Topic: CLICK HERE IF YOU ARE A HIPSTER OLDBIE (Read 37837 times)

  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
Yeah, I had a feeling this is kinda what you were trying to say all along, but kinda got caught up in this stupid rapid-fire debate to say it.
no he got too caught up in being a fucking horrible dumbass whose sole purpose of returning to this forum appears to have been to get everybody riled up with his bigoted pseudo-profundity under the guise of nostalgia. there was no debate. there was just an endless string of attempts to prolong this ad nauseam at the expense of everybody who genuinely cares about this type of thing.
and you know what? I'm not going to do this anymore. I'm just not. Sheppard is just not using this forum as a platform to facetiously push people into a confrontation with their real-life status as second-class human being. this is a decision on content I'm forced to make here. remember fuckcrypt? yeah, cool people like her are going to end up avoiding this place if I keep around people who just L O V E complaining about that pc bullshit and then go out of their way to convey to those who come to its defense that they're not listening and don't give a shit. Sheppard is just the latest in that group of people who are better off going to #tcot or #ReplacingFilmTitlesWithNigga, and he's not using "but remember the golden days of targ?????" to sway me into thinking otherwise.

i don't think you're really trying to say this, or really mean this. i'm guessing you're just unusually irritated to see comedians fuck up serious topics, and i can respect that. i'm not really terribly bothered by it myself, and humorists really need to step extremely far over the line to bother me, but that's purely my own sentiment. i've tried(and failed) enough in comedy to know that sometimes you throw everything and the kitchen sink out there. sometimes stepping way over that line is the right thing to do, sometimes it isn't, and it can be hard to tell. i usually save my venom and intense scrutiny for comics who are expressing a genuine, quantifiable negative viewpoint, rather than one that is just obliviously reaching for a joke in the taboo, which is usually the case for a comedian not understanding a topic they're trying to satirize.
tell me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the only thing you're really analyzing is whether the humor works or not in such an event. but that's not really the concern here. I'm sure for most people it works exactly the way you describe it. if the point is to try and use these taboo subjects to really get through to people and hammer the point you're trying to make deep into their beings, it might very well work for some, but you're going to cause a split in your audience. and the split is probably going to be on the basis of demographics. and as unpredictable as the outcome will be when you start going there, it seems to me that this is a predictable effect. some will be taken in by it, and some will be taken out of the narrative and back into the real world where these things are real. the question is whether you're willing to have that happen.

I mean, when you're talking about pushing boundaries: exactly which are you pushing? there's nothing profound about a white guy climbing up on a stage and saying "taboo" things—except for the fact he's doing it while on a stage, but other than that it's 100% status quo. someone doing a comedy routine about "cunts and niggers" isn't winding the clock forward. and yeah, I can understand why you would be not terribly bothered by it personally, for the obvious reason that, to you, it isn't personal. but what your limits are aren't very important or relevant. I could ask myself how I personally feel about someone making a slur towards black people, but in such a case what matters is how Afura and other PoC would feel about it. I mean, they bother me too, but not in the same way as those who are targeted, and it's their feelings and considerations that matter. there's very little value in someone who isn't personally being slighted commenting on how relaxing or intriguing it is to have this discussion.

"stepping over the line" can be effectively done, I think, as long as it's the right line. if you want to joke about murdering David Cameron and pissing on his corpse, that's crossing a line too, but it's not one that actively alienates people on the basis of a personal realization that they are hated by a good part of the world for biological facts they have no control over. it's important to make this distinction, because the lines that are being defended right here do have that inherent demographic alienation, and it's very disappointing to see them being defended.
  • Avatar of bonzi_buddy
  • Kaiser
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Apr 15, 2005
  • Posts: 1998
this is some really amazing, bizarre topic (last 10 pages). at least i'd like to hear more of your pieces of mind in regards eg comedy sometime, hundley, don't be discouraged/disillusioned that your worth is somehow spat upon. or you could just tell me about those some day in irc if that really is the case (or pm, irc is maybe too immediate medium for writing an essay/summary of thoughts??)

i think i appriciated the sheer enthuasism and POWER (is it the way these people really, really believed into their philosophy? what WAS it?) of the targ stuff, even if the stuff we (well, not me. i was horrible. i once did a targ joke and steel to my memory called me out for dat...) said was probably objectionaly bad? i can understand that now (the bad stuff) but the magic was beyond the meanings and labels i guess. i'm not sure anyone will agree on this but on the other hand, i can't really explain this myself either as it was something i only experienced.

