there's something worth complaining about, regardless of whether it's the government trying to restrict my rights or some other party. The end result is the same, regardless of who is doing the censoring.

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

(Note that I mean "you" in a very general sense above and am not referring to any person in particular.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSummoner

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

---

I actually expect people to go easy on you when you are offended. If someone makes a joke that hurts me, I expect them to at least feel sorry for it. Not to remove the joke, or never make it again, but at least say "Sorry if this hurts you".
Take feelings into account. Not because you should, not because of any law, not because your freedom is restricted, but, maybe, because it's a nice thing to do? You are not forced to be nice, but it's still nice to do.

But maybe I'm naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murk

I actually expect people to go easy on you when you are offended. If someone makes a joke that hurts me, I expect them to at least feel sorry for it. Not to remove the joke, or never make it again, but at least say "Sorry if this hurts you".
Take feelings into account. Not because you should, not because of any law, not because your freedom is restricted, but, maybe, because it's a nice thing to do? You are not forced to be nice, but it's still nice to do.

But maybe I'm naive.

---

I think that is ENTIRELY dependant on what people are claiming offense on.

Because, for example, I am not going to be in the least sorry if the offended party is, for example, some zealot or bigot or doing something wrong and is offended they've been called on it (e.g. for unacceptable business practises), or using being offended as a shield to try and make people to go easy on them because they have done something worthy of critism (e.g. the sort of blow-up you see from people on Steam Greenlight and the like when they attempt to peddle (for actual money) crap to consumers and are rightly called on it) etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheThan

Thank you, I’m glad I could help.

---

:smallsmile:
There's a whole world of difference, between "your freedom ends where my rights begin" and "your freedom ends where my sensibility begins".

I recall hearing a joke the day of the Challenger Disaster: Why do the soda machines at NASA stock Sprite?

It was too soon for me. But maybe it's still too soon for me today, so perhaps "too soon" is not the issue there.

I recall a radio DJ calling Air Florida and asking about tickets to the 14th street bridge, right after a plane crashed into it. That was too soon for me. I don't think it's funny now, either, so maybe too soon is still the wrong way to look at it.

But my point is, in both cases, I felt a strong outrage at the joke that, at the time, seemed to have a "too soon" component, as if it might have been sort of funny later but not right then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSummoner

No, I think I'll complain about it when I damn well feel there's something worth complaining about, regardless of whether it's the government trying to restrict my rights or some other party. The end result is the same, regardless of who is doing the censoring.

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

(Note that I mean "you" in a very general sense above and am not referring to any person in particular.)

---

So, you're saying that anyone has the right to insult anyone else with no consequences, and the target is obliged to just suck it up?

I'm not sure if that viewpoint is going to work out so great in reality. Sure, person A can follow person B around, making insulting and mocking comments about person B's 4-year-old daughter, say, but if person B is a 6'7" ex-spetznaz, then the odds are fairly high that person A is going to end up chewing on a knuckle sandwich PDQ. Even if theoretically the "world is offensive" and the tattooed muscle-bound 300-lb hulk should just "suck it up."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murk

I actually expect people to go easy on you when you are offended. If someone makes a joke that hurts me, I expect them to at least feel sorry for it. Not to remove the joke, or never make it again, but at least say "Sorry if this hurts you".
Take feelings into account. Not because you should, not because of any law, not because your freedom is restricted, but, maybe, because it's a nice thing to do? You are not forced to be nice, but it's still nice to do.

But maybe I'm naive.

---

Eh, it depends. A lot.

If it's a personal tragedy that you've suffered and you don't want to talk about it? Then I won't talk about it to you, and I will feel bad that you suffered said tragedy. However I maintain the right to talk about it to anybody else, and yes, even do things like put up posters, protest, argue, and even joke about you.

Basically I won't inflict the subject matter on you, so long as you are willing to extend the courtesy of actually trying to avoid, and not demand that I censor myself so you don't have to feel bad.

This goes triple for universities and the like because they should be challenging you and moving you out of your comfort zone with new ideas and opinions.


@^ There is a line between a casual insult and harassment. And there is another line between expressing your opinion and an insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSummoner

No, I think I'll complain about it when I damn well feel there's something worth complaining about, regardless of whether it's the government trying to restrict my rights or some other party. The end result is the same, regardless of who is doing the censoring.

The original topic was censorship in relation to people being offended, so I'll stick purely to that. You're offended? Good for you, why should I care? You do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended does not give you any special rights. Being offended does not make your viewpoint any more valid than anyone else's.

