Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old Yesterday, 10:55 AM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,660
Yes. It's quite common in the deaf community to not view deafness as a disability but as a shared culture and heritage.
  #102  
Old Yesterday, 11:13 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
Yes. It's quite common in the deaf community to not view deafness as a disability but as a shared culture and heritage.
yes and that means a lot of them don't want implants that would allow them to hear.
  #103  
Old Yesterday, 11:19 AM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeTwibz View Post
Is calling him a bigot any different than someone calling a gay person a faggot?
Yes, it is. Any other questions?
  #104  
Old Yesterday, 11:33 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Can you expand upon this a little? It seems like you are saying that once the Oscars decided to pick him as host, not matter what he says or said can be used to terminate his hosting contract? If they do terminate the contract, then it's censorship?
Punishing a comedian for the content of his jokes is censorship, it is their tv show so it is their right to censor what is on it. However, it is a bad sign for society when censorship of comedians is common just because someone without a sense of humor took offense.
  #105  
Old Yesterday, 11:38 AM
krondys's Avatar
krondys krondys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Punishing a comedian for the content of his jokes is censorship, it is their tv show so it is their right to censor what is on it. However, it is a bad sign for society when censorship of comedians is common just because someone without a sense of humor took offense.
I have a sense of humour. Hell, I have a twisted, dark sense of humour.

The tweet that has been shared in this thread (multiple times) is NOT FUNNY. AT ALL.
  #106  
Old Yesterday, 11:40 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Punishing a comedian for the content of his jokes is censorship, it is their tv show so it is their right to censor what is on it. However, it is a bad sign for society when censorship of comedians is common just because someone without a sense of humor took offense.
That's true enough. The problem with Mr. Hart, however, is that it isn't people "without a sense of humor" who are taking offense. It's all kinds of people, some of us with perfectly intact senses of humor.

It's not bad for society when people are encouraged to stop making "I hate gays" jokes. There are plenty of ways to make jokes about gays that could be funny and even edgy. "I'd beat my son if he was gay" isn't one of them.
  #107  
Old Yesterday, 11:50 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Punishing a comedian for the content of his jokes is censorship, it is their tv show so it is their right to censor what is on it. However, it is a bad sign for society when censorship of comedians is common just because someone without a sense of humor took offense.
So, they have the right to censor what is on it, but when they exercise that right, it's a bad sign for society?
  #108  
Old Yesterday, 01:23 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
There are deaf people who want their kids to be deaf?
Yes.

ETA: Oops, I didn't read the next page, which had several responses.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; Yesterday at 01:25 PM.
  #109  
Old Yesterday, 01:26 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, they have the right to censor what is on it, but when they exercise that right, it's a bad sign for society?
I mean, those aren't inconsistent beliefs.

People have the right to say hateful things, but it's generally bad for society when they do so.

People have the right to do lots of stuff that's bad for society if they actually do it.
  #110  
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
I'm all for having Gritty do it.
Sure, or Sean Spicer

But, if only.
__________________
"For Your Health" - (trust me, just google it, ya dringus!) (*URGENT* youtube rabbithole)
  #111  
Old Yesterday, 01:51 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I mean, those aren't inconsistent beliefs.

People have the right to say hateful things, but it's generally bad for society when they do so.

People have the right to do lots of stuff that's bad for society if they actually do it.
I don't think people having the right to say hateful things is generally bad for society. Hearing those people and recognizing them for the hateful thing-sayers they are is generally GOOD for society IMO.

If I thought a right was generally bad for society, I would probably be against that right and arguing for removing that right. As people do for other rights.
  #112  
Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I mean, those aren't inconsistent beliefs.

People have the right to say hateful things, but it's generally bad for society when they do so.

People have the right to do lots of stuff that's bad for society if they actually do it.
More to the point, people have the right to do all kinds of things for which people can refuse to associate with them.

You have the right to not bathe or wear clean clothes or swear at everyone you meet. And the people around you have the right to shun your company or refuse you jobs.

That’s not a violation of your rights and it’s not the sign of a “sick” society.

