A month ago Rorschach posted a Jim Jefferies video in anticipation (not eager anticipation, but rather the opposite) of his appearance at the Global Atheist Convention.
So far I’ve managed to watch only three minutes, because it’s a very unpleasant experience. Apparently what makes him so supremely funny is his loathing of women.
Nice work, GAC.
I wish I’d known beforehand. I feel rather ashamed I didn’t walk out of his rant.
I only stayed in my seat because I had to cover the details. Ironic really, that if I joked about violence against Jim Jefferies the way he joked about violence against women, I’d have risked my spot in the audience.
I was also taking notes to write about the GAC but could have easily left as it was just for me. I have never seen that sort of thing before so was unprepared as to how to react. I hope I don’t have to hear anything like it again, but I’d like to think I would walk out next time.
Criticising comedians is one of the surest ways of betraying the fact that you don’t understand what stand-up is and it’s not for you.
Humor or even humour is supposed to be funny. Jefferies fails to meet this requirement.
Oh it’s not for me all right. I’m well aware of that!
Not true of all standup though. Some standup is for me.
Wow… someone actually looked at that and said ‘Yes. I want this to be a part of my event.’
Not surprising. Loom at Ampers. Probably one of the most blatantly misogynistic rants out there and xe’s ready to defend it and tell you you can’t possibly criticize stand up comedians. I mean, they’re stand up comedians! They’re supposed to share uncomfortable truths!
“you can’t possibly criticize stand up comedians. I mean, they’re stand up comedians! They’re supposed to share uncomfortable truths!”
@julian really doesn’t get it
Don’t feel guilty about not walking out, sansha. Situations like that can be very confusing when one is not prepared!
Lionel Tiger gave a risibly sexist (and disjointed) talk at Moving Secularism Forward, and all I could manage to do was laugh. Afterward Melody was indignant that no one challenged him, but hey – it was so off the wall it was funny. What can I tell you?!
Yes, thanks, Ampers, but we can get by without help. There is no “it” to “get.” Standup is just standup, it’s not some mysterious magical art form that you have to “get.” Some of it’s good and some of it’s shit; some is funny and some isn’t; some is misogynist and some isn’t.
When did A. D. Clay get an accent. Not sorry, this fellow sucks. This is a cudgel of misogyny.
I don’t mind a bit of well served guilt. It spurs me to action in future.
That should be “well deserved guilt”. My typing is dreadful today.
Ophelia, for some time you have been making comments about how you wish you were at this conference – to the point where when I asked for help for a USA female student regarding advice as to funding to attend and the only “help” you gave was to say (yet AGAIN) about how you wish you were going.
The ‘comedy’ of Jefferies isn’t familiar to me; this event was the first I’d ever seen anything by him. I walked out from a viewing room backstage as I did not approve. I should have stayed and lent support to another woman, Stella Young, who felt as horrified as I did, but I’d left before she voiced her disapproval and she was told by every other comedian there that it was acceptable comedy. It is documented on Twitter.
During the GAC, several presenters OPENLY challenged from the stage how such content was unacceptable to them. They were applauded for it. PZ, due his complaints about the internet, nay not have felt he had to write about his views in the act, but I guess he had the internet connection issue to focus his vitriol upon. I personally turned up to the venue and used the wick there.
Since this is already a ‘too long; didn’t read’ – I’m glad you’re allowing a guest blogger to post a more informed overview if the event and hope the next time you’re at a convention where people do show (and are acknowledged as doing so) a challenge to content, that you don’t come across as blanket-condemning the entire event.
Autocorrect: “wick” is wifi.
I don’t think that Ophelia is in anyway coming across as offering a blanket condemnation of the event. She is asking the very justified question as to why he was chosen, given that he routine was not at all out of character or unexpected.
And I can only speak to my personal experience which was that the only explicit condemnation of Jim Jeffries was done by Ms Maddox, the lone theist. PZ certainly referenced the problems the movement is dealing with regarding sexism but I don’t recall anyone else mentioning it. I attended the full three days and the dinner.
That is for real some of the unfunniest shit I’ve ever seen. He seems like he’s from that school of thought that thinks saying something awful is the same as being funny. Who on earth would ask that guy to perform at a conference?
I don’t want to blanket condemn the conference over this.
But I do want the names of the organizers. They can’t be trusted to do anything in the future for the atheist community without very close supervision.
This is two orders of magnitude worse than the Lionel Tiger thing at Moving. The Tiger talk was an “ooops” by the organizers. Assuming this comedian is always like as depicted here, inviting him to that conference was either an act of open misogyny and should be condemned as such, or an act of incredible stupidity.
Either way I want their sorry ass names.
This guy loses all credibility with his first line. Who could believe that has ever happened???
@ Ophelia I never said it was “some mysterious magical art form that you have to “get.”
That’s twice now that people have decided for me what my argument is so they can knock it down and assert their point of view.
I can’t understand how they audience is not only laughing, but they’re enthusiastic. This guy is disgusting. And yes, I like stand up comedy. That’s not comedy, that’s contempt.
Ampers, you were vague. Now you are being unhelpful. I’d love to hear your point, but please expand on it enough so us folks lacking telepathic powers can get it!
Ampers (#4)
Treating comedy as a sacred institution is one of the surest ways of betraying the fact that you don’t understand what skepticism is and it’s not for you.
Ophelia (#9)
Ugh, that guy. I heard him once on For Good Reason and wondered WTF he was doing on a skeptic podcast with his endless string of ego-drenched assertions.
Ampers – can you explain then what you mean when you say that criticising a comedian shows you do not understand stand up. I’ll confess that I also interpreted that as saying there is something I’m not understanding about stand up comedy and if I did understand I would not criticise it. I don’t see another way to interpret what you said.
Ophelia,
You managed to watch three minutes? You are tougher than me. I had to stop after just one. Ghastly.
I hate it when people watch only part of something then judge it. So I forced myself to watch all of it. But I couldn’t actually do that. So, instead of watching it continuously I skipped ahead and sampled. That was still difficult.
So, I admit that maybe if I had watched the whole thing from beginning to end, it would have somehow redeemed itself.
If anyone knows of the segment in which we learn that this video, this comedian, is actually not horrid, let us know which seconds to hone in on!
People its a comedian for fucks sake. As a fellow atheist this is one of the thing that annoys me to no end about the atheist community is that you guys and girls get your feelings hurt over every little thing that comes by that you don’t agree with.Instead of doing a bit of critical thinking and maybe challenging someone like Jim Jeffries to a debate or discussion you run and shed tears behind your computer monitor while entering a new blot post.
This is why no one takes the atheist community seriously is because it tends to come off as just another fractured religion with different agendas. You guys are losing sight of what your priorities are and what you should be focusing on.Its taken a 17 year old girl from Rhode Island to show a lot of us what we should be doing.We need to do more outreach and charity work.
Stop getting your collective underwear in a bundle and start doing what you can
People its a prayer banner for fucks sake
People its a museum display for fucks sake
People its a moment of silence for fucks sake
People its a veil for fucks sake
People its a mandatory ultrasound for fucks sake
People its a sticker in the front of a textbook for fucks sake
I have no interest in “challenging Jim Jeffries” to a debate. I have no disagreement with him at all. I just feel that his “comedy” is a) not funny, b) offensive, c) misogynist and d) inappropriate for any conference of this type.
The disagreement I have is with the clueless idiots who picked him as the comedian to have at this conference.
“This is why no one takes the atheist community seriously is because it tends to come off as just another fractured religion with different agendas.”
I would challenge the idea that we are all supposed to have one (apparently, your) agenda.
Amanda FTW
On the bright side, I got called a “gender feminist” for not understanding that he was only being funny. Maybe someone here knows what that term means.
@Greg Laden #27:
Saw the whole thing and lived to tell the tale. Nope, all horrid all the time. Well, there’s a bit where he makes fun of sex tips in Cosmo et al, and that’s not completely horrid, but I don’t remember the time. It’s seriously not worth watching the video AGAIN just to find it, anyway.
@Ampers #4
Thing is, this barely qualifies as standup, since standup has to be, you know, funny. This is “comedy” in the same way that a neo-Nazi meeting is funny: it isn’t, unless you want to laugh (contemptuously) at Jefferies and his benighted outlook on women rather than at his “jokes.”
James (#28)
I can’t take the atheist community seriously when we give a stage to assholes who refer to women as “just the container I shoot it into.” Dehumanizing contempt is still dehumanizing contempt when it’s played for laughs.
And yet, here you are defending a guy whose repertoire is full of the same hateful sentiments towards women that showed up in the backlash against Jessica Ahlquist. I want atheists to be better than those guys in more ways than just understanding the separation of church and state.
Apparenly the term “gender feminist” is from Christina Hoff Sommers’ book, ‘Who stole feminism’ and is contrasted with equity feminism. Equity feminism seeks equal rights and access for women and argues than gender feminists are too focussed on women, misandrists or favour reverse discrimation policies, portraying women as victims.
At least that is what google told me. I get the idea it is a more ‘academic’ way of saying ‘radical feminist’.
How about I just give you all a box of tissue and you folks can have a good collective cry?
Ugh. UGH!!
What the hell is it with “us”? Why is there so much misogyny? Why does it get past every editorial review? Why is it laughingly promoted?
And what, pray tell, is your deal, Kylie Sturgess? Why are you more angry with Ophelia for reporting it than you are at your colleagues who signed this guy up? You do a lot of that and it’s disturbing. Why aren’t you angrier with them? Why are you castigating Ophelia on the grounds of your own indignant response at the GAC, which she couldn’t have known about, and which doesn’t address the issue?
Wake up. Every criticism is not KYLIE STURGESS IS NOT APPRECIATED AND WHEN WE CRITIQUE A GROUP SHE’S INVOLVED IN WE’RE SPECIFICALLY DENIGRATING ALL HER HARD WORK.
It’s not hard. We’re on your side. I wonder if you are.
How about I just give you all a box of tissue and you folks can have a good collective cry?
How about you fuck right off?
You guys have no concept of rational or critical thing because you immediately respond to anything that hurts your feelings
I’ve never heard of this guy, but now I’ll be sure to you-tube him now. I thought he was funny in this bit, especially the way he tied it up at the end.
Try not to jump to any conclusions about what other opinions you think I might have.
Dismissive trollbot is dismissive.
So someone that disagrees with you is a troll?
No, trolls are trolls. You’re right out Central Casting.
James – can you please explain why you think that the statements made against Jessica are hurtful and worthy of criticism but not the statements of this comedian? Is it because it was a performance? Would you excuse similar comments against Jessica in a stand up routine? Or is that only prohibited because he would be attacking a single individual and not all women and if so, what is the reason you make that distinction?
That just wasn’t very funny… not even not very funny it just wasn’t funny at all.
I never said anything bad about Jessica. I was praising what she did.You chose to take what I said out of context to fit your own reality. Go back and re-read what I wrote instead of quote mining
James – you misunderstood me. Why are you saying it is OK for you to speak out about the awful things being said about Jessica by Christians but we shouldn’t speak out about the awful things said about women by Jim.
I barely got through two minutes of it. That’s pretty bad and not even funny. That was not comedy, but rather a misogynist rant.
Sansha I don’t agree with what was said about Jessica by Christians.To issue a death threats or condoning violence towards anyone is cowardly and my definition of evil. Its the same as what Sarah Palin posted on her website that provoked a mentally ill person to shoot innocent people on that January day in 2011
James (#46)
No one said you said anything bad about Jessica, you illiterate idiot. What I said is that what Jeffries is saying sounds just like the language used by the people attacking Jessica. And you’re defending what Jeffries is saying while talking about how we should take some lesson from Jessica’s ordeal.
James – OK, so we agree that condoning or threatening violence against someone is very bad and to be criticised.
So why do you think we shouldn’t crticise Jim?
Actually, what happens is that we express concern over something like this and immediately in slithers a gaggle of assholes to belittle us and dismiss our concerns as just us “having our feelings hurt.” Then we get pissed off. If this vile asshole was on stage at the GAC telling nigger jokes or Holocaust jokes would you be here smirking that we just needed a collective cry?
James (#49)
You’re just getting your feelings hurt over some little thing you don’t agree with.
James, do you really think Jeffries tripe is comedy or satire? Are you clueless as to what passes for inclusiveness at a convention?
I don’t want to condemn the GAC, but this specific act gives a black eye to the convention. It had looked like the atheist community was making strides over the past 5 years to be inclusive of women, this booking set the clock back.
Natalie Reed described this beautifully a month or so ago: Hipster Misogyny. Apparently the reason we don’t “get” Jim Jeffries’ humour (as Ampers and James seem to think) is because we’re not hip enough to get that it’s, like, totes not making fun of women by calling them cunts or whores, because it’s edgy and ironic. Or something.
People who don’t understand comedy don’t get to critique it any more that I get to critique 18th century Peruvian feminist poetry. Stand up comedians have one job, to make people laugh. If they do it by making shocking statements, or being horribly offensive then that is just another method of getting to the final product. Some comedians make rape jokes, some make holocaust jokes, some make cancer jokes. Sometimes they are funny, other times they aren’t. What makes me sick is people like you who wait till a comedian makes a joke that trespasses into your special little area of offense and then you attack. Branding him whatever label you think fits the cherry picked routine you decided to focus on.
Maybe Jim Jefferies was being completely honest in this routine, maybe he was exaggerating some dark and honest feelings that he really feels. Then there is the possibility that he was just saying something that he thought would make his audience laugh. Which they did.
When you start confusing jokes with ‘statements’ and comedic routines with some sort of political rally then you have passed the point where anyone should take you seriously.
If you listen to the entire ‘Alcoholocaust’ special that this segment was taken from then you will be able to paint him as all kinds of different people. Sometimes he comes across as a woman hating misogynist. Other times he jokes about his depression and self hatred. He ends with a touching and hilarious 20 minute true story about helping out a severely disabled childhood friend. However I doubt you would listen to this and describe him as sentimental helper of the weak, because you can’t get outraged about that.
At the end of the day, isn’t that all you really want to do?
How does one become qualified to speak on comedy?
Hey Rhys,
telling a racist joke – even if it’s funny – doesn’t magically prevent it from being racist.
Telling a sexist joke – even if it’s funny – doesn’t magically prevent it from being sexist.
My guess, judging by the tweets on #atheistcon and my own chatting with people who went to Friday night, is that Jim offended a sizeable minority of the audience, who did not find his ranting funny. So for a lot of those guys he failed the first thing that a comedian is supposed to be – be funny.
I watched the whole thing.
My first response was to cringe because it’s so contemptuous, like there’s something basically wrong with women because they apparently don’t meet the sexual needs of men. If I took it at face value, as an honest expression of the male point of view — assuming there is a single male POV — it would make me think men really dislike women because they don’t just get wet and open their holes so guys can shoot into them the way men think they should.
Because it’s supposed to be standup comedy, I tried to see why it might be considered comedy. I tried to see it as a deliberate exaggeration whose intent was to be funny. Yeah, there may be a grain of truth in what he says and he’s just taken it to the extreme in an effort to be funny. You know, we all know how much foreplay those damn women need to get off, whereas men need almost none, being all like 17-YOs with raging hormones and instantaneous boners.
Thing is, that’s just all part of a myth of male sexuality and doesn’t speak to every male’s experience. Some men like/need foreplay and lots of it. Some even enjoy it for its own sake. Some women need very little. It changes during one’s sexual life. Some partners are mis-matched in that way. It can make for unsatisfactory relations.
I feel for this guy if that’s his experience and expresses his real sentiments. There are a few ways of explaining the situation when a guy keeps running into women who don’t get wet easily — either he’s really unlucky in his choice of sex partners, or women as a sex are frigid, or else he’s not very sexually attractive and doesn’t turn women on.
I have my suspicions which one it is…
Rhys I agree with you.Its far too easy to take something out of context. News agencies do it all the time to fit their intended agenda and to try to make you believe something be it true or not
sansha, it seems to take years of studying A. Kaufman and concluding that he was a comedic genius.
Philip are you missing the point of what comedian does? Stand up comedy correlates very well with the history of the court fool.The fool was the the only one who could insult royalty and get away with it
James,
are you missing my point that sexist comedy is still sexist?
And the rest of my comment pointed out that Jeffries’ comedy was hit-and-miss, since he alienated a substantial proportion of his audience. I’m a performer, and I know what it’s like to be part of a shitty performance, or on the receiving end: the blame is usually not with the audience.
If you’d actually articulate your argument, as opposed to hiding behind passive-aggressive snipes, people wouldn’t have to guess what it is.
Agreed. Jefferies failed at that.
BTW, when it comes to comedy I have a tough skin. I wasn’t particularly offended.
Wasn’t amused, either.
First, there’s nothing–absolutely nothing–in that routine that isn’t old and stale. It’s just exactly what some privileged dumbass who thinks he’s the only human in the world ever to face his own id would think is “edgy” and “brilliant,” though.
Second, What Philip said.
I’m really glad this is being discussed. I was sitting in the audience at the GAC, surrounded by men who were laughing at jokes made at the expense of women feeling very isolated, and very unwelcome.
Any time I mentioned this during the weekend, it was met with cries of, “It was just a JOKE!”, “Stop being such a sook” or “Clearly, you just don’t understand comedy”.
Whether or not it was funny isn’t the point – the problem is the GAC was not the place to make these sorts of jokes. Women already feel like a minority at conventions like these, a feeling that was justified by both the performance and the dismissive attitude towards any concerns that I raised.
Rhys,
“People who don’t understand comedy don’t get to critique it…”
Where do we take the test for this? I’d like to get my Qualified to Critique Comedy certificate, but I can’t find where to go. I’d better start studying.
And while we’re at it, is there a list somewhere which will tell us all what we are and aren’t allowed to express opinions on? It might save time.
/sarcasm
Yes. comedy is about laughs, but it is also often used to make a statement. Comedians are quite open about this. And if you are expressing your views, in whatever format, other people are allowed to disagree, and even find your views offensive. Comedians don’t get to hind behind “I’m just a comedian”.
