rants and ramblings of utter randomness

Except four guys just came home dead, and this ridiculous country has been holding the line there for, oh, a few years now. /humourless Canadian

Not the time to be poking us. It was in extremely poor taste, even for Fox.

From:

Please point out where in the video anyone made any demeaning, derogatory, or disparaging remark specifically about the sacrifice made by these "four guys." In fact, a couple of the panelists made the point that they respect anyone who serves in the military. If they HAD made any disparaging remarks about these men, I'd be the first to join you on the outrage bandwagon. Admittedly, there were certainly puerile aspects to the clip, but you have to consider the source. These are, once again, comedians. Some will consider them funny, some won't, but with the world in the state that it's in today, to take offense at something a comedian says seems a huge waste of perfectly good outrage.

From:

I don't know, I consider this kind of 'comedians' in the same category as people who make jokes about the Holocaust. Does making fun of soldiers in harm's way get a pass because it's all done in fun?

Also, as others have been saying, what if the positions were reversed and Canadian 'comedians' were mocking US troops? It wouldn't be about 'taking offense' to me, it would be utterly unconscionable. I don't see a difference, which is why I'm outraged.

Edited Date: 2009-03-24 04:33 pm (UTC)

From:

...what if the positions were reversed and Canadian 'comedians' were mocking US troops?

I'd agree that either way it's unconscionable, but their words reflect their own ignorance, and I don't have to say, do, or feel anything for that to happen. Tell me which is more threatening to a comedian who is obviously courting attention by making such inflammatory remarks, a room full of boos or a room full of menacing silence? To me, one gives him something to play off of, increasing his moment in the limelight, while the other leaves him sputtering, backing slowly to the shadows he crawled from.

From:

Tell me which is more threatening to a comedian who is obviously courting attention by making such inflammatory remarks, a room full of boos or a room full of menacing silence? To me, one gives him something to play off of, increasing his moment in the limelight, while the other leaves him sputtering, backing slowly to the shadows he crawled from.

True, but if everyone kept silent every time something offensive was said, the world would be in bigger trouble than it's in already.

And anyway, I don't think we're really on opposing ends here, since both of us support the guy's right to say what he's saying. And to respond (or not) is up to the individual. Stuff like this pisses me off, and I rant, because I can't NOT.

From:

True, but if everyone kept silent every time something offensive was said, the world would be in bigger trouble than it's in already.

Agreed, and I'm not saying that's how it should be. Each situation is different and should be met with a response appropriate to it to best make your point (a skill I've not perfected yet, so I'm not preaching from the perfection pulpit). As you indicated in one replay somewhere, some people are looking to stir the pot, others are just looking to vent.

And yeah, though our opinions of specific things may differ, we're on the same page on the overall. Which is kinda cool, cuz isn't intelligent, nonemotional dissension and discussion so much win?!?!

From:

Which is kinda cool, cuz isn't intelligent, nonemotional dissension and discussion so much win?!?!

Yeah, and even if I didn't think so, the First Amendment sez I can say it. :D :D :D

From:

Addendum to previous post...

but with the world in the state that it's in today, to take offense at something a comedian says seems a huge waste of perfectly good outrage.**

**with the exception of derogatory, disparaging, or demeaning remarks about soldiers who have been wounded or given their lives in service to their non-tyrannical, non-despot-fronted country. IMO, offense equal to a flipping-of-the-bird-to-the-screen, a "go to hell" scream-at-the-screen, or even a turning-of-the-channel is warranted.

From:

It's context for the offense taken at the remarks, and I would hope that anyone who could be arsed to Google up some non-U.S. news would take that fact and reconsider their "joke". Someone over there clearly couldn't think that far. It was a stupidass time to be taking potshots. He and his guests are of course well within their rights to be ignorant jackasses about your allies on broadcast TV, but they shouldn't be called on it because he's trying to be funny? Because in someone's estimation some people are taking offense too far?

It was dumbassed. He offended people. We told him. Next.

From:

In your opinion it was dumbassed. In someone else's (perhaps even in your country), it may be the most hysterical thing they've ever heard. Due to the fact that humankind's sensibilities are not uniform, everyone (comedian or no) will eventually offend someone. Is this a bad thing?. I say hells no. Offense engendered by the spoken or written word is an indicant of a healthy, open society. Only when there is no discernible offense ever generated should we truly, truly be concerned.

Keep in mind, perhaps I have skin thicker than most, for I can't think of the last time I was actually offended by anything someone said or wrote. Certainly I've not agreed with different things, but offended? Nah. Life's too short.

From:

Offense engendered by the spoken or written word is an indicant of a healthy, open society. Only when there is no discernible offense ever generated should we truly, truly be concerned.

So it's okay to satirize Auschwitz and KKK lynchings and 9/11? Even if it were real, honest satire (which this talentless drivel certainly is NOT), aren't there are some subjects that are simply beyond bad taste to mock?

From:

...aren't there are some subjects that are simply beyond bad taste to mock?

