# The Onion calls Quevanzhane Wallis a cunt. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 25, 2013, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329 "2013-02-25T06:40:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/241 "2013-02-26T19:37:03Z")
> [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Right, because isn’t “we be + [verb]ing” basically like saying “we usually/generally/often/tend to [verb]”? Therefore, \*both \*“we were” and “we will be”. > > So if you said, “We be at the store,” you mean, “You can generally find us at the store,” or “We’re at the store all the time.” Or if I asked, “What do you guys like to do on weekends?” then you might answer, “Oh, we be at home most weekends.” > > **Nzinga** , I understand if you’re too traumatized to respond fully. If you can, just blink once for “yes” and twice for “no”. So the use of ‘be’ here indicates a continuous state. I think that’s why when they get fake money in The Wire’s first season, DeAngelo says ‘Money be green’, because he’s referring to an element of money that _defines_ it. ---
**Author:** ![planetcory](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/planetcory/32/1032_2.png) [@planetcory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/planetcory)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/242 "2013-02-26T19:43:11Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > So the use of ‘be’ here indicates a continuous state. I think that’s why when they get fake money in The Wire’s first season, DeAngelo says ‘Money be green’, because he’s referring to an element of money that _defines_ it. Accurate! ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/243 "2013-02-26T19:44:55Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > If you really want to know: [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414388). Sigh. And this is my \*\*naked \*\*baby pictures. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/244 "2013-02-26T20:06:17Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > I have no doubt that many people are complaining that MacFarlane made a joke that she is “almost old enough for Clooney”, but the actual joke was “she has 15 year until she’s too old for George Clonney.” The implications of the _actual_ joke are not nearly as bad as the implications of the joke as it is being retold. Also, she’s not the target of the joke, the target is George Clooney and the point is that Clooney only dates women young enough to be his daughter. To me the tweet was worse, but I don’t think the person who wrote it meant to be offensive. IMHO it was meant to be a satire on the bitchy tweets people put out about celebrities but rather ill-thought out. I think there choosing to delete it and apologize, like the deleting of the headlines about Jerry Lin, was the right thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/245 "2013-02-26T20:07:49Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If we’re correct that the joke was aimed at lampooning the bitchy celebrity media, I’d say the joke was nonetheless ill advised because it’s kind of a hacky joke. In order to wring the humor out of it, they had to go over the top by calling an eight year old girl a cunt. But that juxtaposition, between the harshness of the insult and that its target is the last person anyone would expect to be the recipient, isn’t particularly novel or funny. > > I’m thinking maybe the Onion should avoid the live-tweeting thing and stick with brilliantly crafting stories. The problem is that if there was a meta-level joke here, nobody got it, at least nobody in the news business. I’ve been reading media accounts, and every one of them is reporting that The Onion straight up called Ms. Wallis a cunt. Without a trace of humor. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/246 "2013-02-26T20:16:46Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > I’ve been reading media accounts, and every one of them is reporting that The Onion straight up called Ms. Wallis a cunt. Without a trace of humor. Which is incredibly annoying. It’s one thing to say a joke isn’t funny for one reason or another. Representing it as if it weren’t a joke - as if offensiveness or unfunny-ness magically changes a joke into an expression of someone’s real opinion - is simply dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![delphica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@delphica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/delphica)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/247 "2013-02-26T20:18:54Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > I heard a joke by Bob Saget before, about his newborn ailing daughter. I tell you, some comedians make an art form of trying to find the most twisted jokes to shock with. Heh, if that is the same Bob Saget joke I am thinking of, the first time I heard about it I almost swallowed my tongue, I was so shocked that someone would say that. Or rather, shocked it would even _occur_ to someone to say that. And now it’s my baseline for if a joke is shocking. I’m not sure anything has ever met that baseline again. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/248 "2013-02-26T20:22:57Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Snarky Kong, I would like to know more of what you think on the topic. You have made some interesting posts in this thread that you didn’t really expound on. In the article that MsWhatsit posted, I followed the link to a feminist blog and she seemed to be saying something similar to you…that the tweet was a commentary on Hollywood and celebrity and the media and, according to her, women. Is that where you were going with your posts? I don’t know that I would say the tweet was a commentary on women. In my mind the tweet was about two things, mainly: the absurdity and offensiveness of calling a 9-year old a cunt, and the fact that many people in society and the media feel like they are entitled to make very pointed, personal, and harsh judgments of people they don’t know. Lots of people, myself included, will say they we hate a celebrity or that that’s a horrible person when really it’s a complete stranger. I think the tweet was sort of a reductio ad absurdum. We sometimes feel entitled to hate strangers since they’re celebrities, applying that to a child celebrity highlights that it’s ridiculous. As for why it’s not about her, well, she’s a placeholder for innocence. Moby Dick isn’t about a whale just because there’s one in the story. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/249 "2013-02-26T20:35:32Z")
I wish I would have explained it to my black board that way, before I got the boot, Snarky. Inner Stickler, don’t apologize… I was just messin with ya. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/250 "2013-02-26T20:36:07Z")
