|chumbucket - 2016-04-14 |
|That guy - 2016-04-14 |
I'm sure this will go over like a lead balloon around here, but I seriously don't get John Oliver's occasional campus-left objections to things.
The dumb 'fairy' joke is wildly out of place in this training video or whatever. And it's fair to say it's suspicious and a bad idea, especially since it would look bad in any discrimination case.
But I don't see how it's homophobic, as opposed to just dumb + legal exposure for the company.
Also, I'm super-gay for girls in Snow White costumes.
I think we're just all so scared shitless of being rejected by the Imperial Static Template that anything not to the right of bubonic plague makes us terrified of starving to death or being beaten to death.
Equality, tolerance, peace, camaraderie, knowledge, wisdom, that's all a fate worse than death now.
You have to be suicidal to have any kind of standards away from the absolute worst possible.
Never expect it.
I'm sure I didn't follow that.
I am saying that part of equality, tolerance and camaraderie is mutual dumb jokes in all directions. AND YET part of truly prejudiced people's psychological schtick is slipping their prejudice by as if it's a dumb joke, which makes for suspicion of all of this "dumb joke + pointing to difference" equation. One type of lefty solution is "guilt is never to be doubted".
I think that suspicion of this sort is an unsolvable problem, and that we pretty much need to ignore it until it's obvious that the joke has a bad ethos behind it.
Is this one that way? I don't know, so I'm not in a race to call it homophobic and be holier-than-thou, thou villain. We don't know what the other jokes were in this training video, either. Tone and context matter. It's fairly plausible that the joke here is "we're open to everyone" + "let's be honest, we all notice each other's differences" which is eminently more sane than "we all pretend not to notice any of our differences, yet we all embrace them".
(This might be the only way I'm on the same page as Zizek, so maybe I should reconsider)
OR this joke could be in bad faith from a bunch of social conservatives. I don't know so I'm not ready to knee-jerk about it.
This isn't the first time that this show jumps to this kind of conclusion. I think that John Oliver and his writers are satirists who would like to also have squeaky-clean hands on sensitivity. I've noticed this several times now, and it's different from the satire of the shows that this show was birthed from. This holier-than-thou attack satire is a stupid combination. Twas once a paradox but now the times have given it proof. Sure, attack satire needs a moral ground to stand on, but "If possible guilt- Then guilty" is not a moral ground to me.
Seriously? Because "faerie" has exactly one meaning in pop culture: it's a slur against gays. It doesn't even fit in the context of their stupid skit; there weren't any faeries in the Red Riding Hood story, and I don't think *any* of the Brother Grimm stories had faeries in them.
It's pretty clearly a slur. And the smarmy, winky way that the guy delivers the "we're equal opportunity employers" line makes it pretty clear what they think of equal opportunity employment: it's all bullshit, and it's an additional checkbox you need to tick off to satisfy those bitches in HR.
In short, the entire sketch reeks of entitled frat bro.
Why you're bending over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt is beyond me.
Oh, and I almost missed the most obvious point: the faerie is a guy. That only happens if you're making a gay joke.
In other words: This isn't an example of microagression bullshittery, this is a straight-up gay joke by assholes who think they're being clever.
There's little that's more hatefully punishing than industrial videos made by jackoff managers who want to stretch their comedic wings.
Yeah, the thing to remember is that employees, a percentage of whom were almost definitely gay, were required to watch this. That's what makes it offensive instead of just cringey.
Well, I could be tone deaf. There's that possibility, too.
I don't see how the connotation of 'faerie' can be slur-only.
(also I didn't watch the whole Oliver video, so I have practically no context on the training video, etc.)
I've also learned from this site that I live in part of the country that's pretty damn open to everyone, as opposed to some of you with insane horror stories about what it's like to be _____ or _____ in Mississippi or Arkansas or something. So maybe between not being gay and not living in a red state, I don't know shit.
If I call someone a gaylord and he calls me a breeder or a meathead or whatever, in my life, it's because it's someone I have beers with or have known for years, and it started with an argument over what movie or video game is better than another, etc. It's not because I live in North Carolina and I'm hoping the governor will death-march them out of the state.
I am willing to agree they're evil because they're a credit report company, and that therefore they meant it with ill will.
Are you you saying there shouldn't be gay jokes, or that there shouldn't be gay jokes in work videos? I'm agreeing with the latter off the bat. I'm just not trying to read their minds about "dumb joke + legal exposure" vs "dumb joke + legal exposure + homophobic". I do think intention generally matters.
Yes, OZ, I wouldn't blame anyone for being offended, because you don't know what the ham-fisted, inappropriate joke was meant to mean.
I'm not in a rush all the time to think I can see into someone's heart and know precisely what type of asshole they are. There's homophobic and there's "no one will be offended by this". Those are two different types of asshole.
(the context is different when we talk shit to friends, of course)
I threw a party a while back that ended up with a small, gay Italian putting his testicles in my girlfriend's best friend's girlfriend's ear while I performed "Like A Virgin" from the original Pioneer karaoke laserdisc, but it's been a while since I've thrown a party like that.
Honestly, I hate throwing parties unless they're at someone else's house and I can just show up, make a scene and then leave without cleaning up.
I pretty much only go to gay parties, and wait until I've made friends with them all enough to call them a "bunch of fairies".
Sometimes that takes a really long time to get to that point, like I have to help them make appetizers and redecorate and drop someone off at the airport. But I know when it's time.
"You're all a bunch of fairies!" I say.
Everyone laughs and tells me to shut my stupid breeder mouth. And then we all sing kumbaya.
and then you masturbate furiously?
to girls in Snow White costumes once I get home.
When I lived in Bostn I'd say about 30% of my friends were gay and maybe 40% were women, but moving to Rhode Island I don't have a single gay friend outside of work and hardly any platonic female friends (I had more when I moved here but most of them have skipped town since then... and about half the male ones, for that matter). It kind of sucks actually, because there's not much more boring than a bunch of straight white dudes, but it seems like that's all I meet down here.
|TeenerTot - 2016-04-15 |
>>...and wait until I've made friends with them all enough to call them a "bunch of fairies".
So then you understand that the default use of the word is pejorative.
So is the word 'butthead', but you don't hate me for being such a butthead. You love me.
Not every pejorative is as bad as every other one, word for word. If you all are saying that 'fairy' is the nuclear option, you can go fuck yourselves. The denotation isn't even negative. If 'fairy' meant 'pig' or 'thing you burn on a fire' or something, I wouldn't be blathering on like this.
Nor is every use of any given word equal to every other. I've heard gays and lesbians say 'breeder' with casual affection, or others say it with dripping with hatred. I'm not in a rush to call all those uses of the word the same thing.
I think there's a different between "inappropriate and suspicious" or "I can see into your hateful heart through one word in a dumb joke", or "that word is always guilty".
Right off the bat, I called the whole joke: dumb, out of place, suspicious and a bad idea legally (nor did I quibble with any of those). 'Homophobic' to me means "the joke teller hates gays" and I'm not prepared to read minds here without evidence beyond an ill-chosen joke to try to tie 'fairy tale' to 'fairy'.
People have wildly bad ideas for jokes sometimes that come from impishness and not hatred, and then their intentions get interpreted as hateful because the joke is suspicious. This joke is rightfully suspicious, but to suspect and to know should not be considered identical. As for the actual content of the joke, is the 'fairy' dehumanized in some way? I don't see it. I do think that the delivery/execution of all of it, and the epically punchable face on the guy also makes people react to the whole bit differently. You put actors in there with those same shitty lines and the whole bit would feel like it meant something else.
I also fucking guarantee you that the sound edit makes the audience reaction seem immediate but there's no way they absorbed what they were seeing that quickly to groan.
|TeenerTot - 2016-04-15 |
>>So is the word 'butthead', but you don't hate me for being such a butthead. You love me.
Well, maybe love is a bit strong.
Dammit meant as reply. I'm such a butthead.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|