i'm not supporting shepherds word in this topic btw but i ain't attacking either. this is more of a comment to Hundley. i think...i really should had saved that PM from Diggity. i once pm'd diggity over one steel post (it was an misunderstanding) and his response was incredible and humane. i don't think i get my point accross effectively in this post but que sera. enthuasism for hundley.
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Nov 20, 2012
  • Posts: 6
free jerseys


just saying what everyone's thinking
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
buncha straight white guys tryin to explain how slurs can be funny sometimes, N I C E
hey that's ok sometimes i don't read topics before i post in them either

pretty broad generalization, i think.
yeah um that's not what i meant. maybe i worded it wrong but i was talking specifically about the subject of making jokes about taboo/dark subjects like rape or the holocaust or whatever. anytime i've seen jokes about these specific subjects they've always been lazy and dumb and rely mostly on the shock value. but maybe i'm just not looking at the right comedians idk. dada said it better than i did though so i won't bother repeating his post.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
hey that's ok sometimes i don't read topics before i post in them either
nope that's actually legitimately what this topic comes down to right now
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
nope that's actually legitimately what this topic comes down to right now
as far as i could tell it was just one person arguing for slurs being funny and everyone jumped down his throat? geodude's post made it seem like there was an actual debate here when it was far more one-sided than that.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
as far as i could tell it was just one person arguing for slurs being funny and everyone jumped down his throat? geodude's post made it seem like there was an actual debate here when it was far more one-sided than that.
the argument for the use of slurs is the basis for this discussion, and then we hear from someone else that it's just a matter of comedians "doing it wrong" and that sometimes you need to "throw everything and the kitchen sink out there", so I can get why geodude would make this observation even if the discussion goes deeper than this.
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
his post was still disingenuous and dumb and described the topic as something worse than it actually was. i mean the topic IS stupid, but coming in here with your cool one-liner flippant observation isn't going to make it any better.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
his post was still disingenuous and dumb and described the topic as something worse than it actually was. i mean the topic IS stupid, but coming in here with your cool one-liner flippant observation isn't going to make it any better.
it's not surprising there are people who would legitimately take issue with this topic. when you say stuff that bothers people, sometimes they respond. sometimes even in irrational or emotive ways.
  • Avatar of ThugTears666
  • You probally thought you werent gunna die today suprise!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Dec 7, 2002
  • Posts: 3930
originally shepperd was saying that this place was boring because he couldnt use slurs and he still liked to do it to unwind from the pressures of normal life. now he's changed tact a little and is saying he's solely arguing for us enjoying our past jokes.


also i fully got what geodude was saying. it was just some white guys arguing why slurs can be ok.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
I've been torn about what to do here for some time now. this discussion is literally now at the point at which some people are afraid to participate because it hits too close to home and they just cannot stand the fact that they feel the very core of their being is up for public debate and scrutiny. the fact that people are actively discussing whether slurs are sufficiently funny to use in spite of unequivocal evidence that some people do not like to hear them is disturbing. these days I am responsible for the content policy of this forum, and I don't want people to have to come here wondering whether they're going to find themselves embroiled in a discussion on whether their status as lower beings is disagreeable enough to justify minor adjustments in people's behavior. because that's what this is.

so I've decided that until sheppard learns that you cannot post worthless, facetious provocations designed to exacerbate people's emotional state and make them angry, he's going to not participate in this forum. some probably find that TOO HARSH or an OVERREACTION but I have a choice to make and I'm not going to choose his side here. I honestly do not want him back in here if that's how he wants to be, nostalgia/old friend or not. if he apologizes I'll revert this (and it's temporary anyway, this is not a permanent thing in any event). I sincerely hope we can continue without getting into a discussion on whether this was right or not (if you really want to talk about that then make a separate topic please).
  • Avatar of tuxedo marx
  • Fuckin' A.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 21, 2005
  • Posts: 4143
the correct answer would've been to consider the point of view of someone actually affected by the issue at hand but seemingly flippancy is a more convenient narrative than being sick and tired of reading this piss

