03 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperi'm not upset skipper nor do i take your very legitimate comments as any sort of accusation (but thank you for the kind way you clarified it).
I wonder prad, if you are upset by the post itself or only the fact that someone did not care for it? Please understand I'm not accusing you of ill intent in any way - I just wonder why these posts went on for so long before you spoke ...[text shortened]... ter to the most sensitive among us when concerning these issues?
the reason i have not spoken up before this is because i haven't seen it - i have been away for nearly 3 weeks and i spend most of my time on the debates forums anyway. i only came here because i knew Breaca was creating her a gender agender thread.
nor do i have anything against cribs - as you can see, our conversations have been mutually civilized.
some people seem to think this whole argument revolves around who is and who is not offended or harrassed. if we use that as the deciding criteria, then we can go around in circles for quite some time.
if you look at my comments to both cribs, shav and ncrosby, you will see that the fact someone is offended is merely the trigger that brought me here. the deeper issue has to do with the way women are being depicted as objects for exploitation, abuse and degradation.
using imagery such as this as a source of humour is a violation of the TOS, but more seriously it is a violation of 50% of the population (regardless of whether they all see it or not) and it promotes the very attitudes towards women that you spoke so well against in Breaca's thread.
i'm not as linguistically effective as cribs, but let me try to rewrite some of his cleverness with a different focus, substituting 'horse' for 'ho' as well as some appropriate modifications:
What do we gotta keep fair? Tha stable. That's right,
when you be layin' down tha law, you gotta be doin'
it so no horse's be gettin' shortchanged, ya feelin' me?
I ain't sayin' you gotz to treat all yo' horse's tha very same,
like when you buy 2 new pair of horseshoes for one, you
gotta get 'em all some new shoes. No, that ain't it at all.
What I mean is you can't go givin' no special treatment
to this horse or that horse, just cuz you like this one or don't
like that one.
Let me show you what kinda mess you gonna have on
yo' hands if you try to play favorites. Say you got
one real fine lookin' horse and tha rest of tha stable
be all jealous. Now you already got some tension there,
so tha last thing you wanna do is make it even worse.
If you always be lettin' that same fine horse always be
up in tha wit you when you walk, and all them
nasty ones gotz to walk in tha back, you just gonna make
'em madder. Sooner or later, they gonna get in a fight,
start kickin' each otha and bitin' each othaz hair out.
Then look what you left wit: a bunch scraggly lookin'
horse's that ain't gonna bring in no money, plus you gotta
be peelin' mad billz offa yo' roll so they can go to tha
horsegroomers and get all fixed up right.
somehow i don't think it carries the same impact. Why?
Because it just isn't as 'funny' to see horses here, since they do not carry the emotions that women are supposed to have. For some reason, we seem to think it is funny when you favor one woman in you 'stable', the others will feel shortchanged or when one woman is considered 'pretty', the others will get jealous. It's no fun to think of a bunch of horses kickin' each otha and bitin' each othaz hair out, but for some reason, when we consider women scratchin' each otha and pullin' each othaz hair out, we suddenly find humour in that degratory behaviour.
One may say that the humour comes because horses just don't have the same emotive responses as women. However, you can run the script again and substitute 'men' for 'ho' and it won't be quite as funny - unless, of course, someone is sufficiently astute enough to notice that these denigrating characteristics are normally attributed to hoes, but now they are 'cleverly' being attributed to men.
Either way, the 'humour' comes from the attitudes we have towards women and the expectations we put on them to 'perform' for our amusement.
I can see why some women (though admittedly not all) would not consider this sort of role for women particularly appropriate. I can see why some men (though admittedly not all) would also not consider this sort of role for women particularly appropriate.
If we remove the tattered carpet of 'cultural diversity', clear away the sands of 'being politically correct', and lift our heads out from the hole of 'humour', we can see what this sort of thing really is - the ratification of an atmosphere towards women in which they can be exploited, manipulated, abused and degraded for the amusement of some people.
In friendship,
prad
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfHave you ever entertained the possibility that it is
If we remove the tattered carpet of 'cultural diversity', clear away the sands of 'being politically correct', and lift our heads out from the hole of 'humour', we can see what this sort of thing really is - the ratification of an atmosphere towards women in which they can be exploited, manipulated, abused and degraded for the amusement of some people.
pimps that I could be mocking? Or the pimp and
ho culture as a whole?
