SC Controversial Topics and General Shitposting Thread

As long as words and opinions aren't lawfully penalized (tho calling for violence is a different matter here) I'm absolutely fine with people saying whatever they want and other people reacting accordingly to how they feel about it.
 
Klimat said:
It doesn't stop because that's how SJWs operate. Their sole purpose is not to fight any legitimate fight, their sole purpose is to score twitter likes and follows for themselves off a "cause". Once an SJW runs out of things to complain about, they immediately invent more things to complain about out of thin air. It's complaining for the sake of complaining, cancelling for the sake of cancelling, the process itself is the end goal and for that reason it can never stop by itself unless shut down by a third party. That's the core issue you need to understand about this whole cultural situation.
Click to expand...
I don't thinkt he situation you describe even really has much overlap with the one that I was describing in my post, to which you responded:

Rusted Blade said:
Yeah...but it doesn't stop because that's an intrinsic part of how both language and societal norms operate. Both are adaptive by nature. And not too long ago, in the grand scheme, you can bet there were plenty of people who once said "What, you mean I can't even say 'Wop' any more? Where does it end?" I'm with Stormy on this one: it's just so much easier that, once you know there's any stigma related to any label for any ethnic group (especially one they never chose for themselves or generally embraced as a culture), avoid the term, rather than put yourself in the position of trying to decide which culture's grievances are legitimate enough to be respected. Too much work, too much drama.

And too much arrogance, frankly--for my part anyway: nobody is really particularly entitled to that determination, imo. Now it certainly is easier to just go along with a racial term being blacklisted when we know some of the historical derogatory use of a term, or have first hand knowledge of its being used so in a contemporary context, but even when I don't have that first hand knowledge, I just prefer to take it on faith some asshole has used it offensively at some point. As someone who has lived on either side of the Atlantic, I suspect that many Americans fail to understand why a phrase like "he got gyped" is so problematic--to use just one from an unlimited number of potential examples.

Beyond that, why would I want to get in an argument with someone over whether something they consider a slur is a slur? It's not going to be a beneficial use of anyone's time, and I can't imagine any spin on that argument that doesn't make the advocate look bad, even if they went in to the topic with the best of rhetorical intentions. I mean its quite one thing to make a stand against it in the abstract, but sooner or later predicating your position on such a stance means looking someone in the eye and saying, "no, you don't get to be called what you want to be called, or not called what you don't want to be called. You're the bubbawoopas, if the rest of us decide. Live with it."

I just don't want to be that guy, personally, so I just choose to bend with the breeze on this one at the very origin of where the problem might otherwise arise. It's not really that hard, after-all: in my studies of human history (among other subjects of relevance) I have committed to memory many countless of thousands of ethnonyms: I can easily learn to remember to use one more and one which is considered offensive to those people. Although, I don't know about you, but there's really not much learning needing to be done here: I've known that the indigenous peoples of far North America prefer to call themselves by Inuit or more discrete tribal names since the third grade, and I'm chugging along in my forties now, so this is not exactly a new change either.
Click to expand...

The scenario we were discussing was not about some vaguely-defined SJWs, but rather when the people of an ethnic group themselves find a certain name given to them by outsiders to be either illegitimate or outright offensive. Now suffice it to say, I think your argument about changes in nomenclature generally lacks nuance and is additionally rather a straw-man argument in places. But regardless, it addresses a markedly different context from the one we were discussing. And in that context I am happy to have my perspective and approach as described in that post continue to stand for me as written. And I don't think I'm particularly "missing" anything in that analysis of why, for my part, it is not just the more courteous and respectful approach, but also the most pragmatic.
 
Last edited:
Foot said:
The problem is that SJWs hold way too mcuh power in society. And the way this is going you can literally get cancelled for everythign nowadays.Of course you maybe shouldnt say the n word out loud if you dont wanna get shit but thats also part of the problem here. SJW dont give a fuck about the context stuff is used in. Lets take comedians as an example if someone makes a joke about black people or rape or whatever he will probably get alot of shit for it for absolutely no reason or maybe even get cancelled. The fact that comedians are forced to pubilcly apologize for jokes is a good example of how fucked this whole thing is already.
Click to expand...

You probably won't find many stronger advocates when it comes to the argument that stand-up (and to some extent comedy generally) imust be regarded as an important exception to normal standards of civil discussion, and an area where freedom of expression needs to be especially vigorously protected. For one thing, I'm a zealous advocate for free speech, even onerous free speech, in general, and from within a profession that significantly defines those rights--and which thus has a high degree of responsibility for understanding their importance. On top of that, I'm a massive fan of stand-up: I've watched so much of it in the last few decades, that I'm quite confident I could sit down with a pencil and pad and the benefit of only my memory to aid me and come up with a list of my top 100 stand-up. In fact, I'd still probably have a tough time deciding who got to be included on a list of only 100. I think it's an under-appreciated craft that is probably more important now than it has ever been previously. And I think there are all kinds of caveats that comedy gets with regard to the usual rules of dignity and respect. As many comics have put it, the subject of a joke is not necessarily the target of the joke, and that's an important distinction. Good comedy can be as vital as good research, good policy, or good social theory in providing us with important insights into many issues. Very often I find complaints about stand-up histrionic and/or just outright poorly reasoned.

