Quote from: suzifrommd on August 05, 2015, 06:09:38 PM
Our community has been far to blase about this sort of thing....
If we think we're a joke, how do we expect other people to respect us?
Is ignoring the same as agreeing with what is being said? If ignoring tasteless, bigoted humour is being party to that bigotry, then I'm a huge bigot. I think we just have to be smart about it and choose our battles wisely. Besides, I think some trans focussed humour is funny.
More generally, humour, especially
satire, focussed on specific sections of the community is complex. It's hilarious until it's about you, right? I guess the most recent example of this is the Charlie Hebdo case, where millions of people showed solidarity with the satirical publication who many believe is extremely bigoted. The argument behind the
Je Suis Charlie campaign was one of free speech. While people are loath to be associated with his ideas, Australian Attorney General, George Brandis, believes that "People have a right to be bigots". Taking Brandis' argument to its logical end, his comment could be interpreted as saying that any kind of censorship is unwarranted (which I agree with and Brandis doesn't, as Brandis later
proved to be a hypocrite on this point). Avoiding censorship altogether is also a sentiment expressed by Noam Chomsky, who states, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
*What's my point? Well, broadly speaking, I guess it's to ask whether humour targeting specific groups should be viewed in a relative (some humour good, some bad -- but who decides?) or absolute sense (no censorship, or total censorship). Some questions to ponder, then, are (a) whether any group should be the target of satirical humour, (b) who is in a position to make these satirical observations and (c) how should such humour be received (by the wider community and the targeted group itself)?
___________________________________________________
* In Understanding Power (2002), Chomsky elaborates on his views relating to freedom of speech and personal rights, pointing out the complications involved. "In real free speech discussions, there is nobody who's an absolutist on free speech. People may pretend to be, but they're not... Rights aren't an axiom system, so there are conflicts between them, and people just have to make their own judgments. But my own judgment, at least, tends to be that a lot of leeway ought to be allowed."