Furthermore, it is entirely legitimate to discuss whether a particular comedian is appropriate for a particular event, no matter how sinister you try to make that sound.
Wow, this is one lame group. Jim Jefferies is the funniest comedian in the world right now. This has gone completely over your heads. Stand-up comedians are meant to exaggerate certain sentiments to a ridiculous degree. He is playing a character on stage. It’s not misogynist because the joke is really on him. It’s more, “I’m a raving lunatic, and I say things you normally don’t hear.” It’s like the drunk guy at the bar who says utterly ridiculous things, but eventually gets you laughing about topics you otherwise wouldn’t. George Carlin once said, “I don’t have pet-peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds.” It an exaggeration. Not real. Meant to be an outrageous character, and this guy is unbelievably funny. You guys fail at understanding stand-up. George Carlin would be proud of this guy. You guys are lame, silly, pretentious, and not the type of people that sound remotely enjoyable to share company with.
Yes. The Fool directed his insults at the powerful. Racist and sexist jokes, on the other hand, are typically directed at people who have been marginalized.
See the difference?
“Stand up comedy correlates very well with the history of the court fool.The fool was the the only one who could insult royalty and get away with it.”
Awww, someone did Shakespeare in high school. Well done you.
But to quote Carl Sagan (criticy thinky enough?): “They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at newton. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
James,
“The fool was the the only one who could insult royalty and get away with it”
OK, so it’s not just about a laugh, it’s about making a point. So what is wrong with criticizing the point being made?
Also, what Stacy said.
Two things:
1. Absence or withdrawal of endorsement is not censorship.
2. Everyone gets to criticise everything, including other people’s criticism.
Philip
I can laugh when Richard Prior makes a joke about white people. I can laugh when Bill Burr makes a joke about black people.
I can laugh when Amy Schumer makes a joke about what assholes men are.
and I can also laugh when Jim Norton makes a joke about what bitches women are.
All under one condition. That they make me laugh. I dont think any of them are genuinely sexist or racist. They are comedic observations that we laugh at because we relate to on some level. Sometimes I can totally dissagree with the point a comedian is making, but if the humour is there I will still laugh.
I love your phrase ‘sizeable minority’ by the way. I assume that is code for, all the people inside my bubble who read the blogs I read and agree with the things I agree with. Outside of this blog and the few people referencing it I haven’t heard anything negative said about Jim’s set at the conference. And I have been looking for the last hour.
This is a just another manufactured controversy.
I was at GAC all weekend, I saw Jim Jeffries routine and thought it was really funny! Yes I am a women, and every woman within a short reach of me (those I could see) were laughing just as hard.
However it was a send-up and I guess a lot of people didn’t get it at all … and that sometimes happens with comedy, some things other people laugh at leave me for dead. When Marion Maddox made her comment, all I could think of was that she really didn’t get that Jeffries was sending up the misogyny of those who make these kind of statements for real. Its all in the inflection.
Maybe its an Australian thing?
I actually found Maddox’s comment much more offensive as it appeared to have its roots in the whole “protect the little women from anything nasty” movement that thinks women can’t handle anything tougher than fairies and flowers.
I have a really crude, dark, and politically incorrect sense of humor and this guy didn’t make me laugh at all even though I was by myself when I watched the video. I just didn’t find him funny at all.
I agree with Timothy. You guys a really boring .Do you guys get offended at George Carlin and Richard Pryor? Have you ever watched Blazing Saddles? Probably not.It might offend your delicate world view.Your an adult grow up and deal with itm
Timothy,
You’re telling us how much better you understand comedy, and we’re pretentious?
Anyway, yes he’s clearly in character, but a) it’s not as if this sort of thing hasn’t been done a million times before and b) satire fails when the target can happily sit back and think “yeah, that guy’s completely right”.
Butler
Of course you get to critique who you like, and not support who you don’t. My point is that Jim Jefferies was at an Atheist convention to make jokes about religion. Not women. So to troll through his old material to find something that you don’t like as a way of saying that the organisers shouldn’t have chosen him is ridiculous.
Jim is one of the most popular and well respected comedians working today. He is also extremely outspoken about his atheism which is the reason that they chose him.
Essentially saying ‘sure, he’s perfect for the job but don’t hire him because on a totally unrelated matter he made a different joke that I find offensive.’
Last time I went to the convention the comedian was Jamie Kilstein. Jamie, while not quite being up to the standards of Jim, was an great comedian and did a perfect job. I met him after the show and bought a copy of his CD and after listening to it I came across a few jokes I didn’t like and a few opinions I really dissagreed with. It never occured to me to turn around and criticise the organisers for choosing him as the comedian based on my dislike of some of his material.
Rhys,
“People who don’t understand comedy don’t get to critique it”
…
“Of course you get to critique who you like”
Me too, Billy Clyde.
I’m a 53 year old woman, and I’ve heard shit like he’s saying my whole life. It ain’t cutting-edge. It’s easy.
If you haven’t “normally” heard the sort of things Jefferies is saying, you’ve led a very privileged life. Which I suspect makes you his ideal audience. Lots of people think like Jefferies’ persona does, and they ain’t being “ironic”.
I doubt it. I can’t recall Carlin ever directing his contempt at anybody who was lower than him on society’s totem pole.
Jefferies can suck Carlin’s balls for carfare.
Timothy Murphy – I understand what you mean about creating a caricature of a person for laughs and social commentary. If that was his intent, I believe he failed as I could really see no evidence in his routine that he wished the audience to view him as such a caricature. You seem to feel that no-one could possibly believe he intended to be taken at face value because the things he says are so horrible but the reality is that women experience this sort of attitude all the time. So, the exaggeration and hyperbole you suggest indicates caricature is really not there. Too many men are actually like this. As you can see even in this thread, the response from supporters is not “here is how this was a biting social commentary” but “don’t be a sook”. You can argue social commentary but you need to acknowledge the offence to women and explain why it is more largely justified to do so.
Rhys – he made a number of offensive comments about women in his performance at the GAC. I haven’t watched the above video and am complaining solely about his performance there.
Shorter Tim Murphy: oh yes, the joke is totes on him, and it’s a completely outrageous exaggeration of reality when he goes on his heee-lariously funny, misogynistic diatribe! It’s like the funniest thing in the world to call women cunts and whores, because we’ve never ever heard that taboo broken before, and me and all my hipster dudebros (oh, and my dudette friends who agree with me) think it’s wonderfully edgy. If you don’t get the joke, you must be unfunny lame people – oops, I nearly said retard there, that would be able-ist, now wouldn’t it! hahaha – who wouldn’t find anything humourous, you would be awful people to pass the time with at the pub!
The point, it is skyrocketing above your head in the upper atmosphere.
Them’s fighting words, whippersnapper! 🙂
When Blazing Saddles came out, I was working at my uncle’s drive-in theater. I worked the box office and my cousin Mary worked concession. After we’d closed up our respective areas, we’d rush to catch the second feature–which was BS. By the end of the week, we’d memorized the whole movie.
It’s still on my list of all-time favorites. Love Carlin and Pryor too.
Seriously, James, we’re not criticizing him because we’re fragile flowers–at least, I know I’m not. I did try to see him as somebody expressing the male id. But he just didn’t make me laugh. I don’t think he’s quite crossed over into that place of utter honesty that made Pryor, for example, so great.
I could be wrong. I will watch him a few more times to see if I can get something I’ve been missing here.
For your part, try to understand that the things Jefferies is saying is not mere exaggeration–it is the reality of how women are seen by very many people. Put yourself in our place, and see how funny it is.
To Stacy (#64)
But see, he made *people* laugh. The real people, ie men like him. Women and men who support treating women as equals aren’t real people, so the fact that they didn’t laugh can be dismissed.
Stacy (#79)
Right? The guy on stage is getting paid to say the same thing I hear from guys in passing cars and from guys stumbling out of bars and from guys playing the same video games I play and from friends of friends on Facebook. They all think they’re funny for saying it, too.
~*~*~*~*~
sansha (#80)
He’s missing any sort of tell that a halfway decent comedian would use to show that they’re skewering their caricature.
Sansha
Do you remember what he said about women at the convention?
So if its true that Jim Jeffries made only religious jokes at the GAC what is the problem? You have to pull older videos just to start shit.Fucking brilliant.
Rhys, for my reply to your comment #72, please read comment #68. There’s a difference between “punching up” in comedy, and “punching down”.
Manufactured controversy? On Friday I spoke to Rorschach at drinkies beforehand and he was pessimistic that Jeffries would go on a misogynistic diatribe in his routine: I was unfortunately unable to do the conference but went along to a few fringe events.
Some people in the audience at GAC (like Michelle, comment #73) found it funny. Some didn’t (like Emma, comment #65). Argue with reality all you like, I spoke with people who were there on Friday night, and Jeffries clearly divided his audience. But hey, the hipster misogynists don’t mind sexist comedy! All is right with the world!