Dr. Cribs
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfI have pondered the question for some time this afternoon.
that is kind of you, but i don't think there is any need to apologize to anyone, shav.
i know it is all one big joke and that cribs isn't trying to be offensive - my exchange with him was just as polite as it has been with you.
the joke just isn't funny though for the reasons i have stated throughout the thread and the ramifications are substantial. ...[text shortened]... ssary, unkind and unfair - these are not the paragons we wish to pursue.
in friendship,
prad
And I remain in disagreement with you.
To carry out what you suggest would entail that this thread never have existed. None of Crib's pimp/ho threads would have.
Not only this, but "Men behaving badly" and many other 'sexist' comedies would not have existed either.
To carry it out to the extreme means that every single joke/comedy which stereotypes or generalises cannot be shown. From "Allo Allo" to "The young ones" to "Absolutely fabulous".
There would be nothing left!
The Cosby show may (or may not) have been void of stereotypes, generalisations and sexism, but imagine a world with that as the only sense of humour?
Another point, which was pointed out to me, is that correlations can be sought which impede free speech, which may not be justifiable.
Or in other words, the very people who are offended by a sense of humour may use the offense as an excuse.
The example given to me is thus:
In Southern Holland grave stones of Jews are desecrated and in the North of Holland someone cracks an anti-semitic joke. There need be no correlation, but you may find the cracker of the anti-semitic joke being compared to grave desecraters.
On another level you could find a group of people banning a whole range of discussions, jokes and humour because they claim it to be offensive. Who's gonna judge?
So I'll conclude by stating that everybody should have the right to joke about what he or she wants. If somebody is offended by the humour or starts to see reality in the humour, that person should be pointed out that it is a joke.
The basic line is that you cannot protect everyone and if someone is offended by a joke it says more about the person offended than it does about the joke or the joke-teller.
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by Cribsyes i have.
Have you ever entertained the possibility that it is
pimps that I could be mocking? Or the pimp and
ho culture as a whole?
Dr. Cribs
take a look at what i wrote to kirksey on the formation of your original clan, june 4 in Clans destined to be enemies (there is more there than the excerpt here):
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=11234&page=1
if using women is the assumption the Pimps are operating under then they are in violation of the TOS and should have far more than the RHP Angels to contend with. I do not think that this is the premise that is intended by them.
however, nor do i think that the RHP Angels should be singled out to oppose them (if that were the premise) since it is a matter that should concern all of us.
and in turn, please entertain the possibility that i am not deficent in humour nor excessive in self-righteousness.
despite your haste to 'expel' sangeeta and to tell imvegan that what she thought was 'tough', i believe that you do want fair discussion and do want to entertain different ideas - so please do consider that what i have been saying throughout this thread to you and others may have some real legitimacy especially on what is a diverse forum with a variety of age groups and at least 2 genders 🙂
in friendship,
prad
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirthat is a rather strange conclusion to come to after all that thought.
So I'll conclude by stating that everybody should have the right to joke about what he or she wants. If somebody is offended by the humour or starts to see reality in the humour, that person should be pointed out that it is a joke.
The basic line is that you cannot protect everyone and if someone is offended by a joke it says more about the person offended than it does about the joke or the joke-teller.
everyone may have the right to do whatever he or she pleases, but then what is the point of having a TOS - what is the point of calling in the mods because someone slanders you in good humour as a facist? does it help for it to be pointed out to you that slimjim was just joking?
if your basic line is that you can't protect everyone, do we apply that concept uncompromisingly and protect no one?
finally, this is not merely about who is offended or not - i have tried to make this clear throughout the thread. however, if your final analysis boils down to 'it says more about the person offended', it would be difficult to find a better case of 'blaming the victim'.
in friendship,
prad
03 Aug 04
I guess my only question left is this...If we cannot determine what is offensive, abusive, and/or harassing language based on whom is offended, how DO we determine what it is? and who gets to make this determination?
Librarians are typically want to make these sorts of determinations, and they invariably ban books such as the Catcher in the Rye...is this ok?
Do you think it might be better, in some instances, to develop a thick skin rather than tolorate censorship?
Alas, if there were only specific definitions of things like this!!
TheSkipper
03 Aug 04
3 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperhere, the TOS is helpful and i don't think we have to go to the extent of burning books and censoring everything in sight (or site) - but changing attitudes towards each other is very important.
I guess my only question left is this...If we cannot determine what is offensive, abusive, and/or harassing language based on whom is offended, how DO we determine what it is? and who gets to make this determination?
Librarians are ty ...[text shortened]... were only specific definitions of things like this!!
TheSkipper
many years ago,
women were defined by british common law as 'persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges'. as such women could not hold public office because they had to figure out 'Does the word "person" in Section 24 of The British North America Act include female persons?' it was a fight on behalf of the 'weaker' party to gain concessions from the 'stronger' party. though the feminist movement has made enormous strides, the struggle still continues.
this wasn't a matter of offense - it was a matter of attitude. however, to bring about the change in attitude, considerable work had to be done, work that reduced the inequality between men and women - even though some men were outraged (offended). however, their outrage (and loss of 'status'😉 is deemed secondary to the deprivation of that 'status' that women were already experiencing.
having a thick skin for one's own protection is probably a good idea, but if that thick skin make you insensitive to the plight and realities of others then that it becomes a shell in which our fairness, our empathy, our compassion and the best of humanity become imprisoned.
in friendship,
prad
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfIf slimjim pointed out it was in jest. Yes.
that is a rather strange conclusion to come to after all that thought.
everyone may have the right to do whatever he or she pleases, but then what is the point of having a TOS - what is the point of calling in the mods because someone slanders you in good humour as a facist? does it help for it to be pointed out to you that slimjim was just joking?
if you ...[text shortened]... , it would be difficult to find a better case of 'blaming the victim'.
in friendship,
prad
As I pointed out in my previous post, your reconning would end up censoring most good comedy shows and lots and lots of films.
Major pieces of art would have to be banned and god knows how many song lyrics.
It would lead to a bizarely bland existence.
03 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirwell i don't think he was so you have to keep feeling bad 😀
If slimjim pointed out it was in jest. Yes.
As I pointed out in my previous post, your reconning would end up censoring most good comedy shows and lots and lots of films.
Major pieces of art would have to be banned and god knows how ...[text shortened]... any song lyrics.
It would lead to a bizarely bland existence.
shav, you are getting a bit carried away in thinking i am out to eliminate all the pleasures of your life.
again, the idea is not based around who is offended - it is based on some fairly simple principles of equality and liberty (they really can go together).
remember your great phrase "everything vulnerable is valuable". (i have unfortunately forgotten which thread it is in)
we protect the vulnerable, because they are valuable. that means we try to eliminate the opportunity by which others can take pleasure at the expense of the vulnerable (be they individuals or groups) . when we do so, we gain a lot too.
this will not lead to the end of hedonism and your songs and films.
in fact, it will lead to the creation of any thing but your 'bizarrely bland existence'.
in friendship,
prad
04 Aug 04
1 edit
Hi Prad,
Ok, all in all I think we (you and I) are arguing two sides of the same coin, which is fine, interesting, enlightening etc. I think in a more general way we are very much in agreement about treating one another with respect. I mention this because you seem to be taking the high road on the issue, and while I agree with you in general...I would hate to be seen as a big jerk, who hates women and loves harassing language. I think you get my drift...
So, back to my attempt to convince you that your high road ends at a cliff. 🙂
You seem to be unwilling to define inappropriate communication (heretofore referred to as ‘negative media&rsquo😉 based on who is offended by it. This is smart of you because negative media will always be subjective and someone will invariably be offended by EVERYTHING. You, smartly, would prefer to change the attitudes behind negative media, and in our particular case use the TOS agreement as a guide when attitudes cannot or will not be changed. I agree. BUT (you had to know it was coming) 😉
In reference to the topic at hand (Dr. Cribs’ lesson in pimpology) one must assume that he is not violating the TOS because all the previous threads with a similar topic, and this one itself would be shut down…or, at least, the offending article removed. This has not occurred, and considering the attention it has been getting I cannot believe a mod has simply overlooked it. This being the case, I think it is reasonable to assume Dr. Cribs is not in violation of the TOS.