Sure there are, and you named three of them. However, just because they're in bad taste to me, or even to 99.9997% of people the world over, doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for their right to say/write it. It's easy as all hell to say "Yay, free speech!" when we agree with what's being said. The test comes when we don't.

From:

I don't question his right to say it at all. I'm one of the First Amendment's biggest fans (Dude. It's on my LJ interests list!), and he has every right to be a dumbass on national television.

Free speech goes both ways, though, which means that I have the right (and IMO the obligation) to scream at ignorant arseholes like this guy and for being, well, ignorant arseholes.

This asshat isn't the first ignoramus to draw breath (example: Fred Phelps, who has the audacity to picket funerals like Heath Ledger's and this Iraqi war vet-- horrible, terrible acts, but hey, he has the right to do it on publicly-owned land, according to the first amendment), and he won't be the last. Which is even more reason why people like Phelps and Greg Guttermouth deserve to know what us 99.9997% think of them.

From:

Free speech goes both ways, though, which means that I have the right (and IMO the obligation) to scream at ignorant arseholes like this guy and for being, well, ignorant arseholes.

As I said in a previous response, absofreakinglutely you do. For someone like me who actually enjoys intelligent, unemotional confrontation, I live for it.

As for the rest of your reply, yes. In fact, had I been at either funeral, I likely would have come away from it with my first mugshot for trying to kick the living shite out of said Mr. Phelps. So much for unemotional confrontation, eh? ;)

From:

In fact, had I been at either funeral, I likely would have come away from it with my first mugshot for trying to kick the living shite out of said Mr. Phelps.

Hey, after you're famous, you could autograph the picture to raise money for some anti-defamation league, or something. :)

From:

What, it's a free speech issue now?

Please. Free speech =/= free from consequence. In fact, being free from the consequences of public speech is the antithesis of that value.

So, being offended is an indicator that free speech is working. I'll agree, but the corollary is I can tell the offender they're full of shit.

I don't agree with the implication I'm getting that since it's inevitable we will offend someone we should take nothing from it when people say we've got our heads up our asses. I'd err on the side of not poking people, but then again I don't sytle myself as a comedienne.

From:

Free speech =/= free from consequence.

Agreed. Never claimed such wasn't the case, and never would. You say something, you'd better be prepared for what comes next.

I'll agree, but the corollary is I can tell the offender they're full of shit.

Absofreakinglutely you can. And I'd go down with the ship for your right to.

...that since it's inevitable we will offend someone we should take nothing from it when people say we've got our heads up our asses.

I never indicated that either, and never would. If you offend someone, and they call you on it, you can either take it to heart and alter your behavior, or you could adapt the attitude displayed in your icon. It's an individual choice, and I'd never deem that it should be one or the other.

From:

Okay so... what was your objection to people finding that clip offensive? Because this:

but with the world in the state that it's in today, to take offense at something a comedian says seems a huge waste of perfectly good outrage.

(Even with the qualifying addendum) read to me like people were being silly in finding him to be an asshat? Or was it just the size/scope of the reaction?

From:

We're talking about two different things here, a reaction to a specific event and an overarcing belief. My reaction to the specific event was geared more to the size/scope facet (as is evidenced in the quote). However, when we're talking about the overall scheme of things, I do not, nor would I ever say anything like, "You cannot find this or this or this offensive because _______." I might exert my opinion and say, "You should not..." But never can not. Make sense?

From:

If you offend someone, and they call you on it, you can either take it to heart and alter your behavior

And I think that's really the reason behind my post. That and being really pissed off at the utter meanness of this guy. Not that he cares or reads my posts. Hell, he probably feeds on this sort of stuff. :/

From:

You know, as I juggled all my replies this morning/afternoon, for some reason I kept remembering that you don't watch South Park because you find it too mean. :) Don't know that that has any relevance at all here, but just thought it telling that I love that show and you, umm, don't. :)

From:

I don't love South Park, but I respect the talent behind it. And yeah, in some places I think they go too far, but in their defence it's obviously satire, and the SP people are far, far more talented than this yokel will ever be. Like Rick Mercer says, there's a REASON the guy is on at three in the morning. It's because he SUCKS.

And this? Is funny:

See? OBVIOUS satire vs. schoolboy bullying.

ETA: And then there's Canada making fun of itself.

Edited Date: 2009-03-24 08:30 pm (UTC)

From:

Apparently he's offered an 'apology'. *gag*

His real feelings tell another story, as evidenced by his twitter post. Conclusion: He is an Evil person. EvilEvilEvil person.

From:

Hitler's evil; this dude is just an insincere douche.

From:

I pray to every deity known and unknown that insincere douches like this guy never get control of a military arsenal. *shudder*

From:

Yeah, I'm getting strong douche signals off of him.

But how much do I love Rick Mercer?

"They should be ignored," said political satirist Rick Mercer, who hosts his own show on CBC. "If you're going to do satire, three of the most important rules are you have to tell the truth, you can't be a bully and don't be an asshole," he said, adding: "Being a bully is not satire."

From: