sundin13 said:
A white lie is typically told in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings, so I don't really think it applies in most jokes. And again, I think in a non-political context, a joke which uses a "lie" is typically fine as long as it is clear that it is a joke. It becomes more of an issue, when, like I said before, the "joke" begins to function more as an argument or an attack than a joke. Like, take for example old black face humor. It was certainly meant as a joke, but it was a joke crafted through a lie told to marginalize a vulnerable group. I feel "jokes" which work on that principle should be called out 10/10 times. In comedy, this distinction is often referred to as "punching down v punching up" and there is some debate and argument regarding this. I am of the mind that comedians should be able to make jokes about anything. On the other hand, typically these jokes are just bad. ContraPoints said while talking about Gervais' "attack helicopter"-esque jokes ("I identify as a monkey lololol") that one of the main issues with this type of humor is not that it is making jokes about being transgender, it is that it completely doesn't understand what is funny about the transgender experience. As such (and these are my own words), it just goes to ridiculously bad arguments to make a punchline instead of jokes. However, this discussion is primarily framed outside of comedy clubs and instead in message boards. The posting of such a joke in a thread about politics doesn't carry the same innate properties as a joke in a comedy club. It doesn't get that "free joke pass". Typically, it serves as an argument first and a joke second. It is a way of pointing out the ridiculousness in the opponent's argument by exaggerating it and repeating it. However, this type of argument relies on logical fallacy to exist. Yes, it can always fall back on the "it was just a joke" line, but at the same time, it isn't "just" a joke. It is a "joke and..." whether you like it or not, because that is the nature of the forum. I don't really want to get into the transgender debate here, but I will say this isn't about me wanting to "silence" anyone anymore than it would be if I were to call someone out for the logical fallacies in their non-joke arguments. And sorry about the lack of clarity about what I was referring to. I have a tendency of doing that. I see an interesting conversation point and I try to talk about it even when I don't really care about how that conversation point came about. |
I think you're trying to tie it specifically to trans people. They are not the only people who feel like they are different and should be able to force people to address them as they wish. If you're going to allow this, then anyone who feels that they are not being labeled properly, would have the right to call themselves something that you may very well not want to address them by, but you won't have a choice because it's about how they feel about themselves. Once you open the box it's open season, and to give special privilege to some and not others will just be allowing the same thing to exist, just in a different way. Just because the majority hasn't spoken up about this and made it a key issue for themselves, doesn't mean they don't want it as well and won't take full advantage of it. You can't try and force someone you think is 'normal' to keep following the old rules, because that would be unfair as well. It has to be all or nothing, and the problems that would bring are something you really want to think long and hard about before allowing it. This is just one of the many problems that come along with this scenario as a whole, which is why they make such a big deal of it. The joke part of it is mostly to draw attention so they can point out the potential issues, not to put certain people down. That doesn't mean other people don't see it that way though, but that doesn't change the intent.
Just because someone intends something to be used a certain way or to mean a certain thing, doesn't mean much if someone else is using it for a different reason. Some black people call each other the N word all the time, and even some white people who are really good friends with black people, and yet it's not a problem. That is because those people are not using it for the same reason it was negatively purposed for. Jokes are no different, depending on the individual intent.
As for calling it out, that's fine, you can do that if you like, but what I don't understand is why you didn't call out the other persons modification of my joke? Their's would be no more legitimate than mine based on your reasoning, considering they were predicting the future in their 'punch line', which they obviously can't know. That would mean what they said was a 'lie' as well, and yet you didn't call it out. Why? Seems like there may be some logical fallacy or cognitive bias in your own reasoning.
My joke was to simply point out that Mueller didn't seem to handle the hearing very well. Not like he was ever going to drop a bombshell that we didn't already know, but for how important the Dems seem to think this is, it certainly didn't look to end up in their favor based on his performance.
No need to apologize, I very well could have asked for a better explanation but figured it was the most likely intent. I guess that's why they say not to assume.