This leaves us with one final solution; we must change Dr. Cribs’ attitude. However, we have already determined that his attitude is a very far cry from that which produces truly destructive negative media. Many, including yourself, have taken his post(s) as an attempt at humor, and I, at least, find him to be successful.
In the end, I think it is a fine goal to change the attitude of people producing negative media, and rather perceptive of you to notice the root below the weed. However, in this particular case, it just does not seem necessary. While people may have been offended by the post(s) in question, we have already determined that this is not a sufficient condition to proclaim a post(s) as negative media. Dr. Cribs attitude is IMO not the attitude of someone seeking to tear down or marginalize anyone. I guess my question then is…Where is the sin?
I hope some of this made sense!!
TheSkipper
04 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfI know it wasn't in jest 😉
well i don't think he was so you have to keep feeling bad 😀
shav, you are getting a bit carried away in thinking i am out to eliminate all the pleasures of your life.
again, the idea is not based around who is offended - it is based on some fairly simple principles of equality and liberty (they really can go together).
remember your great phrase "ev ...[text shortened]... ead to the creation of any thing but your 'bizarrely bland existence'.
in friendship,
prad
So. Let's sum up the discussion so far:
Cribby G's post is sexist and therefor bullying towards women.
This sort of humour is negative and should be ended.
How then, if you draw this further than this post, does it NOT end up banning all sorts of comedy? Where and how does this "anything but" situation you refer to come to life?
Please, give me an example!
🙂
04 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperit made sense logically, skip, but only if we accept some of your initial premises.
I hope some of this made sense!!
Originally posted by TheSkipper
You seem to be unwilling to define inappropriate communication (heretofore referred to as 'negative media' ) based on who is offended by it. This is smart of you because negative media will always be subjective and someone will invariably be offended by EVERYTHING.
this is not just smart for the reason you give. it is the sensible thing to do, because otherwise 'morality' or 'ethics' or whatever you wish to call it, become defined purely by the particular culture or time we are in. hence, a few hundred years ago, the way to solve problems was to fight to the death, God being on the side of the morally correct. we don't do that anymore (usually). defining right or wrong, purely on the basis of whatever who feels like at the moment is definitely not smart.
one must assume that he is not violating the TOS because all the previous threads with a similar topic, and this one itself would be shut down - or, at least, the offending article removed.
this assumes that the mods do things on a uniform basis (and i apologize to you and cribs - since you both mentioned it - for bringing all this up now because i have been away). they try, but it doesn't happen. in fact, one of the mods told me this personally over a chess game that the "don't attack the person" directive just isn't enforced. You can see that quite clearly if you meander over to the debates forum. You can also get the general picture if you look at the highest recommended post (34 right now), from Russ, imploring the posters to follow the TOS.
Our mods are excellent (i have said so on numerous occasions), but we shouldn't expect them to do it all. Phlabby put it the best i think when he said that it is the responsibility of the poster not violate the TOS.
Now it is interesting that one of RBHill's posts from several weeks back in which he had said something like 'why should anyone want to worship a woman' was removed within a matter of minutes after I saw it. An EddieAnders post from a few months back where he had said "women belong in the kitchen ..." was removed after a day, because there seemed to be some difficulty in determining whether it was a joke or it was offensive. Finally, it was decided after 2 people clicked the magic button that the post had to go. On Cribs' initial post I know the magic button has been clicked at least 3 times, but it is still here. That can suggest that a) it's not considered offensive, b) its status is up in the air, c) it's a joke by present standards, d) the individuals involved with it do not consider it to be a violation or e) something else.
So your assumption that because a post is still visible it means that it does not violate the TOS isn't correct - there are plenty of violations to peruse through.
This leaves us with one final solution; we must change Dr. Cribs' attitude. However, we have already determined that his attitude is a very far cry from that which produces truly destructive negative media.
Neither of these are correct. Cribs' attitude is not in question here - his post is.
It is not our job to change Cribs' attitude. What we have done with some help from you and others is to show that there is something beneath even this 'humour'.