Stacy, In all honesty Jim Jeffries as no worse than say Lisa Lampanelli who makes fun of gays and her love of black dicks. Is it funny? Sometimes.Do I go out of my way to watch her? No.
Philip? Why do you keep bringing up hipsters? Do you know what one is or are you projecting some fantasy you have?
Look at my first comment in this thread, and follow the link to Natalie Reed’s blog. Read what she said. Sums this phenomenon up.
James, I love Lisa Lampanelli!
I think she makes it clear though that she’s not, you know, taking sides. She makes fun of everyone, and makes fun of the societal conventions that order our sense of who is supposed to be made fun of.
(Have you seen Married With Children? I fucking love that show. But, you know, it was co-created by a black man, and many of the most outrageous episodes were written and/or directed by women. It was an Equal Opportunity offender that made fun of the whole damn enchilada.)
As I said, I will watch JJ some more. Possibly I am missing something.
I can’t really articulate why I think LL is on the side of the angels–but I think she is.
Damn. Sorry, Ophelia. I didn’t realize that would embed.
Rhys – Obviously I am working off my memory but he began with some sort of piece about how he needs help to remember rules of decent conduct, including not hitting women. There was mention of a whore upon arrival in heaven and sawing off a woman’s tit (cannot recall what on earth the context of that one was now). He also said he couldn’t be gay because he could never fuck someone he respected.
They are the instances I can recall but I can assure you that it was not only ‘religious’ jokes.
Isn’t that just polite drawing-room conversation in Australia?
I love it when some people, on seeing others criticize a comedian, automatically assume that those others don’t understand comedy.
Wait, not “love”. That other thing.
I was there too. Yes, Jefferies got laughs but they were the hollow, high pitched laughs of people who are embarrassed and laughing nervously. They’re cheap laughs because the material isn’t funny it’s just inappropriate, like when comedians get a laugh just by dropping a c-bomb.
Jefferies definitely didn’t get the belly laughs that Stella Young got, and her material was also non-PC.
OK, I watched Sluts.wmv on YouTube–he’s nothing but boring and hateful.
Urp. Yeah, he’s not making fun of misogyny–he’s misogynist. He thinks men fucking around are just humans fucking around, but women fucking around are subhuman.
Apparently he suffers from anhedonia. And, brave man that he is, he’s figured out who’s to blame: women.
Poor baby. /snark.
I agree with Alex, there was hollow laughter at the event. I am embarrassed to admit there were several times I laughed just because every one else was. However, there were several times I couldn’t laugh because of the extreme nature of the “humor”
The bit about cutting off a woman’s tit was about how his mother’s love couldn’t be unconditional because if he sawed off her tit with a rusty blade he didn’t believe she would love him.
The image that evoked made me nauseous, and did not make me laugh.
It is a pity that this act was part of the conference. The rest of the conference was brilliant ( and the organisers deserve a lot of credit for the great parts of theconference) the unity demonstrated by some of the crowd in humourously and peacefully confronting the Muslims and Christians who turned up was far more humorous and memorable than the comedy act.
I really wonder if those who found this act was funny would find it funny if instead, the jokes had been blatantly anti-male and had talked about cutting off cocks, and raping and beating men?
That was it Alex. I remember now why I forgot.
What I want to do is keep bigoted rants like this away from platforms I might be associated with. I don’t want to introduce myself as ‘an atheist but…’ (especially given its history) because if assholes like this are going to keep popping up I’ll have to.
If it’s any consolation, he isn’t the only one feeling that contempt. (Am I doing it right?)
Sorry Mikee, my comment @101 was supposed to be thanking you. I need to get to bed!
It’s a bit confronting, but FFS, he does not hate women. He is mocking Australian men.
It seems that one can be insulting as one likes, providing it is done in the name of humour.
So presumably when I point out that James and others here are clearly demented fuckwits they cannot take offence as long as I add a smilie 🙂
Sure. Mocking those of us who love hacking our mother’s breasts off.
Geez, how dense can you be.
Yikes – lots of new people here (eager to tell the rest of us how boring and humor-blind we are). I wonder where they came from…must look at the stats page.
Kylie – I have no idea why you’re so pissed off at me or what that rant @ 14 was about. Last I saw you were thanking Bruce for blogging about the GAC and agreeing with him about Jeffries. I really don’t know what your point is; the first paragraph doesn’t seem to connect to the rest. Is it that you take me to be “blanket-condemning” the whole event?
Hm. Well I am, in a way. I’m saying that (if I had been there) Jeffries would have soured the whole thing for me from the outset (since his act was at the beginning). It would have. I would have felt like a member of a despised group. That would have been a problem.
I don’t really understand why you balk at this. How would it not be a problem? That’s not saying “the whole event was crap, all the content was crap”; it’s saying one of the opening acts at the event was a guy who frankly loathes women. Opening.
Reserving all other judgement, given that a large plurality find this guy’s schtick to be rude, offensive, and unrepresentative of atheists at large and that another plurality find him to not only be knee slappingly hilarious, but a clever satirist as well– can I safely file the criticism that Jim Jefferies has spectacularly failed to make his point, whatever it is?
I agree with Timothy. You guys a really boring.
Then why are you here?
People who don’t understand comedy don’t get to critique it…
If you think that people who fail to laugh at a certain joke or routine “don’t understand comedy,” then you, in fact, are the one who doesn’t understand comedy.
If there’s one thing more irritating than an unfunny joke, it’s the self-appointed “hipster” moron insisting the joke was funny, regardless of anyone else’s opinion to the contrary. (I get that attitude a lot from fans of “Saturday Night Live,” who keep on raving about how “edgy” it is no matter how dull and irritating the skits are.)
Stand up comedy correlates very well with the history of the court fool.
Um…how much of that “history” is even real?
apfergus: yes, you can safely say that. If I make a joke expecting laughter, and a significant number of my audience (paying or not) get offended, then I’d call that a failed joke, even if another significant number did laugh out loud.
As a friend of mine once said, “Humor is a funny thing.” The factors that make a given routine “funny” or “unfunny” are ridiculously complex and unpredictable, and one comedian can tell certain jokes and get sincere belly laughs, while another comedian can tell similar jokes and just end up insulting a lot of people for no reason. That’s a fact of life in the comedy biz, and if you can’t handle it, you shouldn’t be in the biz, and you shouldn’t be looking down your nose about it either.
Without bothering to look at the video, the most charitable thing I can say about Jeffries is that he (or his agent) picked the wrong venue.
When I posted my last comment, I got the following error message:
Error 503 Service Unavailable
Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:
XID: 1662756690
Varnish cache server
——————–
I didn’t know cache servers needed varnishing…
I thought the joke was brilliant. Play the role of total jackass and twist it with the “I’m the one who cares about the relationship canard…”
Fucking brilliant. And yes, too many of you didn’t ‘get it.’ Not because you’re stupid, but because you run with the easily offended crowd… Sure, you can see it with the Muslims, Christians, Republicans, whatever…
But you’re just as tribal and thin-skinned with your pet group.
MosesZD, #113: And yes, too many of you didn’t ‘get it.’
I’ve always wondered about this kind of egocentric assumption that you must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
How can you be so certain that it isn’t, in fact, you who were suckered into getting “it” when there wasn’t really an “it” to be gotten?
Or worse, maybe the “it” really was an offense that deserves to be condemned and that it is, in fact, you who didn’t get “it.”
What’s the betting that Jim Jeffries knew exactly what the deal was here. He must have known about the clique at FTB who would have jumped up and down at his act. That was all the reason he needed.
Comedians look for a reaction, and with Ophelia, Ms. Maddox, and company, Jeffries got one. He must me laughing his socks off.
So your whole argument can be summed as he was trolling ? That is not exactly a ringing endorsement. “He can’t be a sexist arsehole because is he a trolling arsehole” does not do much to make him a better person.
What’s the betting that Jim Jeffries knew exactly what the deal was here. He must have known about the clique at FTB who would have jumped up and down at his act. That was all the reason he needed
I’m sure that’s true. But, since he gave the same basic act he’s been giving for years, he put this little plan of his into effect very early on, even before FTB.com existed.
Bhwahahahaha~!!!!
Has it ever passed through your head that we might be offended because we have a fucking reason to be?
You know, you might find it funny if there’s 10 min of “what do I care if she gets hurt during sex, I had an orgasm!” because it has never ever happened to you that somebody fucked you who actually didn’t care if you were enjoying yourself, or hurting, or bleeding.
And because you’ve never suffered from this attitude in your life.
Making jokes about pain and hurt during sex to an audience where you have a good chance of more than 10% of them being rape victims may be funny for 90% of your audience.
It may trigger PTSD for the other 10%.
And the decent part of the other 90% gets offended because they are actually aware of the harm this “humour” and “fun” causes in real life, how every time those attitudes get repeated and laughed at they become more real.
While you are still enjoying a joke at the expense of the marginalized and underprivileged.
Yeah, I mean, what’s throwing women under the bus compared to that?
I mean, why actually care about anybody else or society at large if instead you can get a reaction?
If that’s true it sounds like a child seeking negative attention because nobody on earth will give them positive one.