But even I don't think that the context of comedy provides a magical talisman that can be waved to dismiss any kind of scrutiny ever. For one thing, to get the benefit, you need to start off by being actually funny. You can't just say some biggoted, small-minded bullshit and then claim your career choice or the fact you were standing on a stage is reason in itself that it should be cloaked from judgment or that anyone who objects to it doesn't understand comedy or is an enemy of open discourse. There are comedians whose entire acts are just them getting on stage and telling jokes about how untrustworthy they believe jews are. They aren't super successful, generally, but they exist. And beyond just being obviously hateful racists, those guys are also just hacks as far as comedy is concerned. In no way does it make sense to treat them as a equivalent to an Anthony Jeselnik or Frankie Boyle--two comedians who routinely predicate their jokes in the most awful topics and go out of their way to always be challenging the claim that there is any subject that cannot be made funny. But they do so with jokes which consistently do something clever and novel. I know of many comedians who tell jokes about the same types of topics, which jokes are on the surface level, much less ghastly, but which I nevertheless find much more obnoxious because their "tamer" jokes are just hackneyed recyclings of stereotypes and I think they more likely reflect a more cretinous, genuinely retrograde attitude.

So, it's complicated I guess is my point. Comedy, like any other exercise of expression, has to be judged in context: what can we infer about the motivation? What was the assertion? (which in comedy is not always as obvious as it is in other linguistic acts: sometimes the literal statement of what the comic is saying is diametrically opposite to what he is actually implying--or to side of that point, or just an outright intentional non-sequitur/wordplay). Was it calculated and presented in such a way that we can say the average rational person ought to have gotten the actual meaning, if it leverages an offensive idea but is not in fact offensive in its own meaning? Or if it is just outright offensive, was the joke itself funny enough (or the underlying point so much more important) that we can forgive the offensiveness because of the art that went into the joke was so good? There's a lot of factors. And again, I often find myself (unsurpisingly given my priorities) siding with comedians against most complaints, because most are knee-jerk and poorly considered and regard someone's particular idiosyncratic combination of sacred cows. But say for example someone digs up some "comic" celebrity's extensive history of tedious racist jokes on their early twitter feed. That person doesn't then automatically get my allegiance just by trying to play their comedian card. More likely than not, I'm just going to consider that person an intolerant twat who not only is a wrong-headed moron, but who also tried to leverage the standing of a craft that would be better off without them to try to excuse away their own personal failures of character.
 
Last edited:
Rusted Blade said:
There are comedians whose entire acts are just them getting on stage and telling jokes about how untrustworthy they believe jews are. They aren't super successful, generally, but they exist. And beyond just being obviously hateful racists, those guys are also just hacks as far as comedy is concerned.
Click to expand...
On the flip side there is a lot of mainstream exposure of "comedians" that pander to the audience for approval and seek applause rather than laughter from a cleverly crafted joke.

DanteSC3 said:
And a good number of them are exactly the degeneracy that they’re speaking out against, the ultimate form of projection. It’s hysterical when they get exposed or being guilty of exactly the thing that they’re complaining about.
Click to expand...
Which ones are you talking about ?
BLM activists who are racists?
Feminist male allies who are sexual predators ?
PETA who actually kill an overwhelming majority of their "rescues" ?

On the other side I always found it comical when the anti-homosexual preacher is caught in a truck-stop restroom with another man.
 
Last edited:
Rusted Blade said:
You probably won't find many stronger advocates when it comes to the argument that stand-up (and to some extent comedy generally) imust be regarded as an important exception to normal standards of civil discussion, and an area where freedom of expression needs to be especially vigorously protected. For one thing, I'm a zealous advocate for free speech, even onerous free speech, in general, and from within a profession that significantly defines those rights--and which thus has a high degree of responsibility for understanding their importance. On top of that, I'm a massive fan of stand-up: I've watched so much of it in the last few decades, that I'm quite confident I could sit down with a pencil and pad and the benefit of only my memory to aid me and come up with a list of my top 100 stand-up. In fact, I'd still probably have a tough time deciding who got to be included on a list of only 100. I think it's an under-appreciated craft that is probably more important now than it has ever been previously. And I think there are all kinds of caveats that comedy gets with regard to the usual rules of dignity and respect. As many comics have put it, the subject of a joke is not necessarily the target of the joke, and that's an important distinction. Good comedy can be as vital as good research, good policy, or good social theory in providing us with important insights into many issues. Very often I find complaints about stand-up histrionic and/or just outright poorly reasoned.