The world is offensive. Art is often offensive. Life is offensive. Each and every one of us has to share the world with 7 billion other people. Some of them are going to hate your guts and some of them you'll hate right back. Some of them are going to offend you and some are going to be offended by you. There's nothing anyone can do but deal with it.

(Note that I mean "you" in a very general sense above and am not referring to any person in particular.)

---

I think we're actually on the same page here. I'm not saying you have any obligation to not offend people. I am seeing you need to accept the consequences of offending people with your so called free speech. If society stigmatizes you because you are offensive, that is the cost you have for that speech. I am not saying we need to ban it or the government needs to ban it or anything. When dealing with private citizens you have the right to say practically whatever you want. And the person you're saying it to has every right to criticize you back or to ignore you or to tell people to shun you or whatever.

https://xkcd.com/1357/ is a bit more concise in making the same point I'm trying to make.

I think there is a difference between "do I like this?" and "should this be allowed?". It's a fairly crucial difference that I unfortunately see a lot of people on the Internet and on campuses ignoring, I believe because of a wildly optimistic belief that they are on the right side of history and will therefore never be subjected to the same kind of methods they use.

That's why I think that offence is utterly irrelevant. There are a ton of things that make my blood boil with rage but I still think they should be allowed because as long as you're not causing harm you should be allowed to do it (and I mean real harm here, none of that "hearing about a subject gets me down therefore I have self-diagnosed PTSD and should be handled with kid gloves and provided a nice pastel colouring room to relax" crap). You might get protested, insulted and scorned but you shouldn't be stopped IMO because one day it might be me or people who think like me that are not in favour and if we create an environment where dissent from societal norms is banned either officially or effectively then we'll be screwed.

Now that's the argument for legal free speech, which is fairly uncontroversial in western democracies (hate speech laws aside, but that's a grey area I really really don't want to get into). The counter-argument for the private nature of online spaces is I believe flawed because Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media platforms are in effect public spaces even though they are owned by private companies. They're the new town hall/public broadcast/town squares and at some point they are going to have to be treated as such.

I don't think time has much to do with it. It's more about the quality and circumstances in which something is made light of.
think about the Charlie Chaplin masterpiece "the great dictator", a parody of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
watching it now for the first time may well be a completely hilarious experience, detached from the historical relevance and personal connections one may have with WW2 or its aftermaths.
The movie however came out in 1040, when Hitler was still in power and was not yet universally reviled or opposed. In fact the US still had to join the war and I am fairly certain that there were quite a bit of people who probably took offence at this lampooning of a head of state who at the time was still enjoying a degree of support in most countries he had yet to invade.
Was it "too soon" or was it a bit of perfectly timed satire that should have awoken a few consciences more than it did??
I bet that WW2 veterans and survivors reacted rather differently, in the following decades, at their first viewing of the movie.. some probably disliked being reminded of those dark times, whilst others may have been helped coping with the memories by seeing things from a farcical angle. Likewise, my grandmother, who in the 80's didn't mind watching Chuck Norris movies as they came out and could sit through a fair bit of movie violence, would immediately turn over the TV to something else if there was a japanese officer shouting something on screen, albeit in a peaceful setting. She did spend most of the war in a japanese prison camp, so that would explain it.. My grandfather on the other hand, who had his own share of difficulties in Europe, was never particularly affected by any depiction of violence.
Any kind of racist joke at a KKK rally is probably not ok (one could debate the appropriateness of KKK rallies at large, but that's a topic for another forum).
A derogatory comment at a funeral is probably also not quite right (then again, quality, as I said, does make exceptions).
Most will agree that the WBC picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers deserve a good punch in the face.. but I reckon that if they argued their positions more eloquently and in a more civilised and less controversial manner, they would receive a lot more support than the usual public outrage seems to indicate.
In other words, a piss-take, a joke a comment or a different opinion is not made inappropriate by timing but by content and quality.
Of course this means that there cannot be a single rule to determine when or how to make light of something and when it is not appropriate to do so. If quality (an entirely subjective notion) and the circumstances (too many and too differring to frame them in a single rule of thumb) are what matters, we will just have to resign ourselves to the fact that everything is passible to being made fun of or not being taken seriously, and that conversely, not one attempt at doing so will find everybody in agreement. There will always be someone who will take offense, whether they are personally affected or not.

Tl;Dr, the internet sucks at keeping out bumhurt people. bumhurt people are everywhere. we will all be bumhurt at one time or the other in life... and now we have a tool to share our bruises with whoever wants to listen to us.

