Of course its relevent. The two go hand in hand. Morgan wouldn't have said what he said if the idea wasn't that there is something wrong with being gay. Yes, free speech lets people take their complants to the broadcasters and to advertisers. There is nothing wrong with that and I think you are selectively picking what is okay to take to advertisers and what isn't. Is boycotting companies that advertise on Glenn Beck for example taking away Glenn Beck's free speech rights? That's absolutely absurd.
I'm about as pro-equality, pro-gay, pro-people as you can get, and I ****ing laughed my ass off. It's satire, and so falls under Poe's Law.
You really laughed your ass off? Even if we put the idea that it's hateful aside I just don't think it was in any way funny. But that's a matter of opinion I guess.
I think, we're hitting the crux of our disagreement. I can seperate joking about gays, form actual discrimantion. You can't. There is something wrong with that. A loud mob, shouldn't be allowed to decide what everyone else can and can't see on televsion. As much as I hate Glenn Beck, the attack campaign by liberals against him was pretty despicable IMO, ofcourse he is even more dispciable in the attack campaigns he conducts. Free speech is more than just a government issue. The government is just a powerful mob, a church can be a mob, liberals can be a mob, when the mob dictates, what an individual can do, then freedom has been infringed.
you're being naive. that's exactly what happens and has always been the case since the dawn of television. advertisers bow to the whim of the masses. which is why nipplegate was such a big deal during the superbowl a few years back and why we cant see boobies on network tv lol at the freedom to watch television. have you watched television? at all? because there is no "freedom" and what little there is can be infringed on at any time by some religious group, right wing nutjob group or by advertisers who ultimately call the shots on everythign we seen on the little or big screen. what you're advocating doesnt exist and never has in broadcast media
Yup, that must be it. I think, we're hitting the crux of our disagreement. I am okay with people being held accountable when they say stupid shit. You aren't. And if you think that people have any power as individuals then I have a bridge to sell you. An individual rarely influances anything, almost always it has to be a group effort. But in your world people getting together for change is a violation of free speech rights. :upstare:
The old two wrongs, make a right argument. Haven't seen that in a while. Shit, you're so closing to getting it, now just replace right with left. What do you mean holding them accounatable , do you want him punished or not. I'm people being told what they can and can't say, you are? When I said mob, I meant a group not an individual. The government is a group of individuals too, you know.
Oh it definitely is, humour is entirely subjective. This kind of joke is black humour, which is a really divisive kind of comedy. Sexist, racist, violent, disrespectful - it's not the content, but the absurdity of the premise itself that makes it funny. The joke isn't that he'd stab his gay son to death for not being manly, the joke is the suggestion of a reality in which he would do that.
it's not an argument it's a statement of fact. you're being naive by expecting people to act a certain way what difference would that make?
I'm not expecting them to behave a certain way, I'm criticizing them for doing so. In this case it's liberals who are doing it. You'd be agreeing that liberals are infringing on free speech by wanting to stop, this type of comedy
because you expect them to think the same way as you do liberals? and not gay defamation groups. please point to where exactly it says "liberals" (not gay defamation groups, you'll just use a catch all phrase to lump in everybody who doesnt agree with your pov) are trying to "stop" this "type" of comedy. how would you even do that since it wasnt broadcast but said at a comedy club. seems to me you're more interested in defending seemingly homophobic comments than on getting your facts straight
ARe you trying for the record, for most strawman arguments? gay groups aren't liberals? If you want to be semantic, will call them gay groups, but anyone with half a brain knows they are liberals. They are trying to get hiim suspended from his tv show, as punishment. Enough with the strawmans already.
well, some gay people might prefer imperialism and corporate welfare, to caring about social issues. however equaility, tolerance and diversity, are generally considered liberal causes.