But even I don't think that the context of comedy provides a magical talisman that can be waved to dismiss any kind of scrutiny ever. For one thing, to get the benefit, you need to start off by being actually funny. You can't just say some biggoted, small-minded bullshit and then claim your career choice or the fact you were standing on a stage is reason in itself that it should be cloaked from judgment or that anyone who objects to it doesn't understand comedy or is an enemy of open discourse. There are comedians whose entire acts are just them getting on stage and telling jokes about how untrustworthy they believe jews are. They aren't super successful, generally, but they exist. And beyond just being obviously hateful racists, those guys are also just hacks as far as comedy is concerned. In no way does it make sense to treat them as a equivalent to an Anthony Jeselnik or Frankie Boyle--two comedians who routinely predicate their jokes in the most awful topics and go out of their way to always be challenging the claim that there is any subject that cannot be made funny. But they do so with jokes which consistently do something clever and novel. I know of many comedians who tell jokes about the same types of topics, which jokes are on the surface level, much less ghastly, but which I nevertheless find much more obnoxious because their "tamer" jokes are just hackneyed recyclings of stereotypes and I think they more likely reflect a more cretinous, genuinely retrograde attitude.

So, it's complicated I guess is my point. Comedy, like any other exercise of expression, has to be judged in context: what can we infer about the motivation? What was the assertion? (which in comedy is not always as obvious as it is in other linguistic acts: sometimes the literal statement of what the comic is saying is diametrically opposite to what he is actually implying--or to side of that point, or just an outright intentional non-sequitur/wordplay). Was it calculated and presented in such a way that we can say the average rational person ought to have gotten the actual meaning, if it leverages an offensive idea but is not in fact offensive in its own meaning? Or if it is just outright offensive, was the joke itself funny enough (or the underlying point so much more important) that we can forgive the offensiveness because of the art that went into the joke was so good? There's a lot of factors. And again, I often find myself (unsurpisingly given my priorities) siding with comedians against most complaints, because most are knee-jerk and poorly considered and regard someone's particular idiosyncratic combination of sacred cows. But say for example someone digs up some "comic" celebrity's extensive history of tedious racist jokes on their early twitter feed. That person doesn't then automatically get my allegiance just by trying to play their comedian card. More likely than not, I'm just going to consider that person an intolerant twat who not only is a wrong-headed moron, but who also tried to leverage the standing of a craft that would be better off without them to try to excuse away their own personal failures of character.
Click to expand...

I actually consider dark/taboo jokes a way of keeping my sanity in check, a way to release a pressure valve on a dark subject or dark times. I think most people are the same, though there are those who don't get it and think everything in the world is bigoted, hence why they go doolally when you try to lighten the mood with some dark jokes and bants. To me they're an essential form of bonding. Without them, you're just walking on eggshells around people which isn't good for general relations.
 
sytus said:
I actually consider dark/taboo jokes a way of keeping my sanity in check, a way to release a pressure valve on a dark subject or dark times. I think most people are the same, though there are those who don't get it and think everything in the world is bigoted, hence why they go doolally when you try to lighten the mood with some dark jokes and bants. To me they're an essential form of bonding. Without them, you're just walking on eggshells around people which isn't good for general relations.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe that is one of the main purpose of humor and comedy
 
sytus said:
I think most people are the same, though there are those who don't get it and think everything in the world is bigoted, hence why they go doolally when you try to lighten the mood with some dark jokes and bants.
Click to expand...
Yes there are certain people who are deadset on thinking that the rest of the world are irredeemable bigots and that they're the only ones woke enough to see such intersectional truths.

It takes extreme narcissism to think that, and that everyone else are "unwoke" drones that need to be re-educated and cancelled if they don't bend the knee.

Its funny because if you surround yourself with assholes, the behaviour of your peergroup will alter how you perceive the rest of the world.
 
I'm okay with dark humour and I worry some of my jokes might be a bit too much for Twitch when I stream, but I do think that if you're saying something which is obviously offensive to some people, even if you can't personally relate to it being offensive, then you can show some basic decency and just skip the joke or change it.

For instance, what happened a month ago where the creator of Skullgirls was commentating a Skullgirls match and he commented on one player being pressured by saying "Is it appropriate to say that he... can't breathe." It doesn't take a genius to know he's walking on landmines by saying a joke like that and the joke isn't even good to begin with.
 
I've wanted to use the phrase "I can't breathe" a few times in the last week or two in regards to certain hilarity regarding Setsuka and twitter....because the stuff I see makes me want to curl up on the floor and die laughing!

But then I remember that people can take it a different way so I don't include it......
 
Really thats all it was ? I thought it was like a direct comment regarding kneeling on someone's neck (didn't follow the twitter drama closely).
If its all it was, i'd argue it was a severe over-reaction, but then again isn't twitter all about that ?
Seems like an awkward joke that may vaguely mock the situation.

Some people handle trauma by making it seem irreverent and therefore making it less severe. Obviously if you've got an agenda to push, then this can not be allowed.
 
Foot said:
TLets take comedians as an example if someone makes a joke about black people or rape or whatever he will probably get alot of shit for it for absolutely no reason or maybe even get cancelled. The fact that comedians are forced to pubilcly apologize for jokes is a good example of how fucked this whole thing is already.
Click to expand...
a lot o f the good comedians are unfortunately dead
 
Ramusu20 said:
They revealed the silhouette of the next DLC guest for Samurai Shodown. And it will be free.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1286496324855029761
Click to expand...

According to some comments, this might be the character. And she fights using a parasol...

IMG_20200724_131614.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom