Can you cite evidence for the sentence in bold as it pertains to comedy? Has this same concept been worded differently in the past? I don’t recall ever hearing of the concepts of punching up and punching down in comedy before I heard The Young Turks using them 3-4 years ago and I’ve noticed since the usage seems to have become commonplace.
Views can be bigoted and prejudicial, that is not synonymous with being a bad person. All my comments were about the views themselves, not about posters. If I have made any posts in this thread calling a specific poster a disparaging name please show me and I will report it to a moderator and ask for a well deserved 30 day suspension(personally I believe this place is a little too lenient).
Having poorly thought out views based upon what I consider to be ignorance does not necessarily make one a bad person in my opinion. If I think posters are bad people, I don’t talk to them at all. There’s plenty of people I respect on here and admire IRL who have some views that I think are terrible. It takes far more than having some views I disagree with for me to think someone is an overall bad person.
“And after the spankings, the oral sex!”
[Moderating]
A reminder, everyone, that there’s a difference between attacking a post and attacking a poster. Everything I’m seeing so far in this thread is on the safe side of the line… but some of it only just barely. Let’s tone it down, please, and if you have a problem with a specific poster, take it to the Pit, not here.
My cite is your post. If you think the usage has become commonplace then how is it not well known and well accepted?
Punching up jokes has an older meaning of sharpening them. But the concept of punching up relating to the target is something I associate with discussions of the old National Lampoon, which was often criticized for making fun of the non-elite and powerful, even though it was run by Harvard graduates.
No, I really don’t. Not that their views wouldn’t be enlightening, of course.
I apologize, I’m only going by your posts in this thread.
If the views are enlightening why would I not be enlightened by them? Please elaborate, when you have a chance.
He didn’t say white people, he used a bit of slang (abelungu) that depending on who you ask either means sea foam* or wanderer. It is the whimsical name. To me it is not punching down but rather prodding sideways, but that is from my personal context as a white South African. Really he English translation makes it sound more racist than it really is.
*referring of course to the Europeans arriving in South Africa by ship.
Nah, see post #84.
Not by the traditional usage of that term. Punching down is mocking the traditionally disadvantaged, while punching up is mocking the traditionally advantaged. Both of these are relative to the speaker, so someone poorer or lower class can mock people higher up the chain than someone who is middle class. It’s also why, for instance, a black comedian can tell at least some jokes about black people, but a white person would be considered racist for doing so.
Comedians all the time make fun real groups of people the butts of jokes. But punching up is generally considered less offensive than punching down.
Even more than that, a black comedian can joke about white people without having the same resonance and nastiness as a white comedian joking about black people. This comedian explains it really well:
Making jokes about large groups is a tiny bit obnoxious. It goes far beyond obnoxious to make such jokes in the context of a society that has traditionally stripped that group of basic rights based on membership in that group. It goes far beyond that when those jokes riff off of the stereotypes used to strip that group of their rights.
But if you refuse to acknowledge social context, then all jokes about groups look exactly the same.
That’s willful ignorance.
I think I can say it without violating the rules.
Based on what has happened in this thread, it would seem likely that you would perceive a completely different message out of what they said than Mr Dibble would, just like you read something completely different into what Exapno Mapcase said.
You seem to reject the idea that history is even relevant. So then, why would you find a discussion of history enlightening?
But, if you want an idea of what would likely be said, check out that video LHOD linked just below my previous post. That’s the sort of thing being said: that the historical context of oppression changes the dynamics of what is and is not offensive. It’s similar to how a rich person attacking a poor person as lazy is more offensive than a poor person calling the rich lazy.
(Though, I admit, I disagree with how he defines “reverse racism.” He’s just describing punching down vs. punching up.)
As I’m interpreting this you feel that moderation in post #84 prevents you from clearly explaining your meaning in this post. Is this interpretation wrong?
Read all my posts, I clearly do not think history is irrelevant. I think a selective analysis of history where crucial facts and distinctions are ignored only spreads ignorance and false narratives.
This is not complex, the very basic, simple premise that I believe is wrong from the perspective of science or history is that skin color based assesments of people are innaccurate, do not lead to anything fruitful and are ultimately harmful and not helpful.
When I say this, it seems to me that a conclusion is jumped to that has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not saying that black people have not been unfairly oppressed, I am not saying that past racism does not have current impacts that create tremendous disadvantages for people of color. What I am against is assumptions that because one group has suffered unfairly and disproportionally at the hands of another that all people with the same skin color as the oppressor group should be thought of the same or even part of that group.
I am also against the perpetuation of social norms that allow for different rules for people with different skin color, to me that is wrong in the same way that segregation is wrong.
If you believe anything I have said in regard to history is inaccurate, show me where I am wrong. If you don’t agree with my views, tell me where my views are inaccurate. If you want to change my view, you may possibly have some success if you show me where I am specifically and factually wrong. I will probably not even respond to any more vague statements similar to what you have posted above.
You continue to abuse language. Your post is a series of opinions. Not one line can be said to contain a fact that is verifiable or disprovable. How very convenient.
All we can say is that your opinions are ill-considered, historically dubious, unworkable, and unfair. Those are opinions, but it’s a fact that we hold them.
[Moderating]
And, we’re still getting uncomfortably close to that line. In the interests of giving everyone a chance to cool down, I’m closing this thread temporarily.
OK, hopefully everyone’s had a chance to calm down now, and we can resume polite conversation. As a reminder, the Pit is just down the hall, if you feel the need to vent about other posters.
I mean, I get what you’re saying. “White” people is a gross simplification, and “white privilege” doesn’t apply equally. I’m ok with the muddling of a complex sociohistoric hodgepodge for the purposes of a joke, given that the central point is more true than not.
But also, to address your specific point: Catholics, Jews, and Italians.
I’ll grant you the Irish, though.
Are you seriously trying to say that Jews are considered to be a privileged class? That it wouldn’t be “punching down” to mock the Jews? :dubious:
Oh that’s funny. Really, really funny.
Remember when this thread was about Trevor’s joke? Countdown to the next closing…
At this point I’m just assuming it was a shoutout to his South African peeps who speak Xhosa and the white people/“seafoamers” meant were specifically the white South Africans those people interact with.