What I mean is that people in his position should be held accountable for what they say, you don't seem to think so. Do I personally think he should be punished? Since he apologized and didn't double down on what he had to say I think that was enough and I hope his career survives since I do like the guy. And I don't agree with the people that think he should be fired. But to suggest those people are somehow violating his free speech rights is absurd. I understand that. What I am telling you is an individual has no power in this country, only groups of individuals do. And that's not only this country, thats every single country on this planet. That's the way things work. You are here making the case that if a group of individuals get together and try to affect politics or other issues those people are violating someone's rights. Again, absolutely absurd. If GLAAD, which for some reason you keep insisting is a mob of liberals, wants to voice concerns as a group about what Morgan said they have the right to do that. Just as you have a right to say they are wrong for doing that. But they are not violating anyone's free speech rights. By the way, GLAAD's only mission is to protect gay people from defamation. Although yes, most liberals embrace this that doesn't make them a liberal group. They are not out there calling for tax increases, or stopping the war, or other liberal causes. They only have one objective, to stop defamation and create equal rights for gay people.
way to dodge the point a second time ya there's no such thing as conservative gays (at least none that arent hiding in a closet AMIRITE STABBY?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism wtf is the point besides lumping everyone into a broadly defined group. you're being idiotic here ya and not the show itself right? dam liberals <checks for signs of an erection>
So you believe he should have been punish for something he said, if you didn't like them. This is not an issue of crtizing him for saying it, I agreed with that from the start. THis is an issue of he said something, some poelpe find offensive, now move on with your life. [/quote] a group is more powerful than an individual, and can therefore exert unfair leverage against individuals. It's like when oil companies bully farmers for fracking God you're stupid. I NEVER said social activism doesn't occur all the time, I'm saying I don't agree with it. You're a troll tolerance and diversity are liberal causes, it is therefore apt to call advocates of tolerance liberals. Since I'm now apparently gay, as a gay I beleive it is important to allow, artistic freedom and comedians should not be pressured into self censorship for offending my community. Words are just words. I think Tina Fey is a liberal.
No. How much clearer could I be? He apologized therefore I think it should be left there. And I don't agree with the people calling for him to be fired. But at the same time I think you saying these groups are violating his free speech rights is insane. We have 300 million people in america. The world population these days is what? 6 billion? How do you propose that an individual enact change without forming a group of like minded individuals? "as a gay"...stay classy my friend. You are absolutely right. People in the media should be allowed to make jokes about killing gay people, killing politicians, or killing that guy who looked at them wrong that one day. It's all just words, right?
ya I'm the one who is stupid even though I'm not the one lumping people into clearly defined groups based on political affiliation. I mean as a liberal I should be offended according to your logic but I'm not so that must make me a conservative. guilt by association. so using that same logic I can honestly and correctly assume you are a closeted homosexual
They want rid of him due to his speech, is that not a free speeech issue? Did I say we shouldn't from groups, don't think I did. I am for critizing the coersive behaviour of groups. Stern called me gay, I was briging the debate down to his level of understanding. There is this concept called freedom of speech... Jesus, how hard is this. If someone advocates a soically liberal belief, how are they not a liberal. Even if they had conservative or libertarian beliefs about other things, in this case they are being liberal by advocating something liberal. I honestly think your just trolling now.
His idiotic speech. No, it is not a free speech issue. He is free to say whatever he wants. We are free to criticise him for it just as we are free to demand he isn't given air time (something I would not personally do). That's exactly what you said, isn't it? Or atleast you have a problem with the concept, you said it gets in the way of freedoms since it has an unfair leverage over individuals. Or is your argument that groups are okay as long as those groups do only what you think they should do? Yes, there is. What you don't understand is that because of freedom of speech people say stupid shit all the time and when they do they should be called on it. There has to be accountability, you are arguing that there shouldn't be. And you didn't really address my point, did you? If a guy (lets say Glenn Beck) gets on TV and says that his viewers should go and kill Obama would you be here defending his right to say that on a national network that is seen by millions of people a day? And anyone calling for him to be fired would be violating his free speech rights?
Yep, they should be allowed as long as by "people in the media" you mean people in a context where they're clearly not being serious... like a comedy club while doing other jokes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BAGuwUesTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4 Both of these are clearly not being serious, and only a god damn idiot would think they are being serious. If you're offended by them, go ahead and bitch about it, but don't ****ing suggest that we should limit what is allowed to be joked about.
no I didnt I said I looked for an erection ...is there something you want to tell us? all of canada must be liberal then including our conservative prime minister who "advocates a socially non partisan belief" in canada it's a non partisan issue across all the political spectrum. social conservatives still advocate for gay rights because it's not gay rights but rather human rights. your problem is that you have these rigid preconcieved notions of how people are going to react based on nothing more than policial affiliations
What you seem to be ignoring in Obama's case is context. You are right, nobody actually would take that to mean he wants to bomb the Jonas brothers. This is an old joke that is very common, do my daughter wrong and I'm coming for you. In Titus's case (whom I really like) you seriously don't see anything wrong with that joke? Would you feel the same way if Beck had made this same joke in reference to Obama on Fox news?