It’s like saying that it’s censorship to refuse to vote for a political candidate who expresses support for slavery or genocide. That’s not censorship.
  #113  
Old Yesterday, 02:24 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Punishing a comedian for the content of his jokes is censorship
Well yeah, if it's the legal system that's doing it.

But if private parties 'punish' someone by refusing to associate with them in some way, that's freedom of association, not censorship.

I don't have to hang out with assholes, and neither do the people running the Oscars. The assholes don't have a right to my company, and they don't have a right to be on a particular TV program.
  #114  
Old Yesterday, 02:37 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
Never ever say anything ever, just in case a single person decides it's now considered offensive.
Never ever say you'd be a failure of a father if your son was gay, just in case it happens to reinforce long-standing bigoted bullshit. If I was employing someone and they said something like that, I would fire them. Full stop. That's not okay. You don't get to believe that, any more than you get to believe "black people are inherently stupid", and be considered a part of polite society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
This is my problem. Something from the past that they already have apologised for, atoned for, learned from, changed over, and have grown up into a better person since, gets unearthed again, presented without proper context, just so they can be "offended" by it all over again, is not forgiveness. It's vindictive.
Kevin Hart was offered the opportunity to apologize for those statements and keep the gig, and he refused. He has never apologized for his homophobia, and as recently as 2015, he has doubled down on it. This ain't James Gunn. This is Roseanne Barr.

Quote:
Somebody not liking something you said or did in your past is not a good reason to mess up somebody's opportunities. It's not being fair. Life is about learning and growing. Is it fair if I was judged only by a single harmless incident I committed thirty years ago, and not by everything I have done since? And I mean expressing an opinion, a point of view, not murder or abuse; something I would never say now.
If I say something shitty 30 years ago, then when it's brought up yesterday I double down on it, the problem is not that I said something shitty 30 years ago, it's that I said something shitty yesterday.

Quote:
It scares me how the offenderati are ruling how we can behave now, like we should be superhumanly perfect people throughout our entire lives, no amount of growth being good enough to make up that one naughty thing we once did.
Y'know, there are a lot of celebrities who go their whole lives without saying anything anywhere near as awful as "if I caught my son playing with a dollhouse I'd beat him over the head with it". Like, a lot. Like, almost all of them. It's really not a high bar to clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Jokes are harmless.
Everything we know about the sociology and psychology of humor says that you are dead wrong. This is just not true. You have no background in this, so maybe you should either learn something about it or at least stop talking about it. Everything about this framing is dead wrong and I'm tired of having to teach people about it.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hart deserves to be fired. Not from his Oscar gig, from hollywood. Yeah, I'm gonna be that guy. If we never saw him in another standup tour, hollywood movie, or fucking podcast, the world would be better for it. He's a bigoted, homophobic prick with no interest in changing that, and that shit ain't right. The most apt comparison here is to Roseanne Barr, who just kept saying shitty bigoted things about race. Well, Kevin Hart keeps on saying shitty, bigoted things about gender. He deserves another movie gig the way Roseanne Barr deserves another comeback: he doesn't.
  #115  
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't think people having the right to say hateful things is generally bad for society. Hearing those people and recognizing them for the hateful thing-sayers they are is generally GOOD for society IMO.
There are lots of people here that think that saying hateful things is a net negative. Sure, it reveals hateful people for who they are, but it has other bad effects.

People's tendency to not want to associate with the sayers of hateful things kind of implies that saying those things is bad. If it weren't bad, people wouldn't refuse to associate with them!

Quote:
If I thought a right was generally bad for society, I would probably be against that right and arguing for removing that right. As people do for other rights.
Generally, people support a right to free speech that includes the right to say hateful things not because they believe that saying hateful things is generally good for society, but because giving the government power to control speech has much worse effects than the smaller bad effect of people saying hateful things.

You can totally believe that people saying hateful things is a net positive for society and that if it weren't we shouldn't have the right to say hateful things, but that would be a fairly nonstandard argument in favor of the right to say hateful things.
  #116  
Old Yesterday, 02:49 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnod View Post
You may be right, but I would have to call those people incredibly selfish and stupid.
Parents usually want what's best for their kids, or at least good parents do.

Wanting your kid to be deaf or gay just because you are, is incredibly self centered.
Actually the more I think of it the less I find it plausible .
Is there nothing about your identity or experience that is outside the norm, that you may have faced some additional struggles over, but that you feel gives you a different and valuable perspective, despite the fact that it made your life more difficult?

I don't think it's so unreasonable to have dealt with and overcome adversity, to realize that the characteristic that led to it is a rich and beautiful part of the human experience, and to hope to connect with your child over that shared experience.

"What's best for their kids" is a highly subjective standard.
  #117  
Old Yesterday, 03:28 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
There are lots of people here that think that saying hateful things is a net negative. Sure, it reveals hateful people for who they are, but it has other bad effects
Well, I said the right to say hateful things is not generally bad for society. I said nothing about people actually SAYING hateful things.

Quote:
Generally, people support a right to free speech that includes the right to say hateful things not because they believe that saying hateful things is generally good for society, but because giving the government power to control speech has much worse effects than the smaller bad effect of people saying hateful things
I agree. And I notice you used the term "government power" there. Because a government punishing someone for speaking is "censorship", while a commercial entity not allowing a person to host an award show is NOT "censorship".

Of course, I also hold a non-standard view of what "Free Speech" means, so there is that.
  #118  
Old Yesterday, 06:18 PM
GuanoLad's Avatar
GuanoLad GuanoLad is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 24,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Kevin Hart was offered the opportunity to apologize for those statements and keep the gig, and he refused. He has never apologized for his homophobia, and as recently as 2015, he has doubled down on it. This ain't James Gunn. This is Roseanne Barr.
Once again I reiterate, I wasn't talking about Kevin Hart specifically, because I was not familiar with the details his case. If it's true that he's still the same person now than he was then, that makes a difference, though some people have said he has apologised already, and others say he hasn't, so it's been a contradictory thread.

My problem is that this is an ongoing trend, to discredit people from singular misdeeds of the distant past, judging them by who they used to be and not who they are today. As long as what they did is not a crime, I don't think it's fair to do that.
  #119  
Old Yesterday, 08:22 PM
dorvann dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 410
Considering there have been cases of parents killing their children because they though they were gay I think the Academy was definitely warranted in rescinding their offer to Kevin Hart. I really don't think his comments were funny. By themselves, the comments were probably harmless. But the cumulative effects of his comments with rampant homophobia in the United States, they help contribute to the atmosphere where parents can abuse and even kill their children if they are gay.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12081186

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gabriel...d-abuse-death/
  #120  
Old Yesterday, 11:11 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
Once again I reiterate, I wasn't talking about Kevin Hart specifically, because I was not familiar with the details his case. If it's true that he's still the same person now than he was then, that makes a difference, though some people have said he has apologised already, and others say he hasn't, so it's been a contradictory thread.

My problem is that this is an ongoing trend, to discredit people from singular misdeeds of the distant past, judging them by who they used to be and not who they are today. As long as what they did is not a crime, I don't think it's fair to do that.
1. I request specific examples that fit this “trend,” specifically as described in this post.

2. Do you not think it legitimate for people to be held accountable for things they say? What does it matter whether something was “singular” or in the “distant past”?

3. Do you think that people should be required to continue employ people—particularly as a spokesperson, like an Oscars host is—when they have espoused bigotry?
  #121  
Old Yesterday, 11:17 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
However, it is a bad sign for society when censorship of comedians is common just because someone without a sense of humor took offense.
...I distinctly remember when the White House Correspondents Association decided not to have a comedian at next year's dinner that I didn't jump up and down and claim "censorship". The President of the United States and his Press Secretary don't have a sense of humour and took offense. The Correspondents Association decided to try to appease the administration and so no comedian next year. That situation is infinitely more disturbing and worrying than what happened to Kevin Hart. When media organizations make decisions based on "not wanting to upset the administration" then we all should pay closer attention.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017