Are you drunk, stoned, otherwise under the influence of something? You sometimes insult America and Americans; but ISTM you'd gotten better about not doing that.
I haven't read the post(s) that sparked the Hell call. But your posts here are like you're flushing your thoughts down the toilet, and have gone out and broken open the drain pipe so that everything goes everywhere.
You're digging yourself in much, much deeper with each post. Sign off, eat something, take a walk, get some sleep. And don't post again until you're in a better state of mind.
The parodied textbook contains an article about a bill becoming a law, with an anthropomorphized bill going through the various stages(similar to that Schoolhouse Rock cartoon from later on). As you can see from the comments, the title of the bill was Kill The Negroes, and the amendment was Kill The Homos too.
One of the writers was American, and the other Canadian, but it was in an American magazine, with a largely American readership.
Where the heck did I say an American offended me?! I was LAUGHING at the Mad Magazine putdown of Toronto.
So you laughed at something in a humor magazine. As has already been established, you aren't funny. You're simply defending boorish behavior.
My point is not that "my" joke(which again, I'm not even sure was mine) was funny, or that the joke in Mad was funny. My point was that such jokes are not normally considered offensive.
The reason I mentioned laughing at the Moronto joke was because Lamb Chopped seemed to be under the impression that I was offended by it, and that this supposed umbrage is the reason I like the MAGA joke. I could have just replied by saying that I wasn't offended by the cartoon, but pointing out that I laughed just shows how non-offended I was.
I sincerely think you might have me confused with someone else, as I don't really have much of a history, at all, of insulting Americans as a group. The only example that comes to mind is a post on my Things You'll Never Hear Them Say thread in the Circus, where I dis-attribute "Yes, I can find the USA on a map" to "Americans". (And not that it matters for my purposes here, but I did balance that one off with a similar bit of lese-majeste about Brits.)
As for the rest of your post, diagnosing my psychological condition, well, I really don't know what to say about that. Most of the posters here seem to think that my arguments are coherent enough to warrant a logical reply, the main objection seeming to be that I'm just stupendously wrong. So I'm not sure what exactly you think would be improved by a walk, nap, dinner etc.
And just to clarify, to avoid falling into that particular rabbit hole again...
My defense on this thread of "More Americans Getting Arrested" is not that it's funny, but simply that it's not offensive. Examples of other mass-media jokes garnering laughs are meant to illustrate that such humour is generally considered acceptable.
If you insist on insulting people after they've said it's not funny, you are not only unfunny, you're a jerk.
Where on this thread have I been insulting someone who asked me to stop? If you mean continuing to discuss the original MAGA joke is insulting, well, you are the one who started this thread, which is ABOUT that joke. So you must have foreseen that the joke would continue to be referenced.
What does it matter whether a joke is "generally considered offensive" if you are told you have offended? By many people? You are now just showing you don't give a fuck what anybody thinks, your right to be offensive must be preserved at all costs.
Just as Nick, from the South, gets to judge whether "Y'all Qaida" coming from a non-Southerner is funny -- it's not -- Americans get to judge whether "More Americans Getting Arrested" coming from a non-American is funny. And as more than one of us has said, it's not. Your continued defense of this lame joke after Americans have explained that it is offensive and why it is offensive shows that you don't care that you've insulted us. You're not merely stupendously wrong. You're an ass.
As an observation, @stetson, there are two current Hell threads with Shipmates' names on, this one and the one calling mousethief to Hell.
The other one, calling mousethief to Hell, is pretty much over with 33 posts, as he has accepted the criticism and apologised. The last few points there have been people thanking him, rather than attacking him.
This one, yours, is already on two pages and growing. I would suggest that is because you are trying to argue your point and more and more Shipmates are piling on to try and help you understand why you are being seen as offensive.
You have two choices, keep arguing and see more and more Shipmates pointing out how offensive you are, the so-called dog pile, or take a deep breath and apologise. Your choice.
As someone who with an elephantine memory, I'm pretty sure stetson has been called to Hell for being offensive to Americans before, on Ye Olde Shippe™. It was a long time ago, but this is not the first time.
No, I have absolutely never been called to Hell for being offensive to Americans before. I would remember that. I'm pretty sure this is my first Hell call.
I'm in a hurry, and I can't make a longer reply. Later.
