home

When Satire Misses the Mark

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

23/6 is Huffington Post's satire site. I think they crossed the line here. Take a look at their blatant sexist slams of Hillary campaign official Maggie Williams, Hillary and even Michelle Obama.

Truly awful.

< Why Obama Does Not Want ReVotes In Florida and Michigan | What The Clinton And Obama Camps Said About MI/FL >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When Satire Misses the Mark | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thanks - now I need (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    eye and mind bleach...

    Not even remotely funny.

    Bare knuckles (none / 0) (#18)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    One would hope this defines the outer reaches of crudeness, but probably not.  There is room to grow, and you know how these things always expand to fill the space available. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

    Parent
    Outer reaches (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    I think the orange place is worse, but they aren't necessarily trying to be funny.


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    Much worse.  Totally off the rails.

    Parent
    OMG (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by SarahinCA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    "stinking ghetto village:  Kansas City."

    OMG OMG OMG

    Two reasons: the left one and the right one? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    Jesus H. Christ. This isn't satire that misses the mark.  This is full blown, locker room, inane, adolescent sexism of a kind that I am shocked is linked to HuffPo.

    Arianna should be ashamed. And should "denounce and reject." And de-link.

    Odious. Truly odious.

    Parent

    Once proud (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by KevinMc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    To think I was once proud to be a progressive and a Democrat.  I'm ready for this Fellini movie to end.

    They should leave the fake news to (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    the Onion.

    Where were the comments about the men? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    I was half expecting them to say that one of the men only got the job because he was, shall we say, "well endowed".  Of course, that would be unacceptable, unlike suggesting that a woman got a job because she has large breasts, which is, apparently, funny. Is the HuffPo hiring 6th graders to write their "satire"?

    It's very likely. (none / 0) (#6)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    A recent video had 6th graders parading around in pantsuits.

    Parent
    Comic genius! -rolls eyes- (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    They might have been funnier if they just said "lol bewbies" and left it at that...  Hey, I didn't say funny, I said funnier, as in funnier than completely unfunny yet still managing to lack funny.

    I though wit was a required element of satire. (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST


    Obama rules (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    Change everything.

    Parent
    The worst part is that it was supposed to be funny (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    Comedy is hard.  Even bad comedy is hard.

    But to completely FAIL at comedy takes real effort - like not running it past anyone with a working sense of humor.  

    One has to wonder (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Paladin on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    if they have Editors employed there.  I sometimes sense it's like a HS Yearbook team that throws this stuff together (but at least in HS there was an Instructor...)

    Parent
    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by chrisvee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    Now I know where all the supposed A-listers from my high school are employed.

    Add me to the list voting 'over the top and unfunny to boot'.

    Okay, that was a waste of ... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    23.5 seconds.

    Sexism masquarading as satire (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    We've seen this many times before.  But it is rising to new levels in this contest, apparently assisted in part by the wink/nod of the Obama campaign.  

    Ugly (none / 0) (#24)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
     Sexism and racism are equally ugly. It didn't take long for some posters to attribute this really awful journalism to the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    To whom do you attribute it? (none / 0) (#30)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM EST


    Parent
    For starters (none / 0) (#34)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    Do you have anything to support your allegations that the Obama campaign is behind this?

    Parent
    With all due respect (none / 0) (#48)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    I made no "allegation" that Obama's campaign "is behind this."  The "wink/nod" language was intended only to suggest that his campaign has not disavowed it. There is a difference, at least in my view.  

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#39)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    ... how about Huffington Post.  

    The Obama campaign had nothing to do with this, and you know it.

    Parent

    I didn't say it did (none / 0) (#50)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:59:50 PM EST
    Nor did I intend it to be construed that way. Apparently, it has been so construed, and on that ground, I apologize for any lack of clarity.

    Parent
    I hate to say it, but (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    the alarmingly juvenile, vicious and self-destructive tenor of this primary season is souring me on the whole concept of the Democratic Party, especially its apparently phantom "progressive wing," which is surely a misnomer if I've ever heard one.

