No, they made the mistake of expecting their audience to also be smart. However, when something starts making the rounds in Twitter, that audience quickly loses itself.
I like how MeanOldLady’s race was an important data point in assessing the accuracy of her opinion, until it turned out she was black, when suddenly it was irrelevant.
See, that’s exactly how I was taking it when I read the “apology.” I would not be surprised at all if The Onion is all having a good long laugh and perhaps in a Bond Villain-esque move planned this all out so they could have a good long joke on over-sensitivity and apologies that aren’t really necessary.
Okay, so they satirized someone calling her a name, and she’s black, therefore it’s racist. Edit: @ Miller - I know, right? What’s worse is I said I don’t find it racist without even bringing up that I’m black because it actually is irrelevant. The Onion’s readership being a bunch of white guys, or my being a black woman, or respondents here liking or disliking the Tweet being whatever combination of black, white or yellow is all irrelevant.
By the same token, you and others have no right to decide on behalf of someone else that something is hurtful.
This is a seperate issue than the one you mentioned above. Whether it is hurtful or not is a seperate question from that of whether (and how) it is about her. (One may have implications for the other but they are separate questions).
I would argue the comment is about her, but that properly understood no one should be hurt by it. (Because it’s only about her in the sense that my comment that “Obama is a faggot” that I am making right now is about Obama–Obama is being referred to, but I don’t actually intend to communicate a view that Obama is gay or that gay people are despicable.)
I also recognize of course that kids can’t be held responsible for feeling the “right” feelings all the time, and I can see that this should often enter into our decisions about what to say around them. In other words, because she’s very young, she can’t be counted on to properly understand the comment. That’s a fair point. On the other hand… she’s nine, and nine year olds maybe can understand more about irony than a lot of people seem to think. My own five year old gets sarcasm just fine. (Research has shown kids as young as three seem to know the difference, if not thoroughly “getting” it with any depth.) So it’s another case where it’s not up to you and me to decide how she will respond. She’ll respond how she responds. It’s up to her (and maybe to some extent her close caregivers).
Agreed: It being a joke doesn’t, by itself, make it okay in every case to say whatever one likes to whomever one wishes.
As noted, the same sentiment applies in the opposite direction.
Not sure what you mean by this, but if it means the same thing as “deciding for them whether or not something is hurtful” then as noted above, you’re apparently guilty of doing the same.
I gleaned that was the case when I responded to her typo (don’t worry, I understand the implication).
To be fair, her being black isn’t irrelevant - it’s very relevant. It would just be neccesary for me to go into several other avenues of black political thought to address why her proffessing it has nothing to do with “black baby jesus” is apart of the problem - not the solution.
And I doubt many people would care, or understand.
Pick your battles…
Except Quevanzhane was not being picked on. It was just used as a joke because it was so absurd . . . no one could be less of a cunt than a sweet-mannered cute little 9-year-old actress. It would be like calling Meryl Streep’s Oscar dress slutty, when it is in fact very conservative.
My friend Cynthia is black. Cynthia is being a bit of a cunt today.
My friend Karen is white. Karen is being a cunt today too.
Same thing. No racism implied or stated.
I will add that I think Sleufeets attempts to speak for all women of color is actually funnier than the original tweet that started this discussion.
But the argument of that passage fails, because it includes an assumption that the tweet “picked on” Quvenzhane. It most emphatically did not. It picked on popular media coverage of pop culture figures. It did not pick on the girl herself.
The tweet was basically slapstick. We don’t laugh at the three stooges* because we agree with them or admire them. We laugh at them precisely because they are buffoons. We find nothing in them to admire. And in the same way, we laugh at the pretended voice behind the Onion’s tweet not because we agree with what it says or in any way admire it–exactly the opposite! We laugh at it because it is pure buffoonery. Its (pretended) voice is making an utter fool of itself. We’re laughing at the foolishness. (And if the foolishness is in a way a logical extension of the kinds of actions actual pop media dishers undertake in covering entertainment news, so much the better. I’ll take a little satire mixed in with my buffoonery any day.)
*Actually I don’t laugh at them at all, but anyway, taking it for argument’s sake that one finds them funny…
Guess I’m dumb. I don’t see how it is so impossible, ridiculous or absurd to call a 9 yr old girl cunt (nasty and unnecessary, yes). Especially when people are willing to call her a brat. If Qu wasn’t the target of that tweet I have no idea who was.
I think the joke fails on Twitter because not everyone lives in a world where it’s unimaginable that a bratty kid could get called a cunt. There’s not enough room in a tweet to supply all the missing context so it just sounds like the Onion is being mean.
But it’s black history month.
“I’m right, but you’re not smart enough to understand why, so I’m not going to bother to explain myself.”
You’ll go far here with that sort of attitude.
Cute anaology. Now imagine that you are a 12th grade white guy with a trust fund and you called Cynthia - a 4th grader - a cunt in the mall. Because you didn’t call Kerri Washington a “cunt” who is in your grade. It’s all context. That’s the point.
When did I say I was speaking for all women of color? I merely stated that as a person of color, woman, who understands satire/humor - Yes. I saw it as racist. It was racist.
However, similar to a user stating how you don’t get to negotiate someone else’s space. If there are tons of black writer’s and political blogs discussing how the tweet had racial implications.
How do you get to tell someone that it wasn’t racist?
I’m telling you right now that it wasn’t.
What did you think of the movie Beasts of the Southern Wild?
I’m holding conversations with about 5 of you I think.
I think, I’m doing alright.
There are other people to respond to you know. Thanks for the encouragement.
I thought it was shot extremely well. And the performances by a cast of (non) actors were brilliant.
What did you think of it?
Eh, the only context you need is that The Onion is a satirical website that makes jokes. Calling a 9 year old a cunt factiously is a joke, actually calling her a cunt isn’t.
I mean, what’s the alternative explanation? That the guy that runs the Onion tweet actually has some personal beef with a nine-year old?
I guess I would say it had a problem from a craft standpoint. It sounds too juvenile/blunt - like when Jon Stewart incorporates “skull-f******” in one of his bits.
MacFarlane put the N-word on Mel Gibson’s answering machine, tried to sell the “actor inside Lincoln’s head” joke, used the same c-word in a false-rhyme as mentioned above.
It was a clunker-filled approach to humor and this Onion kerfuffle is just more of it.
I thought it was super racist. I can’t believe they called that little black girl Hushpuppy just because she’s black. And her dad, Wink? What a terrible thing to call him.
Am I doing this right? I want to make sure I’m really good at crying racist-wolves.
Actually you are.
here’s a well written article on the negative racial sterotypes the movie propagated.
good job Bob.
- The key is to think for yourself. lol. It’s funny that you were politically conscious while trying to be..otherwise. LOL. I do appreciate the critical thinking. none the less