"Rape Culture": The discussion

[Gandalf]

What's the point there? People say shitty things here and elsewhere, and it's wrong in both cases to make light of sexual violence.

Timeliness aside, it does show that when one is angry, sexual violence is wished upon those we find distasteful.

Look at how gleeful people get when a bad person goes to prison, because of prison rape.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It definitely has a rapey vibe, but to play Devil's advocate, it could also just be frat boy talk, ie. "Our shafts are so big they would PUNISH her!"

Frat boy speak and being rapey are extensionally equivalent. Also, the idea of fucking someone in a punishment fashion? Yeah... that's fucked up, and rapey. Even if the sex is consensual, the idea of brutally using someone in a way they definitively dont like...yeah. Rape Culture. Right there.

At the end of the day, the only way to know the actual intent of the exchange would be to ask the individuals in question. I was just trying to point out that we cannot necessarily conclude that they meant what you think they meant based on the text.

In any case, whether we should classify these individuals as potential rapists or just garden variety douchebags I still don't see the distinction between "rape culture" and plain old backwards values that also result in higher rates of other types of violence and ignorance in general. When you look at the people who diminish rape and sexual assault or make "she was asking for it" comments, their beliefs tend to be retrograde across the board, not just on the one issue.

They tend to be separate. Rape Culture is a specific set of ideas regarding sex and gender that promulgates in the population, and while it is likely true that they correlate with other retrograde bullshit, you have to treat them separately or you wont get anywhere.

Yes, but don't they go hand-in-hand? Won't educational methods that reduce rape in a society also reduce violence and poverty? Furthermore, doesn't the fact that the most sexually open societies suffer from the lowest incidence of sexual assault and the most repressed ones have the highest show that recent willingness for shock humorists to make the occasional rape joke symbolizes an improvement in cultural attitudes and not a dangerous increase in "rape culture"?

[Scrib]

It definitely has a rapey vibe, but to play Devil's advocate, it could also just be frat boy talk, ie. "Our shafts are so big they would PUNISH her!"

Frat boy speak and being rapey are extensionally equivalent. Also, the idea of fucking someone in a punishment fashion? Yeah... that's fucked up, and rapey. Even if the sex is consensual, the idea of brutally using someone in a way they definitively dont like...yeah. Rape Culture. Right there.

At the end of the day, the only way to know the actual intent of the exchange would be to ask the individuals in question. I was just trying to point out that we cannot necessarily conclude that they meant what you think they meant based on the text.

This is why we talk about rape culture instead of insisting that everyone is a rapist in their head.These guys would surely deny it, but the construct allows us to skip past all of that and talk about how the words relate to general trends in society.

Yes, but don't they go hand-in-hand? Won't educational methods that reduce rape in a society also reduce violence and poverty?

Why?

Furthermore, doesn't the fact that the most sexually open societies suffer from the lowest incidence of sexual assault and the most repressed ones have the highest show that recent willingness for shock humorists to make the occasional rape joke symbolizes an improvement in cultural attitudes and not a dangerous increase in "rape culture"?

You could easily claim the opposite: that shock jock rape jokes are either an artifact of a worse time or a separate trend that doesn't necessarily make things better, if not necessarily worse (I'm not sure how rape culture is "growing'', that is sort of a nebulous thing given the way the internet skews perception).

[Guardsman Bass]

I think they're an artifact too. Keep in mind that a more racially integrated society hasn't led towards a greater tolerance for racist jokes or the use of racist slurs coming from white people, and I doubt a decline in rape culture would lead to a greater tolerance of sexist humor and sexual slurs. You might see women reclaiming some of it for themselves (like "slut"), but it wouldn't be all in good fun for men to use it anymore than it's okay for white people to use the n-word just because black people will use it among themselves from time to time.

[AniThyng]

What's the point there? People say shitty things here and elsewhere, and it's wrong in both cases to make light of sexual violence.

Isn't it pretty obvious that the value of the anecdote is greatly enhanced by using the fact that it was made by a respected board member and noted non-fratboy-jock stereotype, thus showing that ANYONE can make "rape jokes" and not get called on it even on this very board.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

This is why we talk about rape culture instead of insisting that everyone is a rapist in their head.These guys would surely deny it, but the construct allows us to skip past all of that and talk about how the words relate to general trends in society.