With children that’s usually easily dealt with, with adult men, it’s a bit sad.
Making jokes about pain and hurt during sex to an audience where you have a good chance of more than 10% of them being rape victims may be funny for 90% of your audience.
And, of course, as you say, it isn’t.
I’m going to add my voice to those defending Jeffries against the charge of ‘actual misogyny’, and I hope you don’t mind me doing so. Disagreement is a good thing, and I’m sure you’ll agree with that.
I don’t think it matters whether he succeeded in being funny or not. At least, it doesn’t matter for the question of whether or not it was too actually misogynistic. If instead there was a comedian who did a very family-friendly set but all the jokes fell flat, I doubt people would be writing blog posts about it. So it is not simply “was he funny?” but rather “was he offensive?” that is the question,
It seems to me that comedians frequently say things they don’t really believe. Whether funny or not, it can’t be assumed that they stand by all of their jokes as statements of fact. Is Louis CK an anti-semite who condones rape and wishes his daughter was ‘erased’? Does Ricky Gervais think that the disabled are ‘lazy’? Does Doug Stanhope think that God hates Sarah Palin because He gave her a disabled child? Does Frankie Boyle think that Jordan’s child Harvey tries to copulate with her? Does Jim Jeffries think that women are merely ‘containers’? Are all these seemingly intelligent and educated individuals really stupid, bigoted sociopaths underneath the surface?
It strikes me that the only reason people laugh when Jeffries says that women are ‘containers’ is that they themselves don’t think that women are containers. It is so absurd that they laugh along with it – I suspect those who are genuinely misogynistic wouldn’t really get the joke and would probably nod saying “yes, that’s true”. I don’t see why a misogynist would laugh at what they believe to be a statement of fact.
Another problem with most offensive jokes isn’t just that they’re offensive; it’s that they’re OLD and they’re EASY. A joke isn’t funny if you’ve heard it a million times before; and it isn’t funny if it’s easy to think of and easy to predict. And I’m betting that most of the offensive material we’re being mocked for not appreciating, is the same stuff we heard, and told ourselves, in junior high school. Seriously, that’s all the wit and maturity it takes to make insulting comments. There’s nothing “brilliant” or “edgy” about it. In fact, offending and insulting people is one of the easiest things on Earth.
I watched all of it and it IS painful.
It is says something about the audience when they can be sent into bursts of laughter at the mere mention of the “C” word or the “F” word.
In the case of Frankie Boyle, the evidence would suggest that he is a stupid bigoted sociopath.
Speaking of “hipster” morons lecturing others about how to appreciate “humor”…
Disagreement is a good thing…
Not if it’s stupid.
I don’t think it matters whether he succeeded in being funny or not.
Well, yeah, it kinda does, since he was there as a COMEDIAN.
…At least, it doesn’t matter for the question of whether or not it was too actually misogynistic.
Yeah, it kinda does, because if he sounds “too actually misogynistic,” then he won’t sound funny — at least not to people who have to deal with actual misogyny.
I don’t see why a misogynist would laugh at what they believe to be a statement of fact.
Because he enjoys hearing that “fact” rubbed in the faces of the women he hates? That’s just a guess, but it’s a guess you should have made; and your failure to make it just proves you’re an idiot.
Humour is a very personal thing, what makes me laugh might not make you laugh. And no matter what tickles your fancy, someone, somewhere will get upset or offended by it.
A lot of people, me included, find Jefferies funny, his videoes on YouTube have a lot more likes than dislikes – thousands of likes, tens of dislikes in some cases. It doesn’t make me a rapist, wife beater or even sexist, it just means he tickles my funnybone. The mere fact that what he says is so wrong, is what makes me laugh. I also laughed when Buster Keaton had a house fall on top of him, even though I know many people get killed that way. I laughed when Chaplin was slapped by a brute, even though I know many people are beaten by brutes every day.
Humour can be a play on words, it can be slapstick, it can be shocking etc. – they are effects used to surprise us and make us laugh, sometimes to make us think as well. And it works, but all of them do not work for everyone all the time. There are huge cultural differences, like it or not, and there’s also simply different tastes in humour.
And frankly, if you are a comedian that must play it safe and not offend anyone, you would be out of a job. I can’t think of a single joke I ever heard, that wouldn’t cause offense to someone, somewhere, somehow. Can you?
I think you’re overlooking one of the functions of “humor,” which is that it serves as a thin veil over outright expressions of hostility.
A lot of jokes aren’t actually funny in the sense of being witty, or absurd, or anything like that. They just insult some hated group, and so the audience laughs as an expression of that hatred.
Misogynist jokes usually fall into this category. There is no humor in them unless you want to have your misogyny validated.
Sorry, but if you laugh at sexist jokes you are a sexist. I know you might not like that, but tough.
And frankly, if you are a comedian that must play it safe and not offend anyone, you would be out of a job.
Bullshit. There’s LOTS of comedians who can get plenty of laughs, for years, without offending as many people as Jeffries did in one evening. Like you said, comedy is a personal thing, and lots of people don’t have a personal need to hear others insulted in order to feel good.
Oh, and speaking of the personal nature of comedy: if you really believe that, then perhaps you should just STFU and enjoy your favorite comedy on your own, and quit lecturing the rest of us for not appreciating your personal tastes.
I’ve laughed at some offensive jokes too — but if someone else doesn’t find it funny, I’m at least smart enough to understand WHY that’s the case, and I’m not about to talk down to them for it.
Notung (#122)
Why the fuck can’t you Jeffries supporters get your head around how it doesn’t matter if Jeffries himself isn’t an “actual” misogynist? What he’s saying is actual misogyny. If his purpose is to skewer that misogyny, then he’s failed.
Were you born yesterday? People laugh at things they consider true all the time. My mother adores Portlandia because she sees it as an exaggeration of how things really are and she herself is the type of person they’re lampooning on that show.
Because we can judge the quality of a video by the number of likes it gets on YT. Because YT is not the meeting place of the worst internet trolls of the world.
*eyeroll*
Raging Bee, thank you for your eloquent response.
Calling me stupid, a moron and an idiot is fine, but ‘hipster’ is just going too far. I’m most terribly offended.
That’s a logical fallacy I’m afraid:
1) M -> ¬F
2) ¬F
C) M
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises (‘Affirming the consequent’).
I don’t see why that would make them laugh. I enjoy a cup of coffee but I don’t spit it out with laughter every time I take a sip.
A. Noyd:
Yes, I was born yesterday. Good one.
I should have been clearer. Somebody could laugh at a distortion of what is true but not a mere statement of brute fact. So if someone does a stereotypical English accent I can laugh because of the exaggeration, even though it may not be entirely false. If someone just did a ‘good impression’ of a Brit, I’m not likely to laugh.
I suppose even if it were possible for a bigot to laugh at a particular joke, it wouldn’t mean that is the only way to laugh at it. Take Al Murray for example. He plays a bigoted pub landlord and it is well known that real bigots think that he is serious. They laugh at his character in a way other than the way the Oxford-educated Murray intends that they do. I don’t think that it makes all of those who really ‘get the joke’ bigots themselves.
So Notung,
Is it a case of anything goes so long as it can be labelled humour ? It seems as though that it is what your are arguing, but it hard to be sure since you are not making your case very well.
@4 Ampers says:
April 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Criticising comedians is one of the surest ways of betraying the fact that you don’t understand what stand-up is and it’s not for you.
There is a big difference between saying
“I resemble that remark, that offends me!” which is wrong (see a great rant by Joan Rivers on why)
vs
“your jokes are not funny or even sarcastic or sardonic, but actually harming people”
In improv I had to deal with this all the time. There is a fine line between making a character who is a jerk in order to demonstrate something, therefore making fun of jerks; and just being a jerk. It is always a dangerous choice that, if you care about the message and the audience (who usually paid to see you), you will endeavor to make clear.
But if your full time job is playing a character that is a jerk (that you created), then you have a big problem: Since most people that have empathy for others do not do that, you cannot hide behind “it’s not me it’s the character I created” like Eminem and others have tried.
Yes some of us have worked in comedy, and don’t buy that horse manure some of you think you can peddle.
Notung,
Is it interesting that you have notably failed to address the comment by Lyanna which would seem to be pretty devastating to your argument.
I sure it is just a coincidence that Lynanna would seem to be a woman, and not sexism on your part that you have been unable to respond to her. Of course, it could also be you do not have a response, in which case admitting as much would be more honest than ignoring her.
@raging bee
“Going blue” is always a crutch and weak. Unfortunately as the saying goes “you’ll never go broke underestimating people”
i have been so lucky to have been taught or just been around great teachers (Susan Messing, Del Close, even Brian Posen) and though i am not nearly as funny as most of my friends (I don’t even work in theater anymore), I was taught to understand why Jeffries is an idiot not worth watching (though being taught to have manners and empathy by my parents was enough, truth be told). His comedy is easy and stupid. And he makes money by hurting others, which not only means his comedy is not respectable, but he himself is not worthy of respect.
Sorry that you feel that I’m not making my case very well. I’ll try to be as clear as possible for you.
I think that all humour is fine so long as it is solely intended as humour, and that the comedian would not endorse those jokes as statements of truth. (Recall earlier I said “Do we really think that Louis CK… etc). So I don’t approve of Roy Chubby Brown or Bernard Manning, since I think that they do in fact endorse those statements. Perhaps I’m wrong about certain individuals, in which case I’m wrong about those individuals.
So, there is no statement (I believe) that ‘goes too far’, so long as the comedian is saying it purely for comedy and wouldn’t agree with someone who uttered the statement in a non-comedic context. Again, Al Murray is the perfect example.
Let me know if this is still unclear.
In which case anything really does go for you it seems. No matter how vile comments are, just so long as the person saying them makes sure to add they are only joking it seems you see nothing wrong with it.
I think that tells us a lot about the sort of person you. I note you are still ignoring Lynanna, but I guess your sexism in doing so is only a joke, so is OK.
James:
So, James, apparently you believe that women are somehow privileged in society such that nobody dare insult us as a group in most circumstances. Which is really something only a misogynist asshole would believe.
Rhys:
Because, of course, there are no power differentials in society between black people and white people. Or between men and women. Again, indicative of a white guy with no insight into the lived experiences of people unlike himself.
What makes you think all of us find Lisa Lampanelli funny? Here’s a hint: I don’t take the side of a woman just because she’s a woman.
Unsurprising. Comedy is a male-dominated and intensely misogynist business.
Michelle, thanks for letting everyone know that you’re a Chill Girl™ who speaks for all women. I’m sure the pats on the head you get from dudebros are worth it.
Notung:
What the fuck makes you think that intelligence and education prevent someone from being a bigot? Because I’ve met bigots with Ph.D.s. Oh, and, for the thousandth time: Intent is not fucking magic.
Pravus:
Oh, joy, another shitwit who doesn’t understand the basic fact that not everybody in society enjoys the same degree of privilege and that, therefore, making fun of oppressed groups is at best cheap and pathetic. Ever hear of “punching up” vs. “punching down”? Taking the piss out of the powerful isn’t the same as mocking the powerless.
Anat:
This.
Probably because you’re a complete moron.
More seriously, I have no idea how you can be so dense as to not get that many people who hold bigoted ideas thrive in that level of validation.
But hey, whatever. It’s just comedy so anything goes, right?
Next up, nooses on black campuses. Be sure to remind black women they are and always will be hideous. To damn dark.
Well long as you add that you are only kidding, Notung has said he would have no problem with such racist crap. He would probably laugh.
Okay… I’m about to go on a little comedy rant, here…
I read a lot of comments saying that this rant by Jefferies was simply unfunny, almost as if that’s an objective fact.
First off, I agree with each and every one of you. His little rant was horribly unfunny, terribly misogynistic, and utterly pathetic. I did not like it.
However…
Did anyone notice something about the video? Specifically… laughter? Regardless of what you or I think (and again… I agree with all of you), he made his audience laugh… and laugh hysterically. They loved it. This man has a following.
I *hate it* when people complain about comedians “using shock for cheap laughs”…
No shit, Sherlock. That’s the whole damn point.
I hate to say it, but if racist jokes about the mentally challenged get excessive laughter from an audience, then those are the jokes your average comedian’s going to tell. They don’t care about anything but making people laugh, because that’s how they get paid. So they’ll use whatever form of humor makes people laugh at them.
Some people might say that Tim Minchin’s “If I Didn’t Have You”, along with how he speaks about his wife in general, is *hugely* misogynistic (and he even comments about it… “aww… are you studying feminism at Uni”?… I, for one, would love to know what his wife thinks about “If I Didn’t Have You” and “she made me this way” and “VELP” and so on), and yet it’s half of what makes him so famous. He even says, in Live at the Royal Albert Hall (I think), that he has a feminist in him, but “I keep her locked in a cage”.
Of course, Tim is a hell of a lot funnier than Jim, and many times more intelligent, so perhaps it is highly unfair to compare Tim to Jim. But I’m not making a comparison. I’m merely pointing out that even Tim Minchin gets away with it in subtle ways.
I’m not trying to defend Jefferies, okay? GAC made a huge mistake in asking him to do a bit, and his misogynistic rantings I, personally, do not find funny, and I stand in solidarity with everyone else who feels the same way.
I’m merely asking that everyone consider context. Jefferies has a following, and they frickin’ love him, in much the same way Larry the Cable Guy has a following and his audience love him.
Again, I’m not defending him. He does not deserve to be defended. It does annoy me that he has a following at all. This man should be forced to change the kind of “comedy” he does, because it’s disgusting.
But he won’t, because he has a following that eats it up and laughs it out.
“Shock comedy” exists. And as long as it makes people laugh, there’s really very little that can be done about it.
So… one more time, just to make sure everyone gets it and I’m not misconstrued:
I am NOT defending Jim. The rant featured in the video was disgusting. And although I know nothing about what, exactly, his rant was at GAC, I agree that they made a mistake in inviting him, and I would have been among those to walk out, and I would have stood in defense of those who voiced their opinions and were beaten down by statements such as “that’s acceptable comedy”.
But that final statement is true. Whether we like it or not, this *is* acceptable comedy, at least to enough people that Jefferies can do it and make money off of it and be famous for it. A depressing fact, yes, but a fact nonetheless.
I’m also coming at this from the point of view of someone who used to be a very bitter virgin who would have laughed his head off at this. I still count Bill Hicks among my all-time favorite comedians (despite the fact that I think he’s wrong about quite a bit), and there was a time when I cheered loudly at his rant about how “chicks dig jerks”. I *was* misogynistic at one point in my life (mainly because I’d been rejected so many times with strong opinions about how ugly I was), so I can see how/why this Jefferies rant would be funny to people… I would have found it funny once, too.
Context. Whether we like or not, enough people find this funny as to give him a career.
Context is key.
Yes you are. You are doing badly, but you are trying to defend him. We can read what you wrote, and you lied when you said you were not defending him.
Did you think we would not notice ?
Firstly, obviously it is a coincidence, and any suggestion otherwise is an unhelpful and disingenuous smear. I am here to argue a general opinion about comedy – and it isn’t fair to try to paint me as some kind of misogynist.
Secondly, I was responding to Raging Bee at the time (is RB not a woman?), and didn’t see it appear when I posted that reply.
So, sorry Lyanna, I’ll respond to you now.
I think I agree with you that this is what is going on with Roy Chubby Brown and people like that. I don’t really know why bigots laugh at bigotry since I’ve never been in that position, but perhaps it is something like what you say. Maybe it’s this: They aren’t ‘statements of fact’ but exaggerations of the ‘truth’ (in the eyes of the bigots) and they laugh at that, perhaps.
Either way, for me the intention of the comedian is all-important. A bigoted comedian makes bigoted humour. A non-bigoted comedian can say all sorts of pseudo-bigotry but it isn’t real bigotry. In the case of those comedians the bigotry is fake, and acceptable. The laugh comes from the audience’s recognition of the intention of the comedian, and the absurdity of the statements. Louis CK is a perfect example. He looks like a really nice and liberal guy, but he has uttered some of the most extreme statements I’ve ever heard, far outdoing Chubby Brown and Manning. We laugh because what he says is absurd, not in spite of it.
I hope this makes sense.
I was only kidding, so your criticism is unfounded and makes you a hypocrite. You did say that anything goes when it comes to comedy, so why have you suddenly changed your mind.
I suspect you have not been very honest with us.
Nate, did you read the comments upthread about how a lot of the laughter was forced and nervous?
I’ll be blunt: I wouldn’t want to be alone with any man who laughed uproariously at that kind of “comedy.”
Uh, then they suck.
And then you go ahead and do so, missing the point that it takes a certain talent to deliver lines like those without metaphorically slapping some of your audience in the face just for who they are.
Also, argument from popularity? Really? Hey, Nate, eat shit. I mean, ten billion flies can’t be wrong, can they?
Notung:
Boo hoo hoo, your poor misunderstood baybay.
Ignoring relevant comments from people with feminine handles is a common tactic employed by misogynist jerks. Since every comment I have ever seen from you implies that, at best, you have no desire to empathize with women who object to misogyny, I can’t be arsed to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Notung is racist, misogynistic, violent, dishonest, criminal and stupuid.
And since I am now going to post a little smilie to show I am joking, 🙂 , there is nothing he can do so say about it since he has already said so long as it is humour anything goes.
It would really be great if , JUST ONCE, atheist d00ds would stop reading directly from the Religous Misogynistic Trolls handbook and actually respond to what people are saying.
But, it never happens. It’s always just an endless chorus of “bithcez ain’t shit, and any thing I say is funny is funny, so STFU u whiny bitchez!” over and over and over again.
it’s as boring and unfunny as lazy-ass bigot “humor”.
Daisy: I didn’t say that.
Matt: I didn’t say that. And please allow me some time to post before deciding that I’m just trying to ignore posts by women. I’m on someone else’s dodgy laptop with a touchpad and Linux, away from home, with other things to do. If I don’t respond immediately it might be because I’m getting a drink, having a chat in real life, or doing some work (shock!).