It may be more of a hit or miss. Someone tries to reference the tragedy, but the timing of it and what they're doing matters. "The Walk" made its debut 14 years after 9/11. What fascinated me about it in all the publicity is that no mention of 9/11 was made. People discussed the movie for its own sake, concentrating only the subject matter and ignored the elephant in the room. I see that as a sense of healing.

Personal opinion bias, that sense of healing is a result, not something the movie provided. It is often said the key to healing in laughter. To me, the healing started in 2009 with Jeff Dunham, the now famous ventriloquist. Before 2009 he was known on the comedy circuit, well received, but not a "star". In 2009 he took a risk and debuted Achmed The Dead Terrorist. He recorded his performance for DVD sales, and his Achmed skit became a viral hit on the internet. He gave "permission" for Americans to laugh about the subject matter. A taboo was broken, and the healing began. "The Walk" could be made 5 years later and be treated as any other movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

In 2009 he took a risk and debuted Achmed The Dead Terrorist.

---

Which was also a gigantic pile of racist, jingoist, religionist pile of condescending bull**** and %110 objectionable. Why'd Americans' "healing" be more valuable than the outrage that guy would cause among Muslims?

So, where's the line? Answer: Nowhere. There's no line.

Having performed in the Middle East and Malaysia with Achmed, your point is moot.

I do not believe that many - perhaps most - Muslims find terrorists to be any less worthy of derision that non-Muslims; certainly in the UK at any rate. (Though I think we should be careful about further discourse in this matter due to forum restrictions.)

Rule one of comedy is know your audience.

All I can say is the Titanic thing didn't offend me, it was long enough ago that it shouldn't be "fresh." I personally wouldn't have made such a sculpture even if I could, but neither am I castigating the guy for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

Having performed in the Middle East and Malaysia with Achmed, your point is moot.

---

That's not how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Rule one of comedy is know your audience.

---

That's how it works. The sword cuts both ways. You can be as offensive and insulting to people as you want, you'll be successful if you find an audience that approves of it (there'll always be an audience for everything). As free as Dunham is in being a giant ****head for comedy, anyone is just as free to object to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pronounceable

That's not how it works.

That's how it works. The sword cuts both ways. You can be as offensive and insulting to people as you want, you'll be successful if you find an audience that approves of it (there'll always be an audience for everything). As free as Dunham is in being a giant ****head for comedy, anyone is just as free to object to it.

---

The problem is not that people object to things other say or do (they are free to do so), the problem is that some people want to to force silence or censorship upon others because they object to what others are saying or doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheThan

The problem is not that people object to things other say or do (they are free to do so), the problem is that some people want to to force silence or censorship upon others because they object to what others are saying or doing.

---

No one is forcing anything though. They're saying "I and {number of people that share my views} find this joke distasteful" followed by the platform holder saying "I think this is a significant enough backlash that I would not like my platform to be involved." The comedian or messenger in question is then perfectly free to find their own means of continuing to broadcast that message via private enterprise.

Or to put it more succinctly: https://xkcd.com/1357/ (mild language warning.)

A lot of it is more about how than when. A transgressive joke can still be funny.

Had a friend get hit by a train on sunday. Cracked bones and everything. Instead of a get well card, she got sent a "Thomas the tank engine". Should be getting there today.

How much people like this sorta humor varies a lot. If you and your friends enjoy it, cheers. I certainly do. But it's best to be aware that tastes differ, and that what might be funny between friends might not be so amusing at a funeral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

No one is forcing anything though. They're saying "I and {number of people that share my views} find this joke distasteful" followed by the platform holder saying "I think this is a significant enough backlash that I would not like my platform to be involved." The comedian or messenger in question is then perfectly free to find their own means of continuing to broadcast that message via private enterprise.

Or to put it more succinctly: https://xkcd.com/1357/ (mild language warning.)

---

The question I immediately thought of is this:
“Is that person being pressured to remove his joke/message etc?”
Peer pressure, social engineering, these things exist and has been used to manipulate people to doing things they don’t want to do since the very beginning. Heck I’ve known teenagers that were master manipulators; back when I was a teen (pre-social media btw). What’s the difference between forcing someone to do something via peer pressure/social engineering and media pressure vs forcing someone to do something via laws or political pressure or physical pressure?

Not much if you ask me. The net result is the same, silencing someone because he is disliked.

Personally I just don’t listen to comedians that I don’t like. Really it’s that simple. Comedian “X” says things I don’t like, I don’t listen to him. I don’t have to get all butt hurt and go online and piss and moan on social media, make mean youtube comments (are there any other kind?), en alt.