Maybe so, but it still seems like a counter-productive term to me. I think it would be easier to reach people who have misogynistic views but are "curable" if one didn't insinuate that they might be part of a culture of rape.

Yes, but don't they go hand-in-hand? Won't educational methods that reduce rape in a society also reduce violence and poverty?

Why?

Statistics. The places with the highest incidence of sexual assault also tend to have the highest rates of violent crime in general.

Furthermore, doesn't the fact that the most sexually open societies suffer from the lowest incidence of sexual assault and the most repressed ones have the highest show that recent willingness for shock humorists to make the occasional rape joke symbolizes an improvement in cultural attitudes and not a dangerous increase in "rape culture"?

You could easily claim the opposite: that shock jock rape jokes are either an artifact of a worse time or a separate trend that doesn't necessarily make things better, if not necessarily worse (I'm not sure how rape culture is "growing'', that is sort of a nebulous thing given the way the internet skews perception).

You could claim it, but I don't believe the evidence is there. I admit to not knowing of specific studies on this point, but the cultures that are the most open to talking and even joking about all things sexual tend to have the lowest rates of sexual violence.

I think they're an artifact too. Keep in mind that a more racially integrated society hasn't led towards a greater tolerance for racist jokes or the use of racist slurs coming from white people, and I doubt a decline in rape culture would lead to a greater tolerance of sexist humor and sexual slurs. You might see women reclaiming some of it for themselves (like "slut"), but it wouldn't be all in good fun for men to use it anymore than it's okay for white people to use the n-word just because black people will use it among themselves from time to time.

False. Have you seen many stand-up specials lately? Within the last few years, white comedians have started to use the N-word more and more. I believe Louis C.K. was the first high-profile comedian to do it in his 2007 special "Chewed Up", but others have followed, and they have gotten laughs from mixed audiences. I know most of us still recoil when we hear that word, but really we should all yearn for the day when people use it casually, because that would mean that it has lost all of its power and is no longer any more relevant than calling an Irish person "mick".

[Scrib]

This is why we talk about rape culture instead of insisting that everyone is a rapist in their head.These guys would surely deny it, but the construct allows us to skip past all of that and talk about how the words relate to general trends in society.

Maybe so, but it still seems like a counter-productive term to me. I think it would be easier to reach people who have misogynistic views but are "curable" if one didn't insinuate that they might be part of a culture of rape.

I don't know. I'm not overly concerned with the feelings of these people who we're supposed to protect from the implications of their actions in a wider context to be honest.

This is trotted out all the time and it seems to work better to silence criticism by progressive groups than anything else. Make any sort of comment that someone might find objectionable==you're not protecting the poor egos of said people. Try to have a discussion and you often get drowned out with all these disdainful claims of stridency and over-sensitivity. They can pull all of these on you no matter what you do. They get you either way, so I would rather discuss the actual claim.

And there is the question of how much these people plan to listen either way. If you're the sort of person to get mad at rape culture or the claim that you are privileged or that black people are disadvantaged just how open to new views are you? You are essentially demanding that a very important construct is cut out of a movement that has had it for a while merely because you don't like the implications.And they don't care to listen, they outright argue against you for all they're worth. Some of them hate the fucking idea. How unreasonable can a person get before we stop caring about the illusory support they hold over people's heads whenever they are criticised?

Yes, but don't they go hand-in-hand? Won't educational methods that reduce rape in a society also reduce violence and poverty?

Why?

Statistics. The places with the highest incidence of sexual assault also tend to have the highest rates of violent crime in general.

Maybe there are other factors and correlation is not causation?

You could easily claim the opposite: that shock jock rape jokes are either an artifact of a worse time or a separate trend that doesn't necessarily make things better, if not necessarily worse (I'm not sure how rape culture is "growing'', that is sort of a nebulous thing given the way the internet skews perception).

You could claim it, but I don't believe the evidence is there. I admit to not knowing of specific studies on this point, but the cultures that are the most open to talking and even joking about all things sexual tend to have the lowest rates of sexual violence.

Again correlation=/=causation. For that matter talking about actual sex=/= talking about rape. There is a way to talk about sex and rape that is beneficial (google "The Implication"), there I agree with you. The issue is whether these sorts of toxic "rar, rar, punish with penis" jokes made in the presence of men is a good thing.

