@Ryjkyj,

I don't get what or who you're objecting to here. Look, I'm with you that we shouldn't be policing thoughts, but I don't see anyone advocating that. Nobody has suggested that Tosh be legally banned from making rape jokes. What happened is that the woman heckled (which I agree she shouldn't have done), Tosh responded in a way that many people consider extremely assholish and some people consider threatening (and words can be threatening without being direct threats). The woman's friend blogged about it, not with the intention of getting Congress to pass a bill against joking about rape, but with the intention of publicizing the fact that Tosh is a douchecanoe. Surely having that information out there is a good thing. This way, people who don't want to support this kind of thing know that they should avoid Tosh shows. Nobody is preventing people who don't mind the joke from attending Tosh shows in the future. In addition, a number of people think Tosh owes the woman a sincere apology, but again no one is saying that he should be forced to apologize. People are saying that if he were a decent human being he would apologize.

What exactly in this chain of events do you find so objectionable (besides the initial heckling)? Where is the thought policing here? I feel like I'm in Bizarro world sometime when I'm discussing these things. I'll say something like "That joke was racist and not cool at all" and people will respond with "Don't you respect free speech? Do you want there to be a thought police? What about the First Amendment?" That sort of response just seems like a complete non sequitur.

Yeah, I did sometimes. Sometimes I can appreciate a well-crafted joke or comic routine even if I think the message behind it is despicable, just as I can appreciate the artistry in a Leni Riefenstahl film.

Here's an example of a Patrice O'Neal bit that I find funny (mainly because of the way he delivers it) but also pretty horrifying. And the horrifying part is that I'm pretty sure he actually means that shit (actually, this bit is pretty tame by his standards). This is not Patrice O'Neal putting on a purposely ridiculous chauvinistic persona. He's not pulling a Borat. This is Patrice O'Neal telling it how he thinks it is. He saw himself as a brave and honest crusader revealing brutal truths about gender relations that no one else had the balls to reveal.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

If he was genuinely promoting misogyny is some of his material, did you still find it funny?

>> ^shuac:

Rape an exception? No, sir. There are no exceptions because everything's on the table when you have the First Amendment. Your example set in France was sweet and everything but it is utterly moot when there's a land across the pond where no topic is verboten in debate, discussion, and/or comedy.
Let me put it this way. In a country where the Westboro Baptist Church is protected for doing what they do by the highest court in that country, you better goddamn believe that we'll joke about rape when and if we feel like it. Bank on it.
Don't like it? Great. Your like/dislike, approval/disapproval is not a hurdle the First Amendment has to jump. Debate about the merits of the joke and/or topic all you want. The outcome of that debate will also present no impediment to the First Amendment. Short of libel and slander, feel free to demonize the participants if you feel you must. That's a right you have and a right I'll die defending.
In conclusion, rape is not an exception because exceptions do not enter into it.
That is all there is to say.


You're arguing against a strawman. I'm pretty sure that when hpqp said rape is an exception he/she didn't mean it should be a legal exception. The argument is not that comedians making tasteless rape jokes should be fined, so nobody is attacking the First Amendment here. The argument is that certain sort of rape jokes should not be considered socially or morally legitimate. I think racism shouldn't be considered socially or morally legitimate, but I don't think the government has any business punishing racists.

So yeah, nobody disagrees with what you're saying here as far as I'm aware.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My take on the subject is simple: is it funny?
That's the end of it where comedy is concerned. Regardless of what was said, if the content, delivery and context all add up to humour, then by definition it's not offensive to me.


Why is this? Surely the intent matters. Take Ann Coulter, for instance. She often couches the ridiculous stuff she says in humor. Now the humor isn't usually very good, but suppose it was. Would that somehow magically make the content of what she is saying OK? I don't think so. If she's using humor to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview, we can still call her out on the ignorance and bigotry.

Patrice O'Neal is a more pertinent example, and I talked about this in the other thread. He was a genuinely funny guy, and in his act (and elsewhere) he said a lot of horrible things about women. The thing is, he actually meant a lot of that stuff. Even his close friends admit that he was an actual misogynist. Does the fact that he was also funny somehow make his misogyny inoffensive?

Also, I think there are two separate points to consider here that some people (not necessarily you) are getting mixed up: (1) Are rape jokes funny?, (2) Are rape jokes offensive? The answer to both questions is "Some of them are." And the thing is, sometimes the exact same joke can be both funny and offensive. These properties can coexist. An actual racist can make a funny race joke, just like an actual misogynist can make a funny joke about women. The funniness does not erase the fact that these jokes, considering the intent behind them, should be condemned. Even if Tosh's joke had been hilarious (which it obviously wasn't) it still would have been really dickish, and I still would have thought that he ought to make a genuine apology to the woman if he is a decent human being.

@vaire2ube, I'm glad you brought up Patrice O'Neal, because he is a perfect example of the disingenuousness of the "It's just comedy, folks" defense. There is plenty of evidence that O'Neal was a bona fide misogynist, with genuinely toxic views about women. But because he usually expressed those views humorously, any criticism was met with something like "God, can't you take a joke, you humorless feminazi?"

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Hateful views don't get a pass just because they're followed by a punchline. Good (and even some not-so-good) comedians don't just tell jokes, they convey ideas, and those ideas should be subject to scrutiny just as they would be if they came from Rachel Maddow or Charles Krauthammer. To treat comedy otherwise, to treat it as if it is just light entertainment that shouldn't be taken seriously, is to trivialize it. And the trivialization of comedy is precisely what the greats -- Bruce, Pryor, Carlin -- fought against. To anyone who loves the artform of comedy, the phrase "just a joke" should be anathema.

Patrice O'Neal was a very funny man, but he was also a bigot. His funniness does not excuse his bigotry in the slightest. And Tosh doesn't even have that figleaf. His act is shot through with causal misogyny and disregard for the valid concerns of rape victims. Look, that woman shouldn't have heckled him in the middle of the act. But his response was hugely dickish. Especially given the fact that she had just voiced strong sentiments against rape jokes, which in the mind of most considerate human beings would have triggered a little alarm to the effect of "Maybe she reacts so strongly to rape jokes because she is a rape victim."

Here's how a comedian who is also a decent human being responds to this sort of thing:

"It can be challenging for people in comedy and art to find better ways to do what we do, and avoid hurting people who don’t deserve to be hurt. But that’s my problem to solve, not anyone else’s.

I want to make people laugh, and occasionally think, and maybe — wow! — both at once. I want to have fun doing it. It may always mean being irreverent, skeptical, absurd, even indulging quite a bit of cynicism and sarcasm. But I never want to depend on continually kicking people who are already down to do what I do. I’d rather find another line of work entirely. (Bowling alley attendant comes to mind, since that might have been my last honest job before getting all artsy-fartsy and comedyish.)

I want to stand on the side of humanity. I want to be humane, even when being a goddamned wise-ass."

>> ^EMPIRE:

I hate this whole rape-is-terrible-so-let-make-no-jokes-about-it. It's really annoying, insulting, and fucking stupid.
Yes, rape is terrible. So are many other things used for comedic effect: murder, racism, etc.
No one is allowed to demand SHIT from comedy. Take it or leave it.
Making a joke about something bad does not mean you condone it, in the slightest.


Two big differences between rape and murder: First, the victims of murder are usually dead, so they're unlikely to be sitting in your audience when you make a murder joke. Second, murder rates (in the United States, at least) are much lower than rape rates.

About 18% of American women have been raped. If you're a comedian performing in front of a large audience, realize that it is highly likely there are members of your audience who have experienced rape. And for many people, that shit is seriously traumatic. Does this mean comedians should avoid rape jokes? No. It's possible to tell rape jokes that aren't re-traumatizing to victims. Louis CK's joke about how there are no good reasons to rape someone except really wanting to have sex with them is clearly not a joke mocking rape victims (or potential rape victims). The humor comes from the ridiculousness of Louis's on-stage persona: Here's a guy saying something that starts out sounding reasonable but then qualifies it with something obviously ridiculous. It is the rapist's sense of entitlement, rather than the rape victim, being mocked.

This is not what Tosh's "joke" was like. Besides being infinitely less funny, it was targeted at the woman in the audience. Most of the people laughing weren't thinking "Ha ha, Tosh is saying something so obviously stupid." They were thinking "Ha ha, that bitch just got told." Tosh was asserting his dominance over this silly humorless heckler. That kind of rape joke -- where the premise of the joke is "Isn't it funny when bitchy women get raped?" -- is seriously re-traumatizing to a lot of victims.

Comedians have mastered this bullshit where telling offensive jokes and not backing down is a badge of pride. That shit was brave when Lenny Bruce was doing it, because he was purposefully challenging the ridiculousness of obscenity laws. Comedians aren't being thrown in jail for telling offensive jokes anymore. If your joke is offensive in the service of making a serious point, or even if it's just really really funny, I think you have a license to be somewhat offensive. But lionizing offensiveness for its own sake is nonsense. Tosh's joke wasn't funny and it didn't make any useful point. Obviously I'm not suggesting (nor is anyone as far as I'm aware) that he should be legally punished somehow for making the joke. His critics are just saying he's an inconsiderate asshole for making it. Why are people so upset about that?

Very nice, but it is definitely not true that ALL the sounds are the guy's voice.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
>> ^Yogi:
#1 ranked in the world...I'll be Kasparov could come outa retirement and destroy this kid. Young whipper snappers. Also the FIDE rating is sort of messed up in certain ways. This guy though can play 10 games at once not looking at the board, that's a special sort of autism right there, pretty neat.

He has played Kasparov before, as he mentions at the end of the clip. They played two matches in 2004. One was a draw and Kasparov won the other one. Of course, Carlsen was only 13 back then, so I think he'd have a considerably better shot now. Anyway, very few chess players can hold a candle to Kasparov in his prime, but Carlsen is one of them, even though their playing styles are very different. Whether his career will be as impressive as Kasparov's remains to be seen, but he's definitely had a good start: youngest world number 1 ever, second highest FIDE ranking ever. He needs to win the World Championship now, but I'm sure that's coming. Incidentally, Kasparov actually coached Carlsen for a little while.