    I'm beginning to share the right-wing distaste for "latte liberals," a group which I suppose I might be presumed to belong to.

    I disassociate myself (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    From the vicious wing of the progressive wing of the Dem party.  It does not speak for me on any level, but then, I am not an Obama supporter.  I simply want a Dem in the WH in 2009; I did not sign up for the vitriol and nastiness of this primary.

    Parent
    Hold up, I'm a Proud Liberal and now Independent (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    The Dems cast me off just before '04.

    I became an Indy when the Dems conceded and failed to count the votes and make every vote count while black voters in Ohio were still lined up voting.

    Everyone keeps blaming LIBERALS when we've been right and righteous for years.

    If Obama's priority is to make nice with Republicans (and HRC is his main impediment), he isn't liberal, progressive, nor are his supporters.

    So please, don't add your name to the list of people -- Dems, DINOS, "progressives" who can't bear to call themselves Liberals, Repugs moderate and conservative, and just plain RW whackjobs -- who blame Liberals for everything and anything.

    We've been 100% right all along, not called ourselves anything BUT Liberal, and for some reason are the first ones who get slammed for everything everyone else does wrong.

    Parent

    Im with you something is taking shape (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    ringing true, maybe a Progressive Wing inhabited by people who are driven by perceived inadequacies or handicaps and are now overcompensating in their political ideology and discourse.

    Parent
    i imagine you have a lot of company. (none / 0) (#70)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Sick, maybe politics calls to the weak anti social (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST

    personality who believes them selves to have been bullied by the Establishment, then the Right an now Women, certainly the techniques the campaign is using to inflame are right out of that physco warfare playbook.  We all saw the same things happen to the Republican Party as the right wing wacko fringe hate parade assumed power and corrupted the Party's principals not pretty, this is a clear warning for the Democratic Party to fight off the fringe now, a minority of crazies is fine everyone has a crazy uncle the cherish.  I'm wondering how the emergence of strong traditional Dem males like Strickland and Rendell not just Clinton alone vs. the Daschle, Dean, Kerry's types will have on the blogs the former three obvious winners the latter obvious losers.

    Posted on the worng string before sorry.

    It's Rush Limbaugh 'funny' (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    Headline:

    Hillary Clinton called a "monster," retaliates like a dragon

    Haw haw haw ... see, cause a dragon, like IS a monster and everyone just knows that "monster" comment was, like, totally TRUE and whatever.

    The headline isn't based on an individual's actions or objectively observable characteristics like hypocrisy or double-standard. It just propagates a nasty, narrow insult and proceeds on the notion that everyone accepts it was true.

    BTW, said gratuitous insult was from a leader in what's supposed to be the New Politics. (These people aren't just going to flame out but go down like the Hindenberg, IMO. If Obama's the Dem candidate, McCain will barely have to lift a finger to take him out.)

    OT. . . (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    or perhaps not if the subject is the denigration of women -- check out the front page of the NY Times.

    We here in NYC (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    are still shaking our heads in shock over that one.

    Parent
    Satire? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by QuakerInABasement on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    So that's satire.

    All this time, I've been under the impression it was something quite different from that.

    awful (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    I agree that this is pretty awful.

    It isn't satire.  It isn't funny.  And it IS offensive.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    It's pretty much juvenile humor all around, with comments aimed at everyone's physical appearance.  Obviously inappropriate, but so is most eighth-grade humor.

    stinking ghetto (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by SarahinCA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    is not aimed at just *anyone*----it's aimed at the black woman, if that's what you mean about "aimed at their physical appearance."

    Parent
    I'm talking about (none / 0) (#17)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    the items on that page regarding other people.  They're all disgusting and juvenile.

    Parent
    Suggesting (none / 0) (#22)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    That Michelle calls Hillary "the C--Word" goes beyond juvenile.

    Parent
    Does it really? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM EST
    Maybe your friends were better behaved as juveniles than mine were.