It's like HBO no? We can say that loosening of moral standards wrt nudity has made it possible for HBO to show bewbs every time they feel that the audience is getting bored. This doesn't necessarily mean that them plastering bewbs all over the place is good. It depends.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Maybe so, but it still seems like a counter-productive term to me. I think it would be easier to reach people who have misogynistic views but are "curable" if one didn't insinuate that they might be part of a culture of rape.

I don't know. I'm not overly concerned with the feelings of these people who we're supposed to protect from the implications of their actions in a wider context to be honest.

This is trotted out all the time and it seems to work better to silence criticism by progressive groups than anything else. Make any sort of comment that someone might find objectionable==you're not protecting the poor egos of said people. Try to have a discussion and you often get drowned out with all these disdainful claims of stridency and over-sensitivity. They can pull all of these on you no matter what you do. They get you either way, so I would rather discuss the actual claim.

And there is the question of how much these people plan to listen either way. If you're the sort of person to get mad at rape culture or the claim that you are privileged or that black people are disadvantaged just how open to new views are you? You are essentially demanding that a very important construct is cut out of a movement that has had it for a while merely because you don't like the implications.And they don't care to listen, they outright argue against you for all they're worth. Some of them hate the fucking idea. How unreasonable can a person get before we stop caring about the illusory support they hold over people's heads whenever they are criticised?

It's not about protecting egos, it's about nudging those on the fence. Some people carry misogynistic views because of cultural baggage or upbringing, but will give them up when presented with compelling arguments or placed in an environment where such views are frowned upon. Such people would very much feel under attack if presented with the definitions of rape culture advanced in this thread, and would be less likely to change. If the goal is to preach to the choir and thereby make oneself feel better, that's OK, but it doesn't make the world a more tolerant place.

Statistics. The places with the highest incidence of sexual assault also tend to have the highest rates of violent crime in general.

Maybe there are other factors and correlation is not causation?

Maybe, but given the consistency of data across cultures and over time within each culture, it would be quite a coincidence.

You could easily claim the opposite: that shock jock rape jokes are either an artifact of a worse time or a separate trend that doesn't necessarily make things better, if not necessarily worse (I'm not sure how rape culture is "growing'', that is sort of a nebulous thing given the way the internet skews perception).

You could claim it, but I don't believe the evidence is there. I admit to not knowing of specific studies on this point, but the cultures that are the most open to talking and even joking about all things sexual tend to have the lowest rates of sexual violence.

Again correlation=/=causation. For that matter talking about actual sex=/= talking about rape. There is a way to talk about sex and rape that is beneficial (google "The Implication"), there I agree with you. The issue is whether these sorts of toxic "rar, rar, punish with penis" jokes made in the presence of men is a good thing.

Sorry, by responding to both themes of this thread (the private conversation of a few jackasses and the merits of the idea of rape culture in general) I must have made it seem as though I was defending the humorous value of their "jokes". My references to rape jokes were separate from that topic, having mostly to do with jokes such as this: Louis C.K. on raping hitler, Shameless, 2006. A rape victim or family of such would find this material deeply offensive, yet I doubt that anyone in that audience left with a greater likelihood to commit rape. I would argue that the presence of such jokes by a high-profile comedian correlates with (but does not cause ) the decline of sexual assault in American society.

It's like HBO no? We can say that loosening of moral standards wrt nudity has made it possible for HBO to show bewbs every time they feel that the audience is getting bored. This doesn't necessarily mean that them plastering bewbs all over the place is good. It depends.

Creative people always like to push the envelope and see what they can get away with. In the 1970's, many films used nudity heavily (ie. Last Tango in Paris, Midnight Cowboy), even when it didn't fit the story (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but it subsided after the public got used to it. Similarly, the late 80's and early 90's saw an explosion of gangsta rap, which was later relegated mostly to little-known artists, aside from the occasional reference to establish credibility. Right now, white comedians are dropping N-bombs, shock humorists are making rape jokes, and subscription cable channels are finding the limits of the mantra "sex sells". In 10 years, it will be something else, and something other than that in 20. Wherever the limits are at that point, it will mean that people will be OK enough with the topic to laugh, yet not fully "there" yet, or it wouldn't be funny. A joke about a protestant marrying a catholic might have killed in the early 19th century, gotten one killed in the 17th century, and seems completely quaint today. Even if you find the material offensive, these jokes signify progress of attitude, and are a good sign.