Fuck off with all this helpful information! Anyways Kasparov has been retired for a long time, so yeah Carlsen would probably take him. I still think FIDE rankings are bullshit, the best chess master ever as Fischer dammit!


Fischer was ridiculously dominant in his heyday, but comparing players across eras is difficult. Chess has become so much more professionalized now. The players train a lot harder, and more importantly they have computers to help them train, so in general players at the top levels now have a much tighter game than their counterparts in the 70s. It's kind of like tennis: if you judge based on dominance over his peers, Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time, but I'm sure Federer, Nadal or Djokovic could absolutely spank Laver in his prime.

Still, you'll get no argument from me if you believe Fischer is a strong contender for the "greatest ever" title. I still prefer Kasparov, but I might be biased because Kasparov isn't a racist lunatic. It's good to know that it's possible for a person to be a transcendent chess genius and still be a functional human being.

>> ^Yogi:

#1 ranked in the world...I'll be Kasparov could come outa retirement and destroy this kid. Young whipper snappers. Also the FIDE rating is sort of messed up in certain ways. This guy though can play 10 games at once not looking at the board, that's a special sort of autism right there, pretty neat.


He has played Kasparov before, as he mentions at the end of the clip. They played two matches in 2004. One was a draw and Kasparov won the other one. Of course, Carlsen was only 13 back then, so I think he'd have a considerably better shot now. Anyway, very few chess players can hold a candle to Kasparov in his prime, but Carlsen is one of them, even though their playing styles are very different. Whether his career will be as impressive as Kasparov's remains to be seen, but he's definitely had a good start: youngest world number 1 ever, second highest FIDE ranking ever. He needs to win the World Championship now, but I'm sure that's coming. Incidentally, Kasparov actually coached Carlsen for a little while.

Also, here's a much better TYT segment on the issue:

http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Greenwald-Vs-Prof-Lessig-On-Citizens-United

A debate between thoughtful people who actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to the silly demagoguery in this video.

This is bullshit. The poll asked people whether Citizens United would lead to corruption. It did not ask whether Citizens United was incorrectly decided. But Thinkprogress somehow infers that the poll indicates widespread agreement that the judges' reasoning was "bizarre". It indicates nothing of the sort.

It's true that the majority opinion says that the ruling will not lead to corruption, and they're probably wrong about this (or working with a highly constrained notion of corruption). But this is an incidental statement. They make it explicit that the ruling does not hinge on this: "Limits on independent expenditures... have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question."

So Milhiser is completely wrong when he suggests that disagreement with the justices on this point entails disagreement with the ruling. It is entirely possible to believe that the ruling will in fact make the system more corrupt while still believing that it is the correct ruling on purely legal grounds. That's my position, and the position of a number of other people on the left.

Also, note that only 69% of people polled agreed with the claim about increased corruption. That means 31% either disagreed with the claim or were not sure about it. Somehow this shows that the ruling is less popular than witchcraft. That Thinkprogress blog post is ridiculous.

>> ^Kofi:

Looks-wise she is a 7, maybe 7.5, out of 10. But damn she gets a massive bump by her charm. Awesome lady/woman/girl/bird/person.
Emma I mean. Ellen.. 2/10.


I actually think Ellen is really attractive, especially for a 50-some year old woman. She has really nice eyes. Also, who's more charming than Ellen?

Incidentally, the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable. Their interest in the deficit is, in general, a pose. The primary reason they are interested in cutting spending is that it makes room for tax cuts. Again, the position that taxation (above a certain minimal level) is wrong is one that can be debated, but at least admit that that is where you're coming from, rather than pretending that this is about ensuring the solvency of the government. Because letting the Bush tax cuts expire would do a lot more for the deficit than abolishing Social Security.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security
I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.
I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.


When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we" you're referring to? There's very good evidence that SS is responsible for the significant drop in the rate of poverty among the elderly over the last half-century. The facts are that when social security spending (per capita) increases, the poverty rate among seniors reliably decreases, and vice versa. Opponents of SS may honestly believe that an increase in elderly poverty is a painful tradeoff that must be made in order to protect the financial future of the country. That is an honest position that can be debated. But at least acknowledge the existence of the tradeoff. The program has had a huge impact in the lives of some our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

The idea that abolishing SS will do no harm because people will be able to invest their own money to protect their future is ridiculous. First of all, investing wisely is psychologically difficult. We are not built to plan carefully for that far in the future. Second, even if you do make the decision to invest sensibly, it is not easy to do, given that the financial system has been set up to prey on small investors for short-term profit, with high fees and fraudulent advice. You just can't expect the average person, who has no idea how or why to invest in a suitably diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds, to successfully invest in the market.

So I think there is very good reason to think that getting rid of SS will have a significant cost attached. Of course, it is also true that SS faces a long-term financing problem, and we need to be having a discussion about how to deal with it. But it does neither side any good to just deny that there are any worthwhile arguments on the other side.