OK, my bad, maybe it wasn't for being rude to Americans. Not sure there is any way of proving it one way or the other as it is extremely unlikely to be a preserved thread before 2012 and the old Ship has not a lot in Oblivion before then.
The parodied textbook contains an article about a bill becoming a law, with an anthropomorphized bill going through the various stages(similar to that Schoolhouse Rock cartoon from later on). As you can see from the comments, the title of the bill was Kill The Negroes, and the amendment was Kill The Homos too.
One of the writers was American, and the other Canadian, but it was in an American magazine, with a largely American readership.
Have you been trying to learn how to do humor through collecting fifty years of National Lampoon and Mad Magazine? And this (“More Americans Getting Arrested”) is how far you’ve gotten? That’s just sad.
Not least because as I read it, it acknowledges not just that something is no longer acceptably funny, but also that it once was. Lots to think about there.
Yes. Many years ago both Mr Nen and I used to find the TV series "Are You Being Served?" (which involved a number of over-the-top stereotyped characters including a camp gay man) hilarious: undisputed family viewing when we were youngsters at home with our parents. In recent years we watched part of an episode with our son who is gay. He simply and quietly said, "Just think about why you're laughing." It was a humbling, even humiliating, experience.
Stetson, not everyone shares the robust Albertan sense of humour. (Some of my best relatives came from Alberta. Their best jokes generally involved farting noises)
The parodied textbook contains an article about a bill becoming a law, with an anthropomorphized bill going through the various stages(similar to that Schoolhouse Rock cartoon from later on). As you can see from the comments, the title of the bill was Kill The Negroes, and the amendment was Kill The Homos too.
One of the writers was American, and the other Canadian, but it was in an American magazine, with a largely American readership.
Have you been trying to learn how to do humor through collecting fifty years of National Lampoon and Mad Magazine? And this (“More Americans Getting Arrested”) is how far you’ve gotten? That’s just sad.
Well, it's not like I was submiting the joke to a humour magazine for a paid fee. Like I say, it was basically just inspired by YouTube comments(if not a YouTube comment itself), and used as an example of conventional humour.
Not least because as I read it, it acknowledges not just that something is no longer acceptably funny, but also that it once was. Lots to think about there.
Yes. Many years ago both Mr Nen and I used to find the TV series "Are You Being Served?" (which involved a number of over-the-top stereotyped characters including a camp gay man) hilarious: undisputed family viewing when we were youngsters at home with our parents. In recent years we watched part of an episode with our son who is gay. He simply and quietly said, "Just think about why you're laughing." It was a humbling, even humiliating, experience.
I totally agree with these observations, and that's why there's a very useful distinction to be made between "punching up" and "punching down".
Back to my earlier example, another poster was quite right to point out that The Two Ronnies' jokes about East Indians would no longer be considered acceptable. Same with the jokes about gays on AYBS.
But I hardly think the same thing can be said of jokes about Scotsmen being whiskey-besotted tightwads on the BBC. I mean, I could be wrong, was anti-Scottish discrimination in the late 20th Century really a thing? In Canada, the Scots were part and parcel of the ruling elite pretty much from the get-go.
Stetson, not everyone shares the robust Albertan sense of humour. (Some of my best relatives came from Alberta. Their best jokes generally involved farting noises)
They must be from Calgary. In Edmonton, we don't sink any lower than burp humour.
My point is not that "my" joke(which again, I'm not even sure was mine) was funny, or that the joke in Mad was funny. My point was that such jokes are not normally considered offensive.
Seriously stetson, stop digging. You should have stopped with the apology upthread. All you’re doing by trying to justify yourself is digging deeper and deeper.
We get that your point is that such jokes are not normally considered offensive. But no one in this thread, as best I can recall—American or not-American—has agreed with you on that point. When you compare the MAGA joke on a discussion board like the Ship to things like getting jokes about Canadians out of a pool or a cartoon in MAD magazine, you convey the strong impression that you really don’t get things like context—who is making the joke, who is the audience, is it a setting where this sort of humor is expected, does it cross lines of appropriateness?
You have been uniformly told that it was offensive. You have been told that your continued attempt to justify it is coming across as not caring whether you offend others or not, as assholish. You’ve been admonished by an Admin that it was not appropriate. Yet you keep trying to explain to us why we’re wrong to consider it offensive.
Just stop. Admit you calibrated incorrectly on this one, say you’re sorry for doing so, and then stop. Or if you don’t think you calibrated incorrectly or aren’t sorry, then at least stop trying to justify yourself. It should be obvious by now that your attempts aren’t persuading anyone.
The parodied textbook contains an article about a bill becoming a law, with an anthropomorphized bill going through the various stages(similar to that Schoolhouse Rock cartoon from later on). As you can see from the comments, the title of the bill was Kill The Negroes, and the amendment was Kill The Homos too.
One of the writers was American, and the other Canadian, but it was in an American magazine, with a largely American readership.
Have you been trying to learn how to do humor through collecting fifty years of National Lampoon and Mad Magazine? And this (“More Americans Getting Arrested”) is how far you’ve gotten? That’s just sad.
Well, it's not like I was submiting the joke to a humour magazine for a paid fee. Like I say, it was basically just inspired by YouTube comments(if not a YouTube comment itself), and used as an example of conventional humour.
You used it as an example of making something funnier. But you just made it stupid in such a way that it could be mistaken for a clumsy swipe at all Americans, because otherwise it doesn’t make any sense at all.
But I hardly think the same thing can be said of jokes about Scotsmen being whiskey-besotted tightwads on the BBC. I mean, I could be wrong, was anti-Scottish discrimination in the late 20th Century really a thing? In Canada, the Scots were part and parcel of the ruling elite pretty much from the get-go.
A generous Scotsman who is not whiskey besotted has a right to object to this stereotype, regardless of the status of Scots in Canada.
Are you saying that the joke is offensive because I made it on The Ship in particular? Because I don't think that's what everyone here has been specifically arguing, but it is an opinion that I can probably agree with. Someone who buys Mad Magazine should know that he might see jokes that engage in insulting generalizations about a group of which he is a member. Someone who posts on a Purgatory political thread doesn't neccessarily have that expectation.
That's honestly the best I can do, because I really can't otherwise see much difference, on paper, between eg. the joke in Mad, and the joke I made here, as far as offensiveness goes. If that's good enough for you, I will say I am sorry for misreading the context in which I was writing. It was the kind of thing I would say in a situation where I was on close terms with the listeners(which would hopefully include American friends, so the joke is not rendered exclusionary), who would understand my purpose. Clearly, that didn't describe my relationship to most of the people who were posting in Purgatory or on this thread, and I should have realized it earlier on.
But I hardly think the same thing can be said of jokes about Scotsmen being whiskey-besotted tightwads on the BBC. I mean, I could be wrong, was anti-Scottish discrimination in the late 20th Century really a thing? In Canada, the Scots were part and parcel of the ruling elite pretty much from the get-go.
Come over to Glasgow sometime and ask that. The answer would be a resounding "yes", early 21st Century too. It could be as simple as never hearing a Scottish accent on national TV (that series of joke news skits from the Two Ronnies always had them put on the posh southern English BBC accent that all news broadcasters had - regional accents on the news is a new development, even for regional news broadcasts). The Westminster political elite was largely drawn from the English public school system (still is to a large extent). The typical "Irishman, Scotsman and Englishman" jokes never cast the Scot in the top position (above the Irishman though). The Thatcher government pissed all over Scotland, with the attacks on Scottish steel and coal industries (part of her assault on those industries that also included the north of England and Wales) and experimenting on the Scots by introducing the poll tax here first. And, yes Scots were frequently the butt of jokes - whisky (or beer) besotted tightwads being a common theme for those. I don't recall the particular sketch you refer to, but it wouldn't surprise me if it got laughs in England but not in Scotland, it would have seems OK to English TV producers, but the Scots would have resigned themselves to accepting their role as comic side-kick to their English overlords.
Any wonder that that period saw the birth of Scottish Nationalism, with that continuing today as the English drag Scotland out of the EU without barely consulting the Scottish Parliament or acknowledging the strength of the pro-EU vote in Scotland? That when the post office decided to put up letter boxes incorrectly inscribed EIIR in Scotland that some decided to blow them up in protest?
1). When members of the group who are objects of a joke tell you it’s offensive, and when you are not a member of that group, you have no standing to tell them it’s not offensive, much less to attempt to explain to them why they’re wrong to be offended.
2). There are some contexts where offensive humor may be deemed acceptable or even expected, despite or even because it’s offensive. A satire magazine is one such context. An internet discussion board such as the Ship generally is not.
stetson: You were right about misreading the context for your comment, so good on you for recognizing that.
What you still seem to me to be lacking insight about: identity. You choose examples of satire with which you do not personally identify, so it's pretty safe for you to laugh at.
Poking fun at Toronto? You don't identify as a Torontonian, so it doesn't affect you. (Mostly Torontonians don't care either, IME)
Poking fun at Canadians of Scottish descent? I don't know whether or not you identify as being a Canadian of Scottish descent, but ISTM that group is not feeling particularly embattled these days (certainly not in the way that Americans appear to be feeling embattled lately).
Let's try another hilarious stereotype: creepy old white male expats in Southeast Asia.
This stereotype was the basis for a Saturday Night Live sketch called "Rosetta Stone", where people explain their reasons for learning a language. "I'm learning Russian to exchange recipes!" "I'm learning Spanish to better communicate with my coworkers!" (Bill Hader, nervously staring into the camera) "I'm learning Thai for... uh... a... thing..."
Isn't humour with stereotypes fun?? Or maybe less so, when you're at the pointed end of it, and it is part of one's own identity.
If you think I am any stranger to Creepy Old White Male In Asia jokes, or more pertinently, that I, as a white male in Asia, find them a priori offensive, I can assure you the answer is negative on both counts.
And I'm aware that it can have negative consequences for some of my fellow expats, false accusations of criminality do come into play occassionally(VERY occassionally: it would have to be a tiny fraction of the men who are down there purchasing sex). But I honestly can't help myself: whenever someone mentions something about a pack of tourists heading down to Thailand, the snide innuendo kicks in in my brain like a reflex.
That SNL skit sounds funny. I believe they also did one about female sex tourists in some third world country? But that it was criticized for degrading the VICTIMS of sex tourism? From what I understand of the skit, the critics might have missed the point, but my impressions ate second-hand.
(TL/DR: Making fun of white males in Asia is definitely punching-down in my books. A-okay with me.)
Thank you for the insight into Scottish alienation. Something to think about.
In Canada, the Scots for many years were pretty close to a ruling caste(roughly speaking), or at least an integral part of said caste. I know the English in the UK were pretty much lording it over everyone else, but in economic terms, were the Scots really an exploited group?
In Canada, Quebec terrorists also blew up mailboxes in the 1970s. But it was more than just cultural resentment. The title of a sovereigntist manifesto was called The White N*****s of America, which gives you some idea as to how many of them viewed themselves.
Oh, and in my recent TL/DR to Leaf, I should have said that anti-sexpat jokes are punching UP, not down.
One of the textbooks I used to use had a drawing of a pot-bellied guy, meant to illustrate the word "slob". A co-teacher defaced my copy with a word balloon reading: My name's Bob, and I teach English in Korea". I got a chuckle out of that.
All the self-justification you have done has completely effaced your apology. "Well they're the same on paper blah blah blah." So what? This isn't paper this is a website with living human beings. Apologize again, then shut up about it.
Stetson, not everyone shares the robust Albertan sense of humour. (Some of my best relatives came from Alberta. Their best jokes generally involved farting noises)
They must be from Calgary. In Edmonton, we don't sink any lower than burp humour.
Got folks in both places. My mother came from Medicine Hat.
Stetson, not everyone shares the robust Albertan sense of humour. (Some of my best relatives came from Alberta. Their best jokes generally involved farting noises)
They must be from Calgary. In Edmonton, we don't sink any lower than burp humour.
Got folks in both places. My mother came from Medicine Hat.
Ah, the Hat. I know a few people from there, but not well. Rural Alberta is kind of a big blur to me, especially down south. I'm about as much of a city boy as you can get in that province.
Making fun of white males in Asia is definitely punching-down
You were right the first time with this, again I suspect unintentionally. It gives me a chance to expound on another theory of mine (yay!):
Bigotry humour is based on stereotypes, and stereotypes are based on some kind of poverty, and mocking poverty is always punching down. Therefore, generally, it sucks.
Making fun of Jews and Scots for being cheap? This is based on people dealing with poverty, in each case forced upon them by intentionally oppressive forces beyond their control. Yeah, real funny.
Even creepy white male expats in Asia have what seems to me a kind of poverty: a poverty of relationships and internal coping skills to deal with loneliness. The poverty of relationships is serious but it never shows up on a balance sheet. I don't admire every measure used to deal with this poverty, when it exploits and harms people who have even fewer choices and more forms of poverty to deal with. But incels, braincels, sexpats (ugh) may be dealing badly with their own forms of poverty.
And sorry about the Oprah crack. I watch her occassionslly myself sometimes, back in Canada.
And interesting set of anecdotes...
One of my textbooks has a lesson on mass media, including a question asking what the students think is the world's most popular TV show. Someone almost always answers "Oprah Winfrey". But when I ask those students if they've ever seen the show, they almost always say no.
So I gather she's done a pretty good job of promoting the reputation of the show, if not the show itself.
(FYI, according to the textbook, the answer is China's Got Talent.)
I'll also point out that if my answer leads back to a discussion about whether or not I should have made the joke that started this thread, that's a direction I might not wanna go in.
Comments
Are you drunk, stoned, otherwise under the influence of something? You sometimes insult America and Americans; but ISTM you'd gotten better about not doing that.
I haven't read the post(s) that sparked the Hell call. But your posts here are like you're flushing your thoughts down the toilet, and have gone out and broken open the drain pipe so that everything goes everywhere.
You're digging yourself in much, much deeper with each post. Sign off, eat something, take a walk, get some sleep. And don't post again until you're in a better state of mind.
Where the heck did I say an American offended me?! I was LAUGHING at the Mad Magazine putdown of Toronto.
Or were you refering to something else I wrote?
So you laughed at something in a humor magazine. As has already been established, you aren't funny. You're simply defending boorish behavior.
My point is not that "my" joke(which again, I'm not even sure was mine) was funny, or that the joke in Mad was funny. My point was that such jokes are not normally considered offensive.
The reason I mentioned laughing at the Moronto joke was because Lamb Chopped seemed to be under the impression that I was offended by it, and that this supposed umbrage is the reason I like the MAGA joke. I could have just replied by saying that I wasn't offended by the cartoon, but pointing out that I laughed just shows how non-offended I was.
I sincerely think you might have me confused with someone else, as I don't really have much of a history, at all, of insulting Americans as a group. The only example that comes to mind is a post on my Things You'll Never Hear Them Say thread in the Circus, where I dis-attribute "Yes, I can find the USA on a map" to "Americans". (And not that it matters for my purposes here, but I did balance that one off with a similar bit of lese-majeste about Brits.)
As for the rest of your post, diagnosing my psychological condition, well, I really don't know what to say about that. Most of the posters here seem to think that my arguments are coherent enough to warrant a logical reply, the main objection seeming to be that I'm just stupendously wrong. So I'm not sure what exactly you think would be improved by a walk, nap, dinner etc.
My defense on this thread of "More Americans Getting Arrested" is not that it's funny, but simply that it's not offensive. Examples of other mass-media jokes garnering laughs are meant to illustrate that such humour is generally considered acceptable.
Where on this thread have I been insulting someone who asked me to stop? If you mean continuing to discuss the original MAGA joke is insulting, well, you are the one who started this thread, which is ABOUT that joke. So you must have foreseen that the joke would continue to be referenced.
Fuck, man, are you stoned?
The other one, calling mousethief to Hell, is pretty much over with 33 posts, as he has accepted the criticism and apologised. The last few points there have been people thanking him, rather than attacking him.
This one, yours, is already on two pages and growing. I would suggest that is because you are trying to argue your point and more and more Shipmates are piling on to try and help you understand why you are being seen as offensive.
You have two choices, keep arguing and see more and more Shipmates pointing out how offensive you are, the so-called dog pile, or take a deep breath and apologise. Your choice.
As someone who with an elephantine memory, I'm pretty sure stetson has been called to Hell for being offensive to Americans before, on Ye Olde Shippe™. It was a long time ago, but this is not the first time.
No, I have absolutely never been called to Hell for being offensive to Americans before. I would remember that. I'm pretty sure this is my first Hell call.
I'm in a hurry, and I can't make a longer reply. Later.
Yes. Many years ago both Mr Nen and I used to find the TV series "Are You Being Served?" (which involved a number of over-the-top stereotyped characters including a camp gay man) hilarious: undisputed family viewing when we were youngsters at home with our parents. In recent years we watched part of an episode with our son who is gay. He simply and quietly said, "Just think about why you're laughing." It was a humbling, even humiliating, experience.
Well, it's not like I was submiting the joke to a humour magazine for a paid fee. Like I say, it was basically just inspired by YouTube comments(if not a YouTube comment itself), and used as an example of conventional humour.
I totally agree with these observations, and that's why there's a very useful distinction to be made between "punching up" and "punching down".
Back to my earlier example, another poster was quite right to point out that The Two Ronnies' jokes about East Indians would no longer be considered acceptable. Same with the jokes about gays on AYBS.
But I hardly think the same thing can be said of jokes about Scotsmen being whiskey-besotted tightwads on the BBC. I mean, I could be wrong, was anti-Scottish discrimination in the late 20th Century really a thing? In Canada, the Scots were part and parcel of the ruling elite pretty much from the get-go.
They must be from Calgary. In Edmonton, we don't sink any lower than burp humour.
We get that your point is that such jokes are not normally considered offensive. But no one in this thread, as best I can recall—American or not-American—has agreed with you on that point. When you compare the MAGA joke on a discussion board like the Ship to things like getting jokes about Canadians out of a pool or a cartoon in MAD magazine, you convey the strong impression that you really don’t get things like context—who is making the joke, who is the audience, is it a setting where this sort of humor is expected, does it cross lines of appropriateness?
You have been uniformly told that it was offensive. You have been told that your continued attempt to justify it is coming across as not caring whether you offend others or not, as assholish. You’ve been admonished by an Admin that it was not appropriate. Yet you keep trying to explain to us why we’re wrong to consider it offensive.
Just stop. Admit you calibrated incorrectly on this one, say you’re sorry for doing so, and then stop. Or if you don’t think you calibrated incorrectly or aren’t sorry, then at least stop trying to justify yourself. It should be obvious by now that your attempts aren’t persuading anyone.
A generous Scotsman who is not whiskey besotted has a right to object to this stereotype, regardless of the status of Scots in Canada.
Are you saying that the joke is offensive because I made it on The Ship in particular? Because I don't think that's what everyone here has been specifically arguing, but it is an opinion that I can probably agree with. Someone who buys Mad Magazine should know that he might see jokes that engage in insulting generalizations about a group of which he is a member. Someone who posts on a Purgatory political thread doesn't neccessarily have that expectation.
That's honestly the best I can do, because I really can't otherwise see much difference, on paper, between eg. the joke in Mad, and the joke I made here, as far as offensiveness goes. If that's good enough for you, I will say I am sorry for misreading the context in which I was writing. It was the kind of thing I would say in a situation where I was on close terms with the listeners(which would hopefully include American friends, so the joke is not rendered exclusionary), who would understand my purpose. Clearly, that didn't describe my relationship to most of the people who were posting in Purgatory or on this thread, and I should have realized it earlier on.
Sorry.
Any wonder that that period saw the birth of Scottish Nationalism, with that continuing today as the English drag Scotland out of the EU without barely consulting the Scottish Parliament or acknowledging the strength of the pro-EU vote in Scotland? That when the post office decided to put up letter boxes incorrectly inscribed EIIR in Scotland that some decided to blow them up in protest?
1). When members of the group who are objects of a joke tell you it’s offensive, and when you are not a member of that group, you have no standing to tell them it’s not offensive, much less to attempt to explain to them why they’re wrong to be offended.
2). There are some contexts where offensive humor may be deemed acceptable or even expected, despite or even because it’s offensive. A satire magazine is one such context. An internet discussion board such as the Ship generally is not.
What you still seem to me to be lacking insight about: identity. You choose examples of satire with which you do not personally identify, so it's pretty safe for you to laugh at.
Poking fun at Toronto? You don't identify as a Torontonian, so it doesn't affect you. (Mostly Torontonians don't care either, IME)
Poking fun at Canadians of Scottish descent? I don't know whether or not you identify as being a Canadian of Scottish descent, but ISTM that group is not feeling particularly embattled these days (certainly not in the way that Americans appear to be feeling embattled lately).
Let's try another hilarious stereotype: creepy old white male expats in Southeast Asia.
This stereotype was the basis for a Saturday Night Live sketch called "Rosetta Stone", where people explain their reasons for learning a language. "I'm learning Russian to exchange recipes!" "I'm learning Spanish to better communicate with my coworkers!" (Bill Hader, nervously staring into the camera) "I'm learning Thai for... uh... a... thing..."
Isn't humour with stereotypes fun?? Or maybe less so, when you're at the pointed end of it, and it is part of one's own identity.
So how about
“Americans are hurting right now and have asked us not to kick them when they are already down”
Please don’t go Anywhere Near a pond war
Even in so called jest
Any better?
I really don’t think it can be put any plainer
If you think I am any stranger to Creepy Old White Male In Asia jokes, or more pertinently, that I, as a white male in Asia, find them a priori offensive, I can assure you the answer is negative on both counts.
And I'm aware that it can have negative consequences for some of my fellow expats, false accusations of criminality do come into play occassionally(VERY occassionally: it would have to be a tiny fraction of the men who are down there purchasing sex). But I honestly can't help myself: whenever someone mentions something about a pack of tourists heading down to Thailand, the snide innuendo kicks in in my brain like a reflex.
That SNL skit sounds funny. I believe they also did one about female sex tourists in some third world country? But that it was criticized for degrading the VICTIMS of sex tourism? From what I understand of the skit, the critics might have missed the point, but my impressions ate second-hand.
(TL/DR: Making fun of white males in Asia is definitely punching-down in my books. A-okay with me.)
Thank you for the insight into Scottish alienation. Something to think about.
In Canada, the Scots for many years were pretty close to a ruling caste(roughly speaking), or at least an integral part of said caste. I know the English in the UK were pretty much lording it over everyone else, but in economic terms, were the Scots really an exploited group?
In Canada, Quebec terrorists also blew up mailboxes in the 1970s. But it was more than just cultural resentment. The title of a sovereigntist manifesto was called The White N*****s of America, which gives you some idea as to how many of them viewed themselves.
One of the textbooks I used to use had a drawing of a pot-bellied guy, meant to illustrate the word "slob". A co-teacher defaced my copy with a word balloon reading: My name's Bob, and I teach English in Korea". I got a chuckle out of that.
Point 2 in your post basically sums up my apology, so I think we're in agreement on that.
I'm sorry I told that joke.
Got folks in both places. My mother came from Medicine Hat.
It wasn't a joke.
Although I do appreciate your unintentional support of my theory about your lack of insight.
Ah, the Hat. I know a few people from there, but not well. Rural Alberta is kind of a big blur to me, especially down south. I'm about as much of a city boy as you can get in that province.
Bigotry humour is based on stereotypes, and stereotypes are based on some kind of poverty, and mocking poverty is always punching down. Therefore, generally, it sucks.
Making fun of Jews and Scots for being cheap? This is based on people dealing with poverty, in each case forced upon them by intentionally oppressive forces beyond their control. Yeah, real funny.
Even creepy white male expats in Asia have what seems to me a kind of poverty: a poverty of relationships and internal coping skills to deal with loneliness. The poverty of relationships is serious but it never shows up on a balance sheet. I don't admire every measure used to deal with this poverty, when it exploits and harms people who have even fewer choices and more forms of poverty to deal with. But incels, braincels, sexpats (ugh) may be dealing badly with their own forms of poverty.
You're welcome!
And sorry about the Oprah crack. I watch her occassionslly myself sometimes, back in Canada.
And interesting set of anecdotes...
One of my textbooks has a lesson on mass media, including a question asking what the students think is the world's most popular TV show. Someone almost always answers "Oprah Winfrey". But when I ask those students if they've ever seen the show, they almost always say no.
So I gather she's done a pretty good job of promoting the reputation of the show, if not the show itself.
(FYI, according to the textbook, the answer is China's Got Talent.)
You mean, ANY group, regardless of whether the punching is up or down?
You're welcome Ruth. And thanks for my first Hell-call.
(I had started at least one thread here before, but never had the honour of a calling.)
You know, I need a Hellhost for my life.
Ah, so like American cops.
Hellhosts murder fewer Black people.