Julian: I didn’t say that. And why would someone laugh because they’re ‘thriving in validation’? To be honest, I don’t really know what that is.
I like how you lot enjoy adding gratuitous personal insults to your responses, like adding a slice of lemon to a drink. Yes, it may make you look clever but really it’s just sour (geddit?).
Either you are you being deliberately dumb, or you are the most privileged d00d on the planet. It’s not at all difficult to understand Julian’s point.
Ask Dave Chappelle why he yanked his show from the air, perhaps he could explain to your pretending-to-not-understand self that when racists are laughing WITH YOU, you’re doing it wrong.
But it’s JUST A JOKE!!! Clearly, you’re just in the easly offended crowd, looking for something to be offended by. And you don’t understand humor.
Enjoy that petard.
The “I didn’t say that” to Daisy and Matt were in response to the posts before those immediately before mine. Just to avoid confusion…
Matt: I’m not saying anything goes just so long as you say you are kidding. I’m saying anything goes so long as you actually are kidding. So you can call me whatever you like, and if it is just a joke then of course it is ok. Even if it is not funny, the worst I can say about it is that it is not funny. I thought I had made that distinction by contrasting Louis CK with Chubby Brown.
Daisy: I thought I explained why I missed that comment from Lyanna. And aren’t you a woman and didn’t I respond to you? Isn’t Raging Bee a woman? Have I never missed a comment from a ‘masculine’ handle? I’m sorry, but this is nonsense and you know it.
Illuminata: I said myself about those who are really bigots ‘getting’ Al Murray in the wrong way. You’re just agreeing with something I’ve already said. I don’t know if that’s ‘thriving in validation’ since I don’t really know what that means and I’ve admitted that. If that makes me stupid then at least I’m humble enough to admit what I don’t know.
And I was just making an observation re: lemon slices. I’m not offended by it, and even less likely to be now given that you’ve now clarified that they’re only jokes and you don’t really mean it or think it.
I don’t think the organizers should be excoriated for booking the guy because he was offensive they should be excoriated for their collective comedic tin ears. How could they not see that his “comedy” would offend some of their attendees? Further, the guy wasn’t even funny and I love offensive humor. Doug Stanhope does some *incredibly* offensive bits but he’s (usually) hilarious.
I’d be interested to get Ed Brayton’s take on this…
Notung,
I see my comrades have you on the defensive.
Good!
The reason that Tim Minchin is a far superior comedian is that he understands that it’s not funny to make his audience feel terrible about themselves – it’s why he stopped performing ‘Fat Children’.
He is also skilful enough to include ‘tells’, making his character the but of the jokes.
He discusses his reasons for no longer performing ‘Fat Children’ in an interview with Dan Savage
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/skewer-mouth/Content?oid=8740260
That’s a logical fallacy I’m afraid…
No, dumbfuck, it’s an observable fact of how humor works: if you sound too much like a bigot or a hater, then your “comedy” won’t come off as a satire of said bigot or hater.
Sorry that you feel that I’m not making my case very well.
Don’t apologize for our feelings, apologize for making a lousy “case.” (Also, Notung, if you have to say “I didn’t say that” THREE TIMES to THREE PEOPLE in ONE comment, that’s a pretty clear indicator that the problem is with you, not us.)
I think that all humour is fine so long as it is solely intended as humour…
Sorry, moron, but “solely intended as humor” doesn’t even make a joke funnier, let alone less offensive to others.
If some of you enjoyed Jeffries’ routine, fine. But why are you so insecure that you have to go out of your way to justify a routine after others say it was unfunny and/or inappropriate? Like I said before, I can laugh at a joke without forgetting that someone else might not find it funny.
And who decides if I am actually kidding ? I said it is just a joke, so you are not in a position to second guess me.
I’m not saying anything goes just so long as you say you are kidding. I’m saying anything goes so long as you actually are kidding.
So you’ve “clarified” your position by substituting one transparently stupid and tin-eared statement for another. You’re dead wrong either way, so you can’t blame us for “misunderstanding” you.
Maureen: Normally I wouldn’t respond to a post like that, but I note that your chosen username makes it likely that you are of the female gender, and so (following Matt’s observation) I am compelled to dispel any illusions that I may be avoiding you because you are a woman.
I am ‘on the defensive’. I guess that’s right – I turned up and gave my opinion and then a lot of lovely and kind ‘comrades’ decided to insult me for it and misrepresent what I said. I therefore have to defend my opinion (which I enjoy doing, as one trained in the art of philosophical discourse) and my character (which is rather silly, since nobody knows me and it isn’t even the topic at hand). So yes, I am ‘on the defensive’. I could go ‘on the offensive’, but offensiveness is being given a rather bad press right now.
So I agree with you. ‘Good’. I am on the defensive and that’s a good thing!
P.S. Although it may actually be a bad thing. I have some philosophy to do, and if I keep having to defend myself against the various accusations being thrown around it’ll never get done. So if I vanish suddenly, just assume that that’s what I’m doing – not ignoring everyone because I don’t want to talk to women, or something.
I like how you lot enjoy adding gratuitous personal insults to your responses, like adding a slice of lemon to a drink.
Well, yeah, it makes the response complete, just as the lemon makes the drink complete. When we point out how stupid you are, it’s natural to finish by actually, you know, calling you stupid.
As far as I can understand it, the lack of humour in Jeffries’ performances does not stem from just offence. Offence is a very important tool for the comedian, and there are many comedians out there that are incredibly offensive, on purpose, and I like an awful lot of them.
The distinction between those comedians, and someone like Jeffries, however, is that they are using offence to challenge people, ideas and the status quo. Like I said, it’s on purpose. Richard Herring for example has a routine about how racists are so much better at being liberal which is incredibly offensive, but the hilarity comes from the fact that he’s putting the barb to how patronising people can be to others.
However, there is nothing challenging about Jeffries’ comedy, which is why the offensiveness is problematic. There’s no barb in there that would make you think about, for example, your attitudes to women (if you are a man), or how ridiculous that position is, or whatever. I could forgive offensiveness if it made me think, just saying horrible things for laughs, though, is immature and stupid – below the level of the fart joke or anything else about bodily function, because those kinds of jokes can be hilarious.
Also, on a purely technical matter, relating to comedy, from the above video, Jeffries has no beat to his delivery, meaning punchlines are too early or too late, and even if the material was actually clever, a lot of the humour would be lost by simple shoddy stagecraft.
You forgot to mention that your initial comments were insulting because they were so flawed. Then there is the matter of your fake apology. You apologise not for articulating your arguments properly, but for out inability to understand what you were saying. Given all us have had problems making sense of what you said, the issue is not with us but with you, and your apology if truly meant should have reflected that.
If you want to complain about tone, then make sure you are above reproach before doing so. As things stand, you are the worst offender.
Don’t you all get it? Intent isn’t magic. Unless we are talking about a comedian. Comedians are wizards. If comedians don’t intend to offend someone, to oppress minorities, to say vicious hurtful things, then no one is offended, oppressed, or hurt. No matter what hateful shit they say. No matter how an audience of reasonable people interpret the message.
Comedians are wizards!
I get comedy just fine. You fuckwits do not understand how bigotry can be spread.
I would add that a comedian does not unintentionally offend people he does not intend to offend. Sometimes causing offence is justified, as in Tim Minchin’s Pope Song, but I am sure that anyone who was offended by that he intended to offend.
If Jeffries did not intend to cause offence then he is a lousy comic, and those who laugh with him are adding to the unintentional offence.
The fact is Jeffries offended a good number of people who can be described as being reasonable. Now it is possible to defend him on the grounds he did not intend to offend them, but only by conceding he is a crap comic and a piss poor human being. I am not sure how much such a defence helps him.
@Notung
The problem I have with Jefferies is that most of his jokes are completely interchangeable with those of a pub-bore misogynist. Perhaps it’s because his delivery is bad but from what I’ve seen there’s very little to clue people in that they shouldn’t be taking him at face value. Comedy has a long history of “Suck my dick and make me a sandwich” routines and if you’re completely indistinguishable from one then it’s time to rethink the act.
Fuck. I’m sorry. this is my fault. I was both in a major rush and I’m bad with words in general. To make it worse, I used an absolutely horrible analogy with Tim Minchin. For saying the exact opposite of what I was trying to say, I apologize. That was an incredibly stupid post…
The point that I failed spectacularly to make was that I feel that the problem is not that Jim Jefferies is filling a niche, but that there’s a niche for Jim to fill in the first place. I feel as if the reason that Jim’s stuff is so popular is because there *are* people who think like him.
It’s like the paparazzi in the US… so many people go after the paps for treating celebrities the way they do, but I hear almost no one for pointing out that millions of people give money to these paps in the first place. TMZ is on the air because enough people watch it to give it ratings. Paparazzi magazines continue to be sold because people continue to buy them.
It seems to me that the whole issue with the “comedy” (a term I use loosely in this case) of the Jim Jefferies type (and paparazzi and so on), is that enough people spend money on it to make them say “okay. I’ll keep doing this, then.” That is where I think the problem lies… in the culture that allows them to exist in the first place.