[Simon_Jester]

You could claim it, but I don't believe the evidence is there. I admit to not knowing of specific studies on this point, but the cultures that are the most open to talking and even joking about all things sexual tend to have the lowest rates of sexual violence.

Assume for the sake of argument that this trend exists. Is talking and joking about the idea of sex-as-dominance and sex-as-punishment actually contributing to that trend?

There are many ways to joke about the same thing. Is it that unlikely that some of them are 'productive' and lead to healthy social attitudes about the thing, while others are 'unproductive' and make people's attitudes worse?

Especially since one of the side-effects of males being "open about their sexuality" by making lots of sex-as-dominance/punishment jokes is that women can be intimidated into NOT being "open about their sexuality." An environment where all the men are wolf-whistling and catcalling and making jokes about how much they want to chase down women in the streets and ravish them MIGHT be very open about male sexuality... but that doesn't mean it's encouraging or even allowing women to be similarly open.

False. Have you seen many stand-up specials lately? Within the last few years, white comedians have started to use the N-word more and more. I believe Louis C.K. was the first high-profile comedian to do it in his 2007 special "Chewed Up", but others have followed, and they have gotten laughs from mixed audiences. I know most of us still recoil when we hear that word, but really we should all yearn for the day when people use it casually, because that would mean that it has lost all of its power and is no longer any more relevant than calling an Irish person "mick".

I would be cautious of letting my desire for the word to lose its power to let me engage in wishful thinking, and assuming that's already happened.

When blacks are still being discriminated against on a huge scale, that is not the time to say "OK, we no longer have to start worrying about whether our attitudes and art are encouraging discrimination against blacks." You'd think it would be the other way around.

Likewise, when women are still being raped and intimidated on a huge scale, that is not the time to say "OK, men joking about raping and intimidating women is tolerable." You can't act as though things get better until they actually DO get better.

It's not about protecting egos, it's about nudging those on the fence. Some people carry misogynistic views because of cultural baggage or upbringing, but will give them up when presented with compelling arguments or placed in an environment where such views are frowned upon. Such people would very much feel under attack if presented with the definitions of rape culture advanced in this thread, and would be less likely to change. If the goal is to preach to the choir and thereby make oneself feel better, that's OK, but it doesn't make the world a more tolerant place.

I actually don't agree. If "rape culture" is explained intelligently, then to a guy who's "on the fence" the logical response is "well shit, you mean that all those jokes I make about prison rape and objectifying women are making other men feel more confident and justified in committing a rape, and making it indirectly less likely that rapes will be reported, and maybe causing misery for women who were raped in the past? Maybe I'd better cut back on the jokes."

Any guy who can't look at that rationally and think "maybe I'd better cut back on the rape jokes" when someone explains the problem with rape jokes... he wasn't on the fence to begin with. He has enough of an attitude problem that you are not going to reach him. Because he's too busy casting about for justifications to keep on doing as he is doing.

Sorry, by responding to both themes of this thread (the private conversation of a few jackasses and the merits of the idea of rape culture in general) I must have made it seem as though I was defending the humorous value of their "jokes". My references to rape jokes were separate from that topic, having mostly to do with jokes such as this: Louis C.K. on raping hitler, Shameless, 2006. A rape victim or family of such would find this material deeply offensive, yet I doubt that anyone in that audience left with a greater likelihood to commit rape. I would argue that the presence of such jokes by a high-profile comedian correlates with (but does not cause ) the decline of sexual assault in American society.

And others who have thought about this issue at length disagree with you, and feel that given the way our society now works, just about any trivialization of rape can promote the idea, by constantly waving it in front of women as a potential threat, and by constantly waving it in front of men as a thing that is sometimes 'okay' or 'normal' or 'accepted' practice.

It's like... I don't think that joking about punching someone in the face is going to automatically make people punch each other. But I've noticed that the people who laugh most and joke most about punching people in the face are often the bullies, the ones most likely to punch, and by far the ones most likely to threaten people with punches to get their way.

Because they're the ones who are most amused by the whole idea.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Because it's not like people don't still say things like that.

I mean, we could probably find much more recent examples and it's silly to bring up one from six years ago in light of that, but seriously we should at least bear that in mind in the future. If one is going to condemn as 'rape culture' other people talking about violent or brutal sex, one might want to refrain from talking about it oneself.

I'll keep that in mind in the future, though I can't remember having done it much in the past either.

I see that Magis is playing the devil's advocate, however an argument that is based on a quote from six years ago is a weak argument. Also, Alyrium's vulgarity doesn't refute his reasoning: to say so is a classic ad hominem. Should he watch his mouth*? Yes, he should. Should we all watch our mouths? Yes, we should. But that's as far as it goes.

*Perhaps the fact that even Aly didn't watch his mouth is proof positive of the pervasiveness of rape culture, no?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Clearly the people quoted in the article are immature and quite grotesque. But quite frankly I'm surprised at the reaction I'm seeing from some people here, especially given the kind of vitriol that members post on this website so frequently. So I did a couple quick searches.

It is almost as if I have grown as a person in six years, nor am I perfect. *gasp*.

Also: bad example. I am sure you can find things I have said that are more on point than the construction of a surreal mental image involving forced copulation by a standard sized mallard duck.

maybe some of us should take an objective look at our own language as well

No one is saying we should not.

And also, consider that some comments, no matter how crude, don't necessary represent a genuine endorsement of actual violence.

Explicit endorsement is not the problem. The more a thing is repeated, the more likely people will subconsciously come to believe it. This is why conservatard talk about death panels gets traction. You dont have to present an argument, just repeat the statement over and over again. So when you have various rape myths get repeated or statements regarding rape as punishment--even when not meant seriously, it will seep its way into cultural acceptance. Even if people are "just" angry and dont really mean it...initially. Why precisely do you think prison rape is such a problem? It could be stopped dead in its tracks, but it is not, because no one has the political will to do it. No one has the political will to do it, because the idea that prisoners deserve to be raped is unconsciously accepted by most of the population. Follow the logic train back.

I am hardly perfect in this respect. I dont claim to be. Weeding out all that shit from my Flamewar Ammunition List is an ongoing process.

Yes, but don't they go hand-in-hand? Won't educational methods that reduce rape in a society also reduce violence and poverty?

Why and How? If you are talking about violent crime generally, yeah, there is a case to be made. But how is ripping apart the social construct of rape myths etc going to accomplish a poverty reduction? Rape is in fact not a poor person's crime. Just like Crime Of Passion murder is not. Some classes of crime are affected by that system, others are not.

Furthermore, doesn't the fact that the most sexually open societies suffer from the lowest incidence of sexual assault and the most repressed ones have the highest show that recent willingness for shock humorists to make the occasional rape joke symbolizes an improvement in cultural attitudes and not a dangerous increase in "rape culture"?

No. Not at all. The sexually open societies like the Netherlands have comprehensive sex education starting at the age of 5 (basic anatomy, what to do if someone touches you) and going on at intervals from there as age appropriate, that actually deals with rape and teaching young men that rape myths are bullshit. You might be able to make the claim at that point that sexual humor of that sort becomes irrelevant, but that is as far as it is likely to go, and is best case. More likely:

I think they're an artifact too. Keep in mind that a more racially integrated society hasn't led towards a greater tolerance for racist jokes or the use of racist slurs coming from white people, and I doubt a decline in rape culture would lead to a greater tolerance of sexist humor and sexual slurs. You might see women reclaiming some of it for themselves (like "slut"), but it wouldn't be all in good fun for men to use it anymore than it's okay for white people to use the n-word just because black people will use it among themselves from time to time.

Isn't it pretty obvious that the value of the anecdote is greatly enhanced by using the fact that it was made by a respected board member and noted non-fratboy-jock stereotype, thus showing that ANYONE can make "rape jokes" and not get called on it even on this very board.

It might be my own desire to defend myself speaking here (so I fully admit, I may be rationalizing), but there is a world of difference between "go fuck a duck" (albeit more elaborate) and "you deserve to be punished by a rapidly thrusting human penis without sufficient lubricant". One has no connection to reality. The other does.

Statistics. The places with the highest incidence of sexual assault also tend to have the highest rates of violent crime in general.

Does not mean they are caused by the same thing. A huge percentage of rapes in the civilian population are on university campuses, which are not exactly inner city hellholes, nor do they contain many students from those same locations.

Maybe so, but it still seems like a counter-productive term to me. I think it would be easier to reach people who have misogynistic views but are "curable" if one didn't insinuate that they might be part of a culture of rape.

You wont convince an adult misogynist. Not unless they have a life changing event or change on their own. You go after their children. Teach them better as they grow up, and kill rape culture in the cradle. It is the same way homophobia and racism are dealt with.

*Perhaps the fact that even Aly didn't watch his mouth is proof positive of the pervasiveness of rape culture, no?

Most Certainly.

[Oskuro]

Explicit endorsement is not the problem. The more a thing is repeated, the more likely people will subconsciously come to believe it.

This. The problem is not "You made a joke", the problem is "You constantly make the same joke".

There's a point where repeated behaviour exposes a personal bias, and can't just be deflected with the "it's a harmless joke" defense.

I'm personally not opposed to any kind of humour, I'm of the opinion that anything can be made funny (although not everyone can pull it off though), but when the same subjects/issues are constantly being made fun of in the same way (for example, gay jokes that paint homosexuals as cowardly), then it's not longer a joke: It becomes propaganda.

[salm]

There's a point where repeated behaviour exposes a personal bias, and can't just be deflected with the "it's a harmless joke" defense.

That would mean that Steven Colbert is a hardcore rightwing nutcase.

[Ralin]

That would mean that Steven Colbert is a hardcore rightwing nutcase.

Stephen Colbert has given interviews where he explicitly says that he's playing a character. And he's actively separated his own views from those of said character when appearing in other venues.

Granted this apparently hasn't stopped him from picking up a non-negligible conservative fanbase who believes he isn't joking. A friend of mine's mother was one of them right up until that dinner with Bush. But there's only so much you can do on that front.

[salm]

Stephen Colbert has given interviews where he explicitly says that he's playing a character. And he's actively separated his own views from those of said character when appearing in other venues.

Granted this apparently hasn't stopped him from picking up a non-negligible conservative fanbase who believes he isn't joking. A friend of mine's mother was one of them right up until that dinner with Bush. But there's only so much you can do on that front.

And now imagine he hadn´t given these interviews (like other satirists). Do you believe that his audience would not have noticed it? And if the audience notices it, is it necessary to state the obvious?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

There's a point where repeated behaviour exposes a personal bias, and can't just be deflected with the "it's a harmless joke" defense.

That would mean that Steven Colbert is a hardcore rightwing nutcase.

No, but it would mean a number of other things. Like, say, that Colbert has a personal bias or a weird caricature of conservatives in his head, or that his comedy propagates stereotyped caricatures of conservatives.

[Simon_Jester]

In his case he makes a living by making the same joke over and over. It is, in comedy parlance, his "schtick" and he gets paid for it. It may reflect on your character if the jokes hurt someone (i.e. making a career of making racist jokes to appeal to racists hurts minorities). But not otherwise, and Colbert is in that respect pretty harmless.

If you make a joke without getting paid, over and over, it reflects directly on your character, because that is what it pleases you to say.

[salm]

In his case he makes a living by making the same joke over and over. It is, in comedy parlance, his "schtick" and he gets paid for it. It may reflect on your character if the jokes hurt someone (i.e. making a career of making racist jokes to appeal to racists hurts minorities). But not otherwise, and Colbert is in that respect pretty harmless.

If you make a joke without getting paid, over and over, it reflects directly on your character, because that is what it pleases you to say.

Would you say it it reflects badly on Colberts and othe satirists audience because they laugh at jokes like that?

I disagree with you. If someone satirically says something bad he intends to say something good. Namely that the person he is parodying is an idiot. If the audience understands this the message is directly opositional to what the satirist says. The satirized stereotype gets mocked.

It is absolutely possible to say "I´m gonna rape her ten ways to monday." and meaning "Rednecks who say such things are complete morons."
If the audience understands this the sentance "I´m going to rape....." can be a powerful tool in fighting specific cultural mind sets.

And in my oppinion it doesn´t matter if the audience is a large one like in Colberts case or a small one you´d have in a private conversation.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

In his case he makes a living by making the same joke over and over. It is, in comedy parlance, his "schtick" and he gets paid for it. It may reflect on your character if the jokes hurt someone (i.e. making a career of making racist jokes to appeal to racists hurts minorities). But not otherwise, and Colbert is in that respect pretty harmless.

If you make a joke without getting paid, over and over, it reflects directly on your character, because that is what it pleases you to say.

I don't believe that comedians can perfectly distinguish between "because it sells" and "because it pleases me". Some of the latter will always creep into the former because that's the nature of subjectivity. Of course, since it's inescapable, I don't mind as long as the joke makes me laugh and only have a problem with it if it doesn't.

And I never said that Colbert 'hurts' anybody with his comedy. I only said that he propagates stereotypes which affect the minds of his audience; those who enjoy him unironically adopt them, and those who see the mockery... well, their idea of conservatives is shaped by his act.

[salm]

People who don´t understand satire are more of a satire enhancer than an intended recipient. They´re part of the act. Something more for the people understanding it to laugh at. At least if they belong to the group of the portrayed sterotype.
It´s different in case of a person who doesn´t get it but belongs to the group of the portrayed stereotypes victims. That´s when staire can backfire in an unpleasant way.

[Simon_Jester]

Would you say it it reflects badly on Colberts and othe satirists audience because they laugh at jokes like that?

Laughing at a parody does not imply sincerely believing the ideas that are being parodied- if anything, it's the opposite.

It is absolutely possible to say "I´m gonna rape her ten ways to monday." and meaning "Rednecks who say such things are complete morons."
If the audience understands this the sentance "I´m going to rape....." can be a powerful tool in fighting specific cultural mind sets.

Should we assume by default that all people who say such things are satirists? If so, there's nothing there to satire, because no one actually seriously believes it...

[salm]

Should we assume by default that all people who say such things are satirists? If so, there's nothing there to satire, because no one actually seriously believes it...

Absolutely not. We should however, also not judge people too quickly just because it sounds like they might be saying something bad. Esspecially not if the conversation was addressed to somebody completely different and we know very little about the people in question.
It´s basically the same as quoting people out of context. In cases like this the missing context might not be spoken words but knowing if the words spoken were intended to mean what their literal meaning is.


My satire point was in this case mainly a reaction to Oscuros pretty genereal statement that:

There's a point where repeated behaviour exposes a personal bias, and can't just be deflected with the "it's a harmless joke" defense.

The answer to this is: Yes, it is possible that it can be deflected with "It´s a harmless joke". Satire is the most obvious example to illustrate that such a thing is possible.

[Eleas]

Sophistry perhaps, but I'd argue that the intent of satire is precisely the opposite of being "a harmless joke". Satire aims for biting social commentary; it gains its impact by being uncomfortable and not merely harmless.

[Oskuro]

My satire point was in this case mainly a reaction to Oscuros pretty genereal statement that:

There's a point where repeated behaviour exposes a personal bias, and can't just be deflected with the "it's a harmless joke" defense.

The answer to this is: Yes, it is possible that it can be deflected with "It´s a harmless joke". Satire is the most obvious example to illustrate that such a thing is possible.

In the case of Colbert, as has been said above, his continually making the same jokes does mean he has a bias... Against conservatives/conservative thinking.

I think you're misrepresenting sarcasm in your reply. Obviously, the person being sarcastic does not endorse whatever his sarcasm is making fun of, that's the point of sarcasm, to mock something by appearing to agree with it.

BUT, if you keep making the same sarcastic joke over and over, it does indicate a bias/opinion.

Now, arguably, we could say Colbert could just be making the same joke because it sells, but, then again, he is a professional comedian. I doubt the usual person resorting to the "it's a joke" defense can compare to Colbert, or to other comedians or media personalities, if only because these people tend to write their words beforehand, review them, have others edit the script, and think about the reaction they'll get.

In other words, I'm not sure if Colbert's routine in this case is a Red Herring or a Strawman, but it certainly doesn't address my comment.


To rephrase my comment, the important bit with any ideology is how people internalize it. And a reliable sign of internalization is when a person commonly resorts to certain tropes or ideas without even thinking about it.

Thus, off the cuff comments or jokes reveal a lot about a person's actual opinions. And, getting back on topic, men usually resorting to jokes that imply women are mere cock accessories, and society at large excusing such behaviour without thinking about it, in my opinion reveals a very troubling mindset.

[salm]

Sophistry perhaps, but I'd argue that the intent of satire is precisely the opposite of being "a harmless joke". Satire aims for biting social commentary; it gains its impact by being uncomfortable and not merely harmless.

Yes, but it´s harmless to it´s literal target. Because the literal target isn´t the real target. That´s why I said that it´s a good tool to fight things like rape culture.