    Parent
    I'm probably older than you are (none / 0) (#52)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    We didn't even know these words in the sixth grade, or even in the first couple of years of high school, for that matter.

    Parent
    It seems overwhelmingly (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    directed at the women in the campaign -- including Michelle Obama.

    Then there's the racial element thrown in just in case it wasn't sufficiently offensive.

    I would try to comment if it didn't require me to soil my computer by registering.

    Parent

    Unbelievable! (none / 0) (#13)
    by barryluda on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    My son's rock band has better satire in a war protest song than anything on Huffington Post's site.
    Gotta say, I had low expectations, (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    and was happily surprised. Very good!

    Parent
    Just a thought.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    Humor is in the eye of the beholder.  I didn't find the HuffPo funny, but I don't see it as worthy of outrage.

    We never would have gotten the gems "All in the Family" from Normal Lear or Mel Brooks "Blazing Saddles" in todays uber-PC "OMG I'm offended" climate, and that's a far bigger crime IMO than what HuffPo has done here.

    The movies and TV shows (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by elmey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    were spoofs of common prejudices.
    The Huffpo is trashing real people.

    Parent
    Depends what you'll shrug off (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    Well it depends on your level of tolerance for what's simply puerile or bad taste and what's egregiously racist, sexist and plain bigoted.

    I'm sure a lot of people scratch their heads at why everyone's in a bunch over racist humor in Mississippi and Alabama, or why a bunch of feminists get all uptight about rape jokes and so on.

    All that pee-pee poo-poo caca humor and fart jokes in Blazing Saddles were just annoying.

    I've never sat through that whole movie but I seem to know all the gags. (Make of that last statement what you will.)

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    When it comes to determining "what's simply puerile or bad taste and what's egregiously racist, sexist and plain bigoted.", I'm reminded of a favorite quote from the curmudgeonly Bard of Butler, MO.

    "One man's Religion is another man's belly-laugh".

    Same goes for humor, AFAICS.

    Parent

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    It's always the fault of the people being minimized, marginalized and insulted for not having a sense of humor about it.

    I know, believe me. I'm a partner in a mostly white male law firm. I don't know how many times over the years I've been told that I should "just laugh it off."

    Parent

    You've never been persecuted then (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    Tell you what, if you ever endure (and survive) years of persecution for irrational hostility based on a hatred of a particular attribute, shrug away.

    Otherwise, it's not really anyone's call to tell others to shrug off egregious bigotry, even should they have the "cred" of being from the same cultural group.

    Parent

    Heh... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    Yeah, I suppose the fact I'm part of one of the most persecuted faiths in the history of man wouldn't teach me anything about Bigotry and Prejudice.

    Or, to put it another way..."oy gevalt!"

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    It apparently has left me with the gift of a thicker skin than some.

    Parent
    Then you understand why neither you nor Limbaugh (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    ... nor I, for that matter, should tell others whether or not they've been too sensitive about the circumstances of their persecution. (I refer to actual persecution rather than cynically claimed suffering, eg, the lathered up claim that "Your practice of your own faith inside your own hom threatens my enjoyment of my own." hooey.)

    Let people have their own feelings about whether bigotry is poisoning their lives and should they want to discuss it, do it fairly. Dismissing it as on par with a bad fart-movie isn't fair, even if that's your particular way of dealing with your own persecution.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    I dismissed it with a comparison to a blatantly "racist" film, which makes it's point by mocking all races and creeds.  My point being that in todays climate where everyone is so busy whining about being a victim and being offended, it creates a stifling effect on others.

    Mel Brooks and Norman Lear are very funny men (to many people), but two of their greatest works would never be made today, thanks in part to what you are supporting (IMO, self-defined victim hood).  

    I appreciate you telling me what I should or should not do. However, I've been making my own mind up on such issues for decades, and see little to no reason to change now.

    I suggest we will simply have to agree to disagree.

    Parent

    No, what I advocate is free speech (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    And forum for all. I don't advocate, nor would ever, demand less for others than I do for myself.