**Nzinga** , if someone from the Onion had organized a group of people to run up to Ms. Wallis and shout hilarious-but-hateful things at her, perhaps to satirize the idea that we live in a post-racial society, would you be cool with that, or would that cross the line? I find it hard to believe that folks genuinely don’t have a line in this way, that any attempt at humor, no matter how hurtful to the recipient, is okay. If you’re saying you don’t have a crossable line to the extent that no joke, no matter how awful about a particular group or event, is off-limits, that’s one thing. But in this case, the line I think they crossed is the line of making a perfectly good satirical point by saying something nasty about a kid. They thought their end was good enough that the side-effect–of hurting a kid’s feelings–was worth it. I disagree. The chance that Wallis will learn about the tweet is high enough that a decent person ought not to make it, in my opinion. If there were no such risk, I don’t think it’d be problematic; but the risk is there, so it is. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/251 "2013-02-26T21:16:09Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > But, we have had some long ass threads on this board about this. I…I haven’t healed enough to go back into it. Oh my god, I still have nightmares about that thread. To this day! > [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Right, because isn’t “we be + [verb]ing” basically like saying “we usually/generally/often/tend to [verb]”? Therefore, \*both \*“we were” and “we will be”. > > So if you said, “We be at the store,” you mean, “You can generally find us at the store,” or “We’re at the store all the time.” Or if I asked, “What do you guys like to do on weekends?” then you might answer, “Oh, we be at home most weekends.” > > **Nzinga** , I understand if you’re too traumatized to respond fully. If you can, just blink once for “yes” and twice for “no”. Oh my… oh my god… I um, I think you’re a girl and I don’t know you, but I’m feeling an emotion akin to love right now. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Nzinga** , if someone from the Onion had organized a group of people to run up to Ms. Wallis and shout hilarious-but-hateful things at her, perhaps to satirize the idea that we live in a post-racial society, would you be cool with that, or would that cross the line? Satirizing a childish name call via Twitter is a little different from actually harassing someone in real life. Hell, even if all I ever Tweeted was “Cunt, cunt, cunt” at a certain celebrity (which isn’t funny… okay, it kind of is), that’s a whole different ball of wax than following her to dinner yelling “cunt” at her while she’s trying to order dinner. I don’t think the line crossed would be the jokes, but instead the actual moving into real life harassment. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/252 "2013-02-26T21:18:10Z")
I guess I’m just not convinced it’s really that likely that knowledge of the tweet would be particularly hurtful. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/253 "2013-02-26T21:26:35Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Satirizing a childish name call via Twitter is a little different from actually harassing someone in real life. Hell, even if all I ever Tweeted was “Cunt, cunt, cunt” at a certain celebrity (which isn’t funny… okay, it kind of is), that’s a whole different ball of wax than following her to dinner yelling “cunt” at her while she’s trying to order dinner. I don’t think the line crossed would be the jokes, but instead the actual moving into real life harassment. I don’t really draw a line between online harassment and “real life harassment.” I think online IS real life, and behavior online IS behavior in real life. I don’t think this is pedantic, either: on the contrary, I think treating online behavior as less serious than in-person behavior results in people doing some ill-advised things pretty often. Hmm…thinking some more, doing it in-person would be worse because of the undercurrent of physical danger. Is that the line you’re getting at? That is, if someone instead just called her up and shouted epithets at her, that’d be okay? > [@Frylock](#): > > I guess I’m just not convinced it’s really that likely that knowledge of the tweet would be particularly hurtful. If you did think knowledge of it would be particularly hurtful, would that change your mind about the appropriateness? I know lots of kids in this age, both boys and girls, and I see them getting pretty badly hurt by much less serious insults; yesterday I nearly had to break up a fight because one girl told another that her hair was short. I have no trouble at all believing that a nine-year-old girl would react strongly to this tweet, and would further not be able to comprehend the satirical intent of it. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/254 "2013-02-26T21:29:57Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Inner Stickler, don’t apologize… I was just messin with ya. Well, not everyone is as forgiving. It’s better for me to break a bad habit with someone who’s not particularly invested rather than cause a situation later on. > [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Hell, even if all I ever Tweeted was “Cunt, cunt, cunt” at a certain celebrity (which isn’t funny… okay, it kind of is), I read a play once where one scene was a character buried up to his neck in the floor repeating cunt over and over and that was it. I’ve always wondered what sort of notes an actor might have for that scene. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/255 "2013-02-26T21:39:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If you did think knowledge of it would be particularly hurtful, would that change your mind about the appropriateness? I’m having a hard time thinking about it in terms of inappropriateness since the comment _has_ to be inappropriate to even work as a joke. So I think though that I can put it this way. If I thought the writer should be expected to predict that the comment would traumatize the girl, then I’d think the writer would be an asshole for making the comment. > [@](#): > > I know lots of kids in this age, both boys and girls, and I see them getting pretty badly hurt by much less serious insults; yesterday I nearly had to break up a fight because one girl told another that her hair was short. I have no trouble at all believing that a nine-year-old girl would react strongly to this tweet, and would further not be able to comprehend the satirical intent of it. “It’s like when you tell the winner of the race ‘you ran a bit slow,’”. That’s a proposed explanation I saw somewhere, seems to be part of a sufficient explanation to me. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/256 "2013-02-26T21:49:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I don’t really draw a line between online harassment and “real life harassment.” I think online IS real life, and behavior online IS behavior in real life. > > … > > Hmm…thinking some more, doing it in-person would be worse because of the undercurrent of physical danger. Is that the line you’re getting at? Right. Obviously typing mean things to someone on the internet is an action that takes place in the real world (those things just don’t float onto the web by themselves), but if someone Tweeted over and over again that I’m a cunt, I’d think that person needs to get a life. If someone followed me around screaming “cunt!” at me, I’d think that person needs to get a life, and I’d get a fucking restraining order and change my locks because that person is a dangerous psycho. > [@](#): > > That is, if someone instead just called her up and shouted epithets at her, that’d be okay? No, harassing people is not okay, and I don’t think I said that it was. I’m saying I don’t think there is a line about not being able to make jokes that include calling a child a bad word. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/257 "2013-02-26T21:54:27Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’m having a hard time thinking about it in terms of inappropriateness since the comment _has_ to be inappropriate to even work as a joke. So I think though that I can put it this way. > > If I thought the writer should be expected to predict that the comment would traumatize the girl, then I’d think the writer would be an asshole for making the comment. That’s basically what I mean by “appropriate.” The inappropriateness of it in the sense you’re using the word isn’t what bothers me; I love Louis CK’s awful routines about his children, for example, and I think A Modest Proposal is wonderful. > [@](#): > > “It’s like when you tell the winner of the race ‘you ran a bit slow,’”. That’s a proposed explanation I saw somewhere, seems to be part of a sufficient explanation to me. That, however–I really don’t think any 9-year-old I know would even begin to comprehend that explanation, especially not on an emotional level. > [@MeanOldLady](#): > > if someone Tweeted over and over again that I’m a cunt, I’d think that person needs to get a life. > … > No, harassing people is not okay, and I don’t think I said that it was. I’m saying I don’t think there is a line about not being able to make jokes that include calling a child a bad word. I admire your thick skin. I don’t expect a kid to have equally thick skin; indeed, I don’t expect it of adults, and I would think an adult who did a performance art piece based around calling you vile names would be out of line. I get the satire, and I understand that her innocence is a vital part of it. I don’t think the satirical point was worth the potential side-effect of hurting a kid’s feelings in this way. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/258 "2013-02-26T22:08:44Z")
Right, that’s a fair point and I get it, I just don’t feel the same. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/259 "2013-02-26T22:14:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That, however–I really don’t think any 9-year-old I know would even begin to comprehend that explanation, especially not on an emotional level. Well, my sample size for experience with kids is small. But I seem to recall reading once that they’ve found out that kids as young as _three_ typically understand the difference between sarcasm and non-sarcasm. Granted knowing the difference isn’t the same as fully appreciating sophisticated satire, but anyway, reading things like that suggested to me that kids get things more than is usually thought. My own kids seem to get satire and sarcasm okay. (Interestingly it’s the older one who occasionally has to ask if I’m being serious–but when I then tell him I’m not (as someone can tell Quvenzhane that the comment isn’t serious) then he understands how to interpret my comment. Meanwhile my younger kid never has to ask–she just understands. And… that’s my sample size.) ---
**Author:** ![LC\_Strawhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@LC\_Strawhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LC_Strawhouse)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329/260 "2013-02-26T22:16:15Z")
Those critics obviously didn’t know that The Onion is one of the Holy Hipster Trinity (along with South Park and Quentin Tarantino) whose every utterance is pure blessed Truth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-calls-quevanzhane-wallis-a-cunt/651329.md?page=14)