Also, to those who said the laughter in the video was “nervous”… the amount of cheering and hand-clapping seems to suggest otherwise… at least, it certainly did not sound nervous and/or uncomfortable to me.
Notung (#133)
Because you say so? Clearly you haven’t spent much time in reality. Also, nice moving of the goalposts from “a statement of fact” to “mere statement of brute fact.” The amount of exaggeration is irrelevant; laughing at what they perceive to be true is something people do all the time. As Lyanna pointed out, the “humor” is a pretext. Just venture onto a conservative message board and mention the word “liberal” and watch what happens.
(#150)
What the fuck does “why” matter? It’s really, truly something people do. Accept it and shut the fuck up with your argument from incredulity.
I have some philosophy to do…
“EWWH! I’m off to play the grahnd piahno! Pahhdon me while I do some philosophy on my way to the awwhkestra…”
Judging by your performance here, I’m sure you’ll flunk the philosophy course either way.
Meh. Philosophical wanking and bullshit rationalizations are encouraged in some philosophy classes (all theology-based ones for example), and by some profs who encourage “creative” arguments*.
But, it is clear that Notung is flunking at being a compassionate, intelligent human being.
*I have somewhat of a philosophy background, so I am not just ripping in phil, just being honest.
Way too much to respond to I’m afraid. I’ll just mention intent. Suppose I read Shakespeare and find that one verse is terribly offensive. Then a scholar of Shakespeare (although I’m not saying that I’m in a better position to judge Jeffries) tells me that in fact Shakespeare means something quite different, something that I missed. Should I revise my view, or stubbornly cling on to it, claiming that Shakespeare’s intention doesn’t come in to it? I’d say the former is preferable.
Intention is not ‘magic’, it is just central to the issue. If I write a word that I later find out means something offensive in a particular language – speakers of that language ought to let me off as a result of my ignorance. If Al Murray’s views are used by bigots, it is the fault of the bigots and not Al Murray. Plenty of people understand his intention properly, and those that don’t are simply mistaken. His intention seems important in this case. Lots of people think Derren Brown guessed the lottery numbers by Galton’s method, since that is what he said. Brown’s intention, surely was for that to be a temporary distraction and not to impart some kind of (false) knowledge on his audience. That seems to me to be important.
Finally, if I have to say “I didn’t say that” three times, it is because people have attributed a view to me that I don’t hold, three times. We can speculate as to why it happened as many as three times, and I have my own suspicions. I don’t know what I can do to not say it, other than not saying it. If I had said it, fair enough. I didn’t say it though and there’s no excuse for claiming that I said it and then blaming me for not being ‘clear’. If I didn’t say something then don’t claim that I said it.
In an air-o-plane!
(That was an addition to 170.)
I love the claim that Jeffries did this specifically to piss me off. Right, because he totally knows all about me, because I’m that famous and important. Riiiiight.
Can someone who found this funny tell me why it was so funny? As a humor-impaired woman, I just don’t get it. Pls. explain so I can not be offended.
Groc, Conspiracy-nut
Groc, you are clearly on to something, but you are only getting half the story. Jim knew that Ophelia would disapprove of his misogynistic act. But, he also knew that Ophelia would write a post calling out his despicable behavior. Furthermore, Jim knew that you would be reading Butterflies and Wheels, and that Ophelia would have you jumping up and down at her criticisms. This was Jim’s true end goal. It was all an elaborate attempt to troll you Groc.
Mission accomplished.
NateHevens,
Nate, most of these comments, including mine, are about Jefferies performance at GAC, not the video.
What is funny about talking about beating women, or hacking your mums tit off with a rusty blade? As others have already pointed out his performance did not mock misogeny, it WAS misogeny.
I ask again, would those who find Jefferies funny, find a comedy routine that went on and on about cutting off cocks, and the beating and raping of men funny?
Jef: Good point, I agree. One thing I haven’t claimed here is that I’m a fan of Jeffries, and can quite easily get on board with the idea that someone whose jokes are indistinguishable from pub-bigotry (as you say) ought to change their act.
A. Noyd: It wasn’t an argument from incredulity, it was just a question, although I’m still unclear as to what ‘thriving in validation’ really is.
Raging Bee: Hehe that’s quite funny, especially as I’m an orchestral player as well! I suppose if it helps, I really don’t have very much money. I’m a sort of posh pauper.
I haven’t flunked Philosophy yet, but I did flunk the Compassion and Intelligence courses, as you_monster revealed.
Philip Legge: “I’m a performer, and I know what it’s like to be part of a shitty performance”
Bravo for the moment of clarity; I’ll bet that you think it more an unusual event than it actually is, however.
So now atheism/skepticism gets to say what is or isn’t funny? Interesting…
I didn’t laugh once at Jefferies’ skit on the video, and barely got a smile from the videos I watched on youtube and such. Not funny, not a very good choice. Oh, but wait, maybe a good choice for Australians who seem to really enjoy him. You know, people with a different cultural background and a differnet approach to humour, satire…
In other words, not US-FTB-centric people. Eventual allies in something a bit more important than who the fuck is the token clown at an otherwise important event. Far from me to deny you your right to disagree and complain (do I have to say it again, this guy sucks), but try not to condemn the organizers. They may have more cultural insights about their own country than you do. Or maybe you could invade them just to be sure…
mikee at #179:
I didn’t see Jefferies performance at GAC, because I live in the States, so I wasn’t there. Was it even recorded?
I cannot tell you why people find it funny, even though I used to be one of those people. I certainly don’t think it’s funny. I agree with most of the commenters here that’s it’s disgusting.
I’m merely pointing out that there are people who find him funny, and that is the problem…
They may have more cultural insights about their own country than you do.
But the label on the tin says “Global.” I’ve always assumed that meant it was supposed to be a global atheist event, hosted by Australians in Australia but not self-consciously parochial.
I’ve also heard from Australians who thought Jeffries was revoltingly misogynist – what are they, UnAustralian?
@Phil Giordana FCD
Since when did atheists/skeptics make allowance for “culture” as a defense of misogeny?
And I’m getting a little sick of the comments which imply that Australians are less sophisticated in their humor than others.
Wow using poor stereotypes and “culture” to defend misogeny. Not something I thought I would see on an atheist blog.
Yes, they’re UnAustralian, Ophelia. They demonstrate this by what they lack: The innate Aussie ability to recognize that men like Jefferies are Socially Awkward, or Shy and Beaten Down by Rejection, or Austistic, or On the Spectrum, or Very Sad and Lonely. True Aussies know that such men are anything but misogynists.
And then there’s this idea that X is a good choice for people who enjoy it. Sure – we could say that about anything. Gay-bashing humor could be a good choice for people who enjoy it. Racist humor could be a good choice for people who enjoy it. Anti-Semitic humor could be a good choice for people who enjoy it (Goebbels certainly thought so). Atheist-bashing humor could be a good choice for people who enjoy it. And so on.
Sure, there are always people who enjoy humor that’s about mocking a despised group. So what?
@NateHevens 183
Agreed.
I was just clarifying the point that many of us were commenting on the performance at GAC and not on the video link. The laughter at GAC was forced and nervous in several places and I am personally embarassed I didnt walk out. Partially, I was thinking, “well surely it cant get worse than this” but it did keep getting worse.
If only I had access to twitter at the convention that evening. It would be one way to co-ordinate a walk out of those who were offended to make a point.
Ophelia @184: The event takes place in Australia. Do you expect every and all worldwide atheists/skeptics to be priviledged enough to get there? What will the proportion of everyday/mainstream Aussies be compared to USA citizens at the event? Again, I think Jim’s routines are unfunny, but from a comedy/stage standpoint, I don’t see them in and of themselves as misogynist. Quite the opposite, in fact, but I guess it depends on how one culturaly perceives humor, which is my main point.
Mikee: It seems Aussies can’t spell misogyny, whereas even the dumbest french as myself can. <— this is call a hyperbole.
And where did I ever imply Australians are less sofisticated? Different culture, yes, you can't argue with that, but less sophisticated? I think not!
Missed this. Notung:
You’ve obviously never heard anyone say, “It’s funny ’cause it’s true.”
Raging Bee, I suspect that the author of a recent “Why I Am An Atheist” essay had Notung in mind here:
Phil Giordana FCD
Thanks for the spelling lesson, my bad.
Why do you assume I’m Australian? I’m a New Zealander who enjoyed the convention tremendously. It was the best convention I’ve ever been to.
However, Jefferies performance at GAC incorporated misogyny. I was there and I heard it.
Using “culture” to dismiss misogyny is not right. It was something mentioned by conference speakers including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris.
Come on Mikee. Everyone knows “cunt” is an acceptable term in the UK and no one there links it to vaginas at all. And even if people from other cultures complain that it’s hostile and shouldn’t be used in our circles, the UKers cultural right to continue to promote it is more important.
BTW, Phil Giordania is a slime-pit denizen. It’s gross to see him here.
Suppose I read Shakespeare and find that one