I find the whole necessity for people to define themselves through their sexual proclivities a fairly hilarious avenue of human behaviour tbh.
No Limit: The underlying premise of what I'm saying is about the nature of power, the mob has power, power is coersive , anarchism etc.. I don't give a **** about this debate anymore. Yes you did All of cananda probabaly is liberal about gays, like they are liberal about racial segregation. The conservatives today are more liberal than conservative 100 years ago. Liberal is an adjective as well as a brand name. No cares about Canada anyway. No I'm not taking about registered democrats, I'm using a discriptive term to describe people with a liberal position
If he made the joke in a venue or situation where he has been, continues to, and is expected to make jokes, then yes, I'd feel the same exact way. So in your situation, I would only support him if he was on Fox News and making jokes with other people. If he was just randomly saying it in a non-jocular fashion, and only stating after the fact that it was a joke, I would take some issue with it. Even then, the issue I'd have with it would not be about the joke itself, but rather about the intent of his statement at the time he said it and the appropriateness of it in the context. If his intention was clearly not a joke then there's a major problem. If it was clearly intended as a joke, then theres just a minor problem with him having made a poor decision to make a joke during a segment intended to be serious. The latter being the same seriousness as someone in a movie theater laughing out loud during an emotionally tragic scene. Also, my stance on the issue has nothing to do with politics you and I don't appreciate you making the suggestion that it does.
I just find it slightly ironic that you had a problem with Sarah Palin using targets on maps when Gabby Giffords got shot yet you would have no problem with a guy like Beck joking around about hanging out on the grassy knoll with a gun if Obama is re-elected and sacrificing himself for his country. And, this has everything to do with politics. I'm not trying to be in any way a dick and not really sure why you seem to have taken offense to that, this is the politics section and we are talking about political subjects.
I don't feel the necessity to make them a forefront of my persona tbh. On a biological level anything but actual coitus is pretty much an act of masturbation, mutual or otherwise. When you break it down in that sense, before you know it you have to start giving 'rights' to everyone, from the guy who gets off shoving pine cones up his ass whilst listening to Wagner to the married Redneck couple who both practice bestiality with a small horse (true story btw). What makes their sexual practices any less meaningful Vs Bruce & Ted or Samantha & Joan? Nothing really at the end of the day. Now I apologize whole heartily if you feel I'm denigrating whole swathes of 'society' with that statement. However I think it's important for you to understand that I'm looking at things in terms of absolutes, because they are the only things worth dealing in. Anything else is just chatter. I hold that people can be with whomever they want to be (assuming the attraction is mutual and not forced), I just find the necessity by people (often of their own accord) to differentiate on a behaviour absurd. Free will or determinism, that's what it all boils down to. I'm in the free will camp.
That doesn't quite cut it when you're just taking a dig at minorities in an irony-free fashion. Bernard Manning could tell a mean n*gger or paki joke, and you'd have a tough time finding even liberal comedians who would denigrate his comic timing or delivery. Still, he couldn't get a broadcast gig because his material was needlessly upsetting, plus he was genuinely a bigoted dinosaur who thought that brown people should piss off back to where they came from, or similar sentiments. Jeselnik is a different kettle of fish (one whom I don't find that funny, incidentally). Obviously the extremity of his act is the joke itself. 'That's my opener!' and his quickfire delivery; the comedy comes from the idea that a guy would just stand there hopping between unrelated topics and using the most offensive things imaginable as punchlines. He is the joke, or maybe our notion of preserving taboos is the joke. That doesn't mean that every comedian who violates taboos is doing it in the name of that sort of comedy. I haven't seen the routine and I did entertain the possibility that the source of humour in the routine is what you describe. From reading audience accounts and the context of the routine, it doesn't seem to be the case though; it's less a joke about 'OMG how absurd to suggest you would be so backward that you'd stab your son for being fruity! HAHA, surreal' and more a joke about 'These gays with their faggy voices! HAHA why do they do that, they drive you nuts, it's true.' Apparently he has a history for talking about homosexuality being a 'choice' and some of the comedy characters he's done play on gay stereotypes. Above all, if the routine was ironic or was layered in that way, why not defend its sophistication rather than ditch it and start grovelling? Because he knows he's been caught in an outdated social view, and he knows what side his bread is buttered as far as keeping his career alive. Ruin his career? You're talking as if having an audience of millions is this guy's basic human right. Getting fired from a cushy job with a massive audience because you've been associated with unsavoury comedy routines is not a free speech issue. It's an issue of marketability. If enough people tell his bosses they don't want Morgan on the show based on his comedy, and his bosses make a decision based on that response, so what? He can still perform the same material to smaller crowds and push it even further. He'll have found his rightful level. One of my favourite comedians is Doug Stanhope, yet it's understandable to me that most TV stations won't touch him with a bargepole. Some of his material - the stuff I like least, tbh - is needlessly vicious and hurtful towards the disabled. It's done for the sake of extremity, absurdity and shock value (which is jarring, because much of his material, while offensive, is very thoughtful and not played for pure shock). Fair enough if he wants to do it, but at the same time there's no point giving it mainstream TV exposure if it's going to reach and upset people that don't want to hear those things.
Y'all dumb. I can't believe I'm taking No Limit and Stern's side on this. This is completely facile. The pervading view in this thread seems to be that anything becomes fair game when it's put in the form of a joke. That's absurd, as anyone who's ever been the victim of a hurtful joke will tell you. Pretending that the only possible outcome of a joke could be something as silly as "offence" is to ignore the very real discrimination that happens using discriminatory humour. Did none of you go to ****ing primary (grade) school? It all depends on intent and context, and by making out like the only context that's worth a damn is "he's a comedian" and "he's in a comedy club," you're ignoring every other possible implication of what he said. But of course, you'd object, they're only possible implications. No one can say for sure what his intent was, and in that respect I'd agree. I'm actually willing to give Tracy the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume that he did intend for it to be dark satire. I'm not really familiar with his act, but the comments are a little on the absurd side to be taken seriously, so it seems much more likely he was just being outrageous for comedic effect. Fair enough. But this is his job, and the fact that he left any ambiguity about it is completely his fault. Louis CK, for comparison's sake, does this shit all the time. There's just about nothing that's off limits to him, but I've never once felt offended or even offput by his act because he knows how to frame it as comedy. If Tracy cared at all about what impression he was giving his audience, he would have made that completely implicit. He didn't, and he's paying the price for that. Simple as. Furthermore, regardless of his intent, the fact remains that there are people in your country who do intend to slander and oppress gay people. Tracy's comments, when taken under the assumption that he was being at least partially serious (which, again, I don't agree with), legitimize their position. To not speak out against them is to imply that anti-gay sentiment has a free pass if it's intended to be humorous. Why, exactly, should LGBT activists be complacent in this case and not others? Because he's a comedian? Because they're being "too uptight?" These things are irrelevant to whether or not the comments themselves cause harm or legitimize discrimination. They have every right to speak out against this, and to object on the basis of it "denying free speech" is to not only deny them theirs, but to imply that their objection has no valid basis. But no, you're right. Words are just words. Completely trivial. It's not like anyone would ever... I don't know, take their own life because of them. "Feel free to organize into groups, but don't try to change or influence anything or you might infringe on someone else's freedom!" Of course, this isn't your position at all, I'm just using a strawman to reveal how absurd this is when put in plain english. In actual fact, you only seem to regard this as true in special cases, in this case people trying to force a comedian out of his job. Would this be any less true of a politician who made hurtful comments and was pressured to resign? Why? You can say you don't agree with this outcry all you like, but don't try and frame it as a violation of freedoms like the terms are clearly defined for this one specific case.
Firstly I've already stated I make an exception, with kids and it's ok with me for teachers to discpline students which call other students names. I talking about adults. False dichotomy alert. The police does things deserving of criticims, I'm not claiming we shouldn't have police. Also I'm not caliming to be the arbiter of all disputes, in this case I think they are going to far in trying to get him fired. I don't have a set idealogy to apply to all circumstance. World is a complex place, many people infringe on many other peoples lives all the time, don't make it right. Critize people who say things you don't like, critize groups who over step the mark and pressurize, people into doing what they want them to do.