Now you, for some reason, seem to think that Cribs' attitude has some influence on the media being 'destructively negative' or otherwise. That's like saying content can be interpreted according to the attitude of the author. So if Mother Teresa wrote a book on "How to get rich selling body parts from your own leper community" we should interpret this as not being capitalistic or exploitive of disabled because of the aura the author wears.
So you may suggest that Mother Teresa wouldn't ever write such a book, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. Because Mother Teresa is such a model for all, it is likely she would use her talents to produce something that is 'constructively positive'. It has already been established that Cribs is a valued member of our community, that he is intelligent, courteous (to me at least), talented, and even sticks up for people headed for hell. By that token, may I suggest that his qualities do not change the impact (negative destructiveness) of what he writes, but can influence the content of what he writes. Here's what Breaca wrote regarding this matter in the gender thread:
If we acknowledge that a post is conceived, constructed and well thought out, then we must also accept that the all of the words are chosen with deliberation and for specific purposes. Mr. Cribs is clever, inventive and skilled enough to craft superb posts that would be funny, entertaining and contain social comment without always using such unflattering images of women to amuse his audience.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=13049
Many, including yourself, have taken his post(s) as an attempt at humor, and I, at least, find him to be successful.
Surely, you are not suggesting that because some people find his posts funny ( 'humorously successful' ), it makes them suitable on RHP which is after all a 'family' site and therefore subject to the minimal considerations that are in order in the presence of minors?
Again, I ask you to look at what I wrote to you 2 posts ago about this humour which is coming as a result of the denigration of women. These women (in pixelated form, of course) are not running their own enterprise, determining their own working conditions, they don't even have their own union! They instead are treated as 'hoes in a stable'. Surely, you also noticed that as soon as we changed hoes to horses - the humour was gone. We need women so we can have that snicker, don't we?
Dr. Cribs attitude is IMO not the attitude of someone seeking to tear down or marginalize anyone. I guess my question then is - Where is the sin?
It is not our contention to criticize Cribs' persona. Other than his brusque and kneejerk dealings with 2 people earlier on, he has not done anything unkind. I have 'invaded' his thread and have been treated with courtesy throughout - he has not even asked me to leave.
His posts under the protection of 'humor' are demeaning to women - presumably hoes need to be women or it would cease to be funny and become a bland documentary.
Recently, Cribs has suggested the possibility that he might be making fun of the entire ho/pimp scenario. It is an interesting opportunity for sure, but is it really happening by depicting hoes as commodities. Does laughing at the ho/pimp relationship really help you to recognize how the hoes were treated? Is the hilarity also accompanied by healthy strains of sympathy? Does the sidesplitting belly ache inspire you to want to end oppression towards hoes? Or do you just enjoy a few laughs because it is amusing to think of some women being used like this?
This detachment is a wonderful quality. With it we can focus on the humour and disconnect from the humiliation, get our amusement and ignore the abuse.
You'll have to ask someone more religious than I about sin 😉
In friendship,
prad
04 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmiryou know i don't think i have encountered anyone who is so concerned about his entertainment - particularly his comedies 😀
How then, if you draw this further than this post, does it NOT end up banning all sorts of comedy? Where and how does this "anything but" situation you refer to come to life?
Please, give me an example!
🙂
how about we do this?
let's not ban your comedies - not a single one!
but let's not allow stuff here which are still considered to be inappropriate by societal standards, because there are minors on RHP.
(this doesn't deal with the degradation issue, i know - but, i don't want you to be so worried!! and it's 2:30 am here so good night.)
in friendship,
prad
04 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfWhat I'm trying to get at is this:
you know i don't think i have encountered anyone who is so concerned about his entertainment - particularly his comedies 😀
how about we do this?
let's not ban your comedies - not a single one!
but let's not allow stuff here which are still considered to be inappropriate by societal standards, because there are minors on RHP.
(this doesn't deal ...[text shortened]... on't want you to be so worried!! and it's 2:30 am here so good night.)
in friendship,
prad
Say someone is insulted by the Venus de Milo. Naked breasts etc. Are you going to cover them up?
Comedy?
Jokes?
Art?
Who's going to judge what is insulting and what is not? The insulted person?
It's not workable without giving up that which we love. Freedom of expression!