    What you're advocating is that others who you perceive to be too PC STFU -- but you given the benefit of forum and bend over backward understanding while you lecture everyone on what is or isn't too trivial.

    You have no idea whether Blazing Saddles would be made today or whether rampant PC'ness would prevent it -- it's a phony either or that gives you the speaking staff AND the rebuttal.

    Reducing others' grievances to PC and pretending "PC" is a form of censorship is beating up a straw (wo)man. The complaint about PC is what's always pulled out when someone else gets a turn at the microphone.

    Parent

    Are you done misrepresenting my position yet? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    Again, you ignore the simple fact I've never suggested in any of my posts someone shouldn't be free to speak their mind.

    AFAICS, My only comments have been:

    1. I find this instance to be much ado about nothing.

    2. I find this instance to be just another in a long chain of them.

    3. I have a concern that such comments may have a stifling effect on speech, to the degree that two classics of American Comedy would likely not be made in today's climate.  At least, not without much uproar.

    None of my posts have suggested someone shouldn't make their statements of perceived bigotry.  I've simply offered my opinion of said perceived bigotry, with no suggestion of another person's behavior.  If I haven't made that point clear in my previous posts (though I believe I have), I've made it abundantly clear here.

    Parent
    However, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:58:18 PM EST
    You are quite correct in that my initial post I should have put an "IMO" before my statement about the potential inability of Mr. Lear and Mr. Brooks to have their works debut in todays climate.  My apologies.

    Parent
    Do you see that you're (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    in the position of telling, say, rape victims to "get over it"?  Really, it is not for any of us to tell people how to feel.

    Parent
    Amen Adept.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    You are so right...."Blazing Saddles" could not be made in today's climate, and that is a real tragedy.

    Thank the sun god the pc police don't have real badges, and we are free to not take them as seriously as they take every little thing.

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    I'm just tired of the "you should shut up because I'm offended" mindset that seems so common these days.

    Parent
    Why did you comment then? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    If you've mastered the art of shutting up when something bothers you, why not lead by example?

    Why pipe up and magnanimously berate others for articulating the apparently -- in your mind -- trivial matters bothering them (us)?

    I suggest that when your objective is to tell others they should shut up about an issue that bothers them,

    BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE and shut up.

    Parent

    Looking back over my posts... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    I'm  quite certain I never suggested someone should "shut up".  I only gave my own opinion that it's not worth getting upset about.

    Sorry you can't see the difference between the two statements.

    Parent

    One last thought... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    You wish for me to "let others have their feelings" about these issues, but when I offer my own feelings (with no suggestion, overt nor implied they shouldn't express it), your response is that I should "shut up".

    Quite telling, IMO.

    Parent

    YOU were dismissing others' concerns (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    About being on the receiving end of bigotry and dragging out the hypersensitive straw (wo)man of "PC" to bash for censorship.

    I still hold that when you feel so masterfully in charge of your own feelings in the face of bigotry that YOU won't be PC about it, instead of pontificating that others should shut up, YOU should lead by example.

    And shut up.

    I advocate that people practice what they preach. I'm for articulation and discussion.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#65)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    I dared suggest that I personally did not find their concerns that upsetting.

    That is far from suggesting they should STFU about those concerns, as you are suggesting I've said.

    Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.  You've been doing it since your attempt to cast me as someone who has never known persecution blew up in your face, and it's a little sad, IMO.  However, if you want to continue misrepresenting them, you are certainly assured that right in the 1st Amendment, and I would not dream of infringing on that right.

    I feel I'm getting close to turning this into a flame, so I will disengage at this point as I have no wish to violate Jeralyn's rules.

    Parent

    You were calling others thin skinned (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:13:58 PM EST
    And implying that they were overreacting to bigotry.

    Tou claimed that, though you were part of a persecuted group, you had the cred to:

    - gauge the bigotry going on
    = distinguish between it and mere bad taste
    - establish whether people offended by the "satire" were overreacting, and
    = deciding ultimately that they were.

    your attempt to cast me as someone who has never known persecution blew up in your face, and it's a little sad, IMO.

    No, I'm for articulation and discussion in a forum without double standard. Telling others to STFU AS A COMPLAINT because you are being bothered by it is inherently hypocritical.

    My position is that if you do step forward with the claim that PC is killing free speech, don't expect silence afterwards based on the notion that only YOU get your turn to say what bothers you, then everyone golf claps your wisdom and you turn off the mic.

    If you claim to have a thicker skin than the people whose sense of offense you dismissed as over sensitive, you have a poor way of showing it with this hissy.

    Parent

    It occurs to me (none / 0) (#73)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:08:47 PM EST
    The only problem with your response is that the only person who has suggested anyone should "STFU" in this thread is you.

    I've never suggested anyone should "STFU", nor have I suggested that their response to my comment was inappropriate or should not have been made.  You have implied I've done both.

    Why do you feel a need to keep insisting I've suggested others should "STFU", when I quite clearly haven't?

    Parent

    Incidentally, (none / 0) (#74)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:10:49 PM EST
    If you're going to keep claiming I've suggested anyone (even you) should STFU about something, kindly quote the post where I did so.

    Parent
    Gee I wonder how you'd overreact at persecution (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    I dared suggest that I personally did not find their concerns that upsetting.

    Damn, and my total lack of cooperation with your sense of authority for telling others what bigotry , or PC-ness, they should or shouldn't "over"-react to is the thanks you get, huh?

    That is far from suggesting they should STFU about those concerns, as you are suggesting I've said.

    Would that everyone's opinions received the kind of extensive latitude you seek for yourself instead of being dismissed as horrid PC, which is preventing exquisite work such as Blazing Saddles from being made, and which is the payoff we'll get once some people (apart from those as thick skinned as you and your persecuted group) stop carping about persecution.

    Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.  You've been doing it since your attempt to cast me as someone who has never known persecution blew up in your face

    Heh. Not even a bit.

    Weren't you supposed to be outtahere a few posts ago after announcing that you weren't bothered by trivialities? Either you were lying about being thick-skinned, persecuted, or both (or I can't possibly be the worst thing you ever over-reacted to.)
    .
    .

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#76)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:40:45 PM EST
    I'll take that to mean that you can't show where I've said anyone should STFU.  

    I'm not surprised, as I haven't.  

    You might also notice that's the only issue I've taken with your responses.

    Parent

    You are the master of non-overreaction (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:54:19 PM EST
    ... at percieved insult!

    Thank you for demonstrating to those with thinner skins than your thick generous hide how they should behave.

    And you weren't even treated meaner than being reasonably held to  your actual statements.

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    Let's see...I've been accused now of "over-reaction" to a perceived insult, that I don't get it because of "having never been persecuted", and told I wish to censor other peoples speech and their response to those.  That's fine.  Untrue, but fine.

    I freely admit to withdrawing from the conversation for a bit, as the combination of having my comments misrepresented and a hectic workday combined and left me feeling a bit snarky.  I had no desire to act as such, so I left.

    Now, let's recap the discussion:

    1. I make a comment stating that I didn't find the HuffPo post funny, but that I (speaking only of myself) didn't find it worthy of "outrage".  I also made a separate point about Norman Lear/Mel Brooks, as we've already rehashed.

    2.  You respond: "Well it depends on your level of tolerance for what's simply puerile or bad taste and what's egregiously racist, sexist and plain bigoted."

    3. I suggest those things, like religion and humor, might also be in the eye of the beholder.

    4. You suggest I have no idea what it is like to be persecuted.

    5. I refute that point (though as I Jew I don't really feel "persecuted"...if someone has an issue with it, it's their problem not mine).  I also commented that I might have a "thicker skin" than some others, as these things don't bother me when they bother someone else.  I don't see what part of that comment is incorrect or upsetting, but your milage may differ.

    6. I'm told by you that's one reason I shouldn't tell others they've been too sensitive, etc.  

    This statement surprised me, as I don't believe I had commented on what anyone else should feel.  I have only stated what I personally felt.  

    7) I then suggested we should agree to disagree.

    At this point, you begin making multiple statements about how I am telling other people how to feel about things, that I am telling other people to STFU, and that I should "STFU", as you've apparently decided all opinions excepting mine on this subject have a place in this discussion.

    Now I ask, who is overreacting?

    I certainly haven't suggested you shouldn't respond to my posts.  I only took issue with a misrepresentation of my position concerning "silencing other viewpoints".  I've never suggested anyone else should STFU about this (or any other subject).    I don't understand why you can't extend me the same courtesy.  Why should I have to STFU about my opinion?  If I had made a point and then said "no others are valid" I could understand that approach, but I simply have not.

    And while I deeply appreciate your concern for my mental well-being as a result of our little chats this afternoon, rest assured I will journey homeward with a song in my heart, and a spring in my step.  Heck, I might even have a bluebird singing on my shoulder. :)

    Parent

    Several exits and 100's of words later (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:36:54 PM EST
    Thanks for showing too thin-skinned people how to rise above their over-sensitivities, Tough Guy!

    But do keep the lecturing down -- my case is still resting quietly upstream and can hear you.

    Parent

    You're quite welcome. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:39:58 PM EST
    I've always felt people are better served in dealing with such issues by reasoned conversation instead of merely suggesting someone should "STFU". ;)

    Parent
    So is your demonstration of not overreacting over? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:55:41 PM EST
    My monitor was thoroughly cleaned several panels ago and several failures on your part to live up to your own claims of rising above stuff.

    Again, thanks for showing how thick skinned and ruggedly above perceived (and self-inflicted wounds) you are.

    Good thing YOU weren't being persecuted here nor at HuffPo, huh? We'd never hear the fricken end of it.

    Come to think of it that may happen here too after your umpteenth final heroic departure on a lame, unwitty forced quip.

    Parent

    I know your really fixated... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    on my previous disengagement (which I explained above), though I can't quite figure out why.  If it makes you happy, by all means continue to hammer on that point.  Oh, and I'm sorry your monitor got dirty and had to be cleaned.  As the physicists say "Entropy Occurs".

    Once again, you're quite welcome.  I'm always happy to show that engaging in conversation and correctly representing someone else's statements is superior to simply stating someone should "STFU" because you don't care for their take on an issue.  I'm glad you agree. ;)

    Tell you what...if I ever do feel persecuted, I'll be sure to let you know about it as you've expressed so much concern over it.  Don't wait up, though.

    I don't know about a "heroic" exit or not, but as the last word seems to be of such importance to you, feel free to take it.  Cheers.

    Parent

    Oh, as I forgot to mention it... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    You are of course welcome to disagree with my opinion that the "PC" climate has a stifling effect on free speech in a society, as you are welcome to disagree with any of my other points.  I wouldn't want you to think your viewpoints are not welcome.

    Parent
    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    if us anti-pc folks want to have unsanitized comedy and satire to enjoy, we can't just ignore the pc police, as much as we'd like to.

    Parent
    Who's policing? Enjoy your stuff. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    Who's preventing you?

    Who's preventing Blazing Saddles from being made, remade, invoked, enjoyed -- whatever?

    If you are in a discussion, though, and present a position, don't carp about it when someone else has an opposite, reasonably articulated position.

    Parent

    I stopped reading the Huffington Post altogether (none / 0) (#33)
    by DemBillC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:11:32 PM EST
    year. Arianna is a complete Obama fan and the site is full of Obama spin and Clinton hate.

    One comment. (none / 0) (#35)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    Who cares about HuffPo?

    OT: Any heard this shocking ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    Spitzer news?

    Sadly, this isn't satire.

    The site (none / 0) (#68)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:29:31 PM EST
    also has a DI*^ipedia piece on Sen Obama that is just BAD!!

    When Satire Misses the Mark | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment