331–340 of 340 posts
Yes, it’s a problem that something like that is insulting to publish.
I’d be pretty upset if the value of my home was harmed because someone decided to make it common knowledge that the town I lived in was crap.
Hackney is now full of this: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/160955729
It's not about identity politics. It's not about self-deprecation. It's not even about if the material is particularly funny or not. It's whether you're punching up or punching down. If the purpose of Crap Towns is to punch up, speak to power, to point out the failures of Thatcherism, decreased social mobility through a perptuation of failing center-right politics thanks to an overly-powerful media and political clas…
I think the problem with the “punching up/down” perspective of comedy is that power is relative so the same exact humor and joke can be both punching up and down at the exact same time. Consider the current political moment in the US. Right wing, conservative, religious groups have power currently, so your average Daily Show or SNL writer feels pretty justified that they’re “punching up” when they take their potshots at “god and country” types. And to an extent they are. But at the same time, your average “god and country” type that their humor is skewering is also a punch down because unlike the SNL or Daily Show writer, they don’t have a national TV show in which to broadcast their views. They are (if you believe the writers) uneducated, ignorant and duped into believing lies that the rich and powerful have sold them. But if that’s the case, then by definition they are not the powerful, and “punching” them must be “punching down” (or at least laterally). Is it right (or at least ok) to be skewering “god and country” types for the ridiculous things they do? Probably. But I don’t think it’s because it’s somehow “speaking truth to power” or “punching up”. It’s right and ok because they are ridiculous things and people are allowed to find ridiculous things funny and skewer them, regardless of the relative power disparities
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point re: facts versus story. One problem may be that the UK is very London-centric in a way that is markably different from France being Paris-centric. Just my perception (and I know London much better than Paris) is that in France, if you are not in Paris you are seen as "living in the 'province'", but politicians still fight for farmers there etc. In contrast, in the UK, on the surface there is the appearance…
Fun UK fact. only >One in five civil servants are based in London (20.1%), down from 20.7% in 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-service-stati...
Depending on the jobs covered under "civil servants", this is probably normal and not interesting at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made. So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.
Is it violence? describes something non violent This is violence!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made. So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.
Is it violence? describes something non violent This is violence!
Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made. So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.
The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population. Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population. Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
Should we be proud that a non trivial branch of the population is apparently wedging their power to silence another part who would like to say things they don't like? Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.
Great article with links to others, like this one: https://arena.org.au/stay-in-your-lane-the-oxymoron-of-authe... With quotes (re cultural appropriation) like “the ultimate endpoint of keeping our mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction… All that’s left is memoir” We’ve been suffering under the yoke of the intellectualization of deliberalization, censorship and oppression of ideas…
that sounds like a rule to me
maybe the rules they're questioning simply aren't the ones you want them to question
for example: the usa has long had a social "rule" to tolerate intolerance, but now that youth see where that has led, many are questioning that rule
they were long warned that it leads to bad censorship, and they look around now, and see that the intolerant who warned are themselves perpetrating a wave of censorship anyways, and the argument is dissolved
a good person might want whichever rules do less harm in the end (and perhaps ones that do more good), it naturally follows that those primary goals should inform decisions regarding rules and policy and economy and government
we're good with questioning the rules, right?