i'm not even address the tone argument here
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
your post was still disingenuous since it was absolutely not at all a debate between a bunch of white guys about why slurs are ok, but rather one person's dumb opinion and the 10+ pages of people telling him why he's wrong.
  • Avatar of Puppet Master
  • Master of Puppets
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2005
  • Posts: 751
It's too bad that it came to this, but completely understandable. I think deep down he really just wanted to say that this place isn't as carefree as it used to be, but he went about it completely the wrong way. I was afraid to join this discussion as I wasn't about to stick up for what Shep was saying but I didn't think he was trying to be intentionally malicious at all. I hope he can use this as a learning experience and clean up his act a bit, because I would like to see him back as he was a fun and creative person to have around in the GW times.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
your post was still disingenuous since it was absolutely not at all a debate between a bunch of white guys about why slurs are ok, but rather one person's dumb opinion and the 10+ pages of people telling him why he's wrong.
I think hundley's next response will clarify things, but I don't find it strange that, as things stand, geodude would take issue with what he posted. in any case you are also not particularly helping by acting like geodude's post is somehow this really major exacerbation.
  • Avatar of Vellfire
  • TV people want to leave
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2004
  • Posts: 9602
your post was still disingenuous since it was absolutely not at all a debate between a bunch of white guys about why slurs are ok, but rather one person's dumb opinion and the 10+ pages of people telling him why he's wrong.

he's talking about the louis ck conversation i think


e: i mean it applied to the rest too but particularly the recent bits about louis ck
I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
tell me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the only thing you're really analyzing is whether the humor works or not in such an event. but that's not really the concern here. I'm sure for most people it works exactly the way you describe it. if the point is to try and use these taboo subjects to really get through to people and hammer the point you're trying to make deep into their beings, it might very well work for some, but you're going to cause a split in your audience. and the split is probably going to be on the basis of demographics. and as unpredictable as the outcome will be when you start going there, it seems to me that this is a predictable effect. some will be taken in by it, and some will be taken out of the narrative and back into the real world where these things are real. the question is whether you're willing to have that happen.
Fffft, I'm trying to figure out if any of us actually disagree here, or if this is just a sufficiently complicated/unpleasant topic that you can get lost along the way. I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same things anymore.

I'm not entirely talking about whether or not the humor works, I guess I'm trying to figure out internally how much the actual intent or focus of the performance or humor actually matters. Like I see the two videos from Louis C.K. and Carlin and, maybe out of some pure comedic naivete I have, see them as actually not being a slight on women, or black people, or, homosexuals, or rape victims, but more being a commentary on language(specifically the idea of a cultural language), where that is what's being criticized, not anybody's personal status or worth. Sure, both of these reached their points in awful ways, and I don't fault someone for taking exception to these specific examples, since they are both equally clumsy to the point where I feel like no worthwhile point is reached, but is there no line when it comes to topics like this? If the topic is reached, it becomes unacceptable? That's the question I'm trying to answer here.

I may be misunderstanding the viewpoints here, or we're effectively talking about different things, but what I have assumed people were asserting here is that certain potential topics in humor do not have the capacity to be funny without automatically being reprehensibly offensive. Period. Even if the topic isn't exactly the butt of the joke, or the area of concern being satirized. Is this the point you folks are making?

Really the only point I have endeavored to make here, and if it seemed I was really going in a separate direction I should probably apologize for being insufficiently clear, is the fact that I don't see any topics as being effectively off-limits. A decent example of what I mean here, I guess, would be the Boltok the Rapist character referenced in Borat. If you don't remember the character, or are unfamiliar with it, part of Borat's backstory in the show and movie is this referenced character named Boltok the Rapist, that Borat identifies very nonchalantly as his father, usually bookended after the long uncomfortable pause that invariably follows that "I am not the only son of Boltok the Rapist." To me, this is generally acceptable humor, as I read this not specifically a joke about rape as much as it is a joke about cultural degeneration, used here contextually as part of the narrative(somewhat cheaply, I'll admit) to make the very clear suggestion that Borat the character comes from a terrible part of the world, illustrated in this case by Borat's Kazakhstan being the sort of morally bankrupt place that would generally accept and condone rape. While a joke is being made about an invariably unpleasant subject, I don't feel that rape is necessarily the focus of the joke, nor the victims being the target of the joke, as much as it is this [probably ][/probably] idea of a third-world cultural cesspool, depicted collectively throughout the Borat narrative. He cheaply uses a shock joke here, but I don't specifically blame him for the insensitivity of using it.

