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.

Well, I think intent matters. But it's not an inexhaustible source. There are things that need to be taken into account—for example, if you're driving at 100 mph through the inner city and you end up killing someone who's crossing the street, you certainly did not intend to kill that person, but you did accept that such a thing could realistically be a consequence of your actions. Essentially, you cannot reasonably make the case that the possibility of such a thing happening never occurred to you. I think it's the same with comedians crossing into dark topics like rape, slurs, et cetera: you can drive at 100 mph through the inner city, and you might even reach your destination without any entrails getting stuck in your window washer, but it's a pretty big risk that you're taking, at the potential cost of people other than yourself, even if your intention is simply to be a wonderful person. You can make a pretty good case that this risk is unacceptable, and that any reasonable person should make the personal decision to avoid it for that reason.

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?

Well, I don't think anything is de jure off-limits. But it's not easy. So if we take jokes about rape, for example, it becomes problematic as soon as the severity of the subject matter is trivialized (which is virtually all rape jokes ever made). But it's not impossible to make humor that underscores the severity of the problem instead, such as this bit by Wanda Sykes.

Even then it could be a bad thing to do because it might trigger an episode for someone who's suffering from post-traumatic stress from having been raped or sexually abused in some fashion. And a pretty decent amount of women have been. The question then becomes if it's worth going out of your way to take that into account. I don't think you can avoid this moral choice if you plan on going to such a topic—you either take those people into account or you don't. And to go back to the question of intention, I don't think it matters all that much in this case. You certainly would never intend for anyone to be taken out of their escapist entertainment and back into a deeply anxious and stressful situation, but if that is the result of your actions, the fact that you did not intend for it to happen makes little difference. I don't think you can claim ignorance of the possibility that something like that might legitimately upset someone, so you must have decided to do it anyway in spite of that possibility. Like driving through the inner city at 100 mph.

As for your example, I really can't make a judgment about it without seeing it. I know next to nothing about Borat. It seems he's pretty effective at making other people show their bigotry, but I don't know if the joke you describe has the result it intends to have. I'd want to look more closely to draw a conclusion. I have a pretty limited ability to make such a determination anyway, considering I don't actively worry about whether walking back home from Japanese class in the evening will lead to me being beaten and penetrated.

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.

Like you mentioned, even if it's effective at underscoring the severity and ubiquity of rape, it might have taken people out of the narrative. That in and of itself is something to keep in mind. And by saying that, I don't mean to draw the conclusion that this sort of thing is entirely off-limits. The use of humor might very well be a good way for women to raise awareness about just how deep the problem is, like Wanda Sykes' bit attempts to do. But I do think you have to ask yourself if you're capable of putting such a message out there, and also if you're the right person to be doing such a thing and in this manner. Aside from prison rape, it's almost entirely an issue of female emancipation, and that means women are the ones who should coordinate efforts to raise awareness and fight back; after all, they are the ones affected by it. They are the ones who have to deal with it if something you say ends up contributing to society's deeply ingrained apathy towards rape. You're the one in the car, they are the ones on the crosswalk.

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.

That's essentially what I said as well, but I think I might be more careful about it than you. Actually, although I'm not a comedian or a writer or anything like that, I would never even attempt a joke of this kind even if I strongly believe it won't trivialize the matter, because of the aforementioned pitfalls. It's just not a risk I would ever take, even if, in theory, I would be OK with a joke that contributes to a better understanding of the issue.

With this post I don't want to say I AGREE/DISAGREE, but I just want to raise some issues that you have to consider for yourself. The same basic principles apply to jokes that involve slurs. Just personally, as someone who's affected by the use of the word "faggot", I've always been on the fence about its use in jokes or narratives. I've seen jokes using the term that I think were acceptable and conducive to the cause, but not many. Actually all I can recall is something you said long ago, can't quote it but I thought it was a good joke and it conveyed the intended idea of how deeply problematic the anti-gay sentiment is. But the thing is, I'm not the only person on the planet, and there are plenty of people on the planet who don't want to see that even if they and everyone else does get it. So again, I personally would not want to go there. It's a very difficult question, still. And I can't tell you what to do (and I definitely wouldn't want to).

i am also generally of the opinion that one's own experiences and genetics do not necessarily give people more or less of a right to talk about certain things or use certain words. (key word: necessarily. because in cases of "reclaiming slurs", for example, obviously an individual's traits do matter to an extent. but this is another tricky and complicated subject) (and also obviously people should not speak for others whose experiences are different, e.g. a straight white male saying that lesbian women aren't reeeaaally affected by the word "dyke" because "they use it to describe themselves!!", etc. (but basically i'm just saying that people should not ASSUME about others' "claims" to certain words or topics))

I think you said it pretty well when you mentioned that one cannot speak for others. you have to be vocal about things that affect you and defer to others for things that affect them. so for example, it is quite possible for a guy to know a great deal about feminism and contribute lively to serving its cause, and indeed I know a bunch of people who are, but they have to realize that this is an issue of female emancipation. so I don't think it is legitimate for them to have much say in how the movement operates and how it goes about achieving its goals.

a while ago, the group Anonymous (or at least random hackers calling themselves that) hacked a govt website in Uganda and put up a picture of a Ugandan gay activist and a highly provocative pro-gay rights message. the liberals mostly praised it and fist bumped, but it was really a deeply misled action. it's easy for a bunch of hackers sitting in the US in their parents basement to put up a middle finger to Ugandan homophobes because they're not the ones facing the bullets and the bludgeons. just to add context, it was right after the country's most well-known gay activist was found beaten to death, during a time when the parliament was considering adopting a measure that would legalize the murder of gay people. so it's easy for liberal hackers in the West to put up a provocative message insulting the Ugandan government and everybody supporting this measure, but they probably didn't even bother to check what effect their action had. (probably a negative one.)

I'm not a fan of trigger warnings, leave that shit on cultural studies grad students' tumblrs about privilege theory and intersectionality

manarchist.

yeah man, the thing I don't like is that you come in here and you say this without offering anything in the way of an explanation. did you think about why those things exist? or consider the fact they're not just the cutesy social justice blog equivalents of pink bracelets? do you have an alternative to offer? do you have any reason to believe they're not necessary?

I mean, you're a very well read guy, you obviously care about things and about people, but you seem to be unaware of the fact that your post literally might as well have been posted by Karl Rove, verbatim. it doesn't take a genius to see that such a post would at the very least raise questions and cause a lot of confusion. perhaps you think that the entire social science movement is careerist nonsense and that nihilist communism will solve everything. maybe! but if that's the case then you should at the very least grace us with even the slightest hint that this is the case.