I guess the question is what we're even talking about here. I personally am OK with the way the Boltok the Rapist joke is structured and presented, even though I'm sure this pulled people out of the Borat narrative. It strikes me as sufficiently innocuous and generally unceremonious considering the Borat context of literally everything about his cultural backstory being something we are OBVIOUSLY NOT supposed to rally behind. The point I'm trying to make is that rape, in this comedic context, is not something I should feel insanely disgusted about, and that I shouldn't feel extreme extraordinary self-hatred for finding this rather funny. I will obviously concede the fact that there are people to whom this joke would hit too close to home, is too simple-minded to be funny, but I would be inclined to argue that this joke is generally acceptable because it IS on the side of the rape victims, rather than something meant to actively criticize them. Basically, I found this joke funny, and often find jokes like this funny, and I don't feel profound shame for finding this joke funny. Granted, I'm not really PROUD of the fact that I find this funny, and I do feel some shame that I've felt inclined to reference a Borat joke to make my point, but I don't think this is genuinely unacceptable. This is the point I'm trying to make. We can disagree here, and that's ok, but I don't feel that the line for acceptable humor should be drawn this soon. As far as I'm concerned comedians can go to these awful places, as long as they're not trying to make light of the plight of the victims, which I feel is the case in something like this. It was used here to make fun of something else, which I think is a practical way of using comedy.

Again, I'm at the point in the thread where I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same thing, and this could be more of a question about political correctness ITSELF as the joke. I'm not trying to argue that SLURS are intrinsically funny, or RAPE is intrinsically funny, or GAY/LESBIAN RIGHTS is intrinsically funny, but that these topics CAN be used for an acceptibly comedic end with the right approach and focus of scrutiny, specifically if that scrutiny is NOT on the fundamentals of these topics themselves. Maybe we are on the same page and we all just disagree about what IS ACCEPTABLY FUNNY, which is just going to be the way it is. I'm a pretty cynical guy. I feel that humor sometimes should go these place sometimes to gain the proper perspective of it, that if you try setting these limits for what comedy should or should not be, you create too muddled and unnecessary of a gray area that people need to worry too strongly about tiptoeing around. I don't expect everybody, or even anybody to agree with this, but this is generally how I've felt about the subject, how I've personally used it to cope with the world. I can only apologize for my insensitivity if this is upsetting to anyone, as I LEGITIMATELY have no idea where the otherwise acceptable line is for humor.
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
Oh and, for the record, since I did bring fucking BORAT in this this, I'm specifically talking about THAT ONE JOKE, not the strife created by applying that joke to Kazakhstan. While I do think the Borat character is rather funny on the whole, there's a lot of elements in what comprises the character that I am still uncomfortable with, such as the justifiable offense the nation of Kazakhstan took to his using them in his humor. While I think probably the general spirit of the presentation is that we are NOT supposed to take that as any sort of realistic representation of the actual place, I think it was still pretty shitty of him to represent it in that way. I'm not really all that fond of Cohen's work on the whole, see him as more of a cheap sideshow, I just used that as an example since it was the best I could come up with as far as jokes go that i'm not wholly comfortable with.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
Fffft, I'm trying to figure out if any of us actually disagree here, or if this is just a sufficiently complicated/unpleasant topic that you can get lost along the way. I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same things anymore.
this is not a very easy discussion to have. it's definitely easy to get lost in the wake and that's something everyone should be careful of. I never thought or wanted to imply that you're A HORRIBLE PERSON. I've known you for a long time, and with the benefit of hindsight I think I sort of knew how you feel about this by looking at jokes you've in the past (like PUNCHE/KICKE A HOMOSEXUAL DOWN THE STAIRWELL). I'll respond to the rest of your post later but I just wanted to drop this note first.
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
Oh and hey, triple post because I keep thinking of more to say: I'm not laying this out there because I wish to suggest this as some framework of the website. I wouldn't trust some random motherfucker to make rape jokes either, and I don't really care if you all want to crack down on it, ban shep or what have you. While I'm definitely with Shep that those days in the past meant something to me, those days are definitely over. I'm just defending my own broken value system, which I don't think I really want to try enforcing anybody to anyway.

edit: oh, not a triple post anymore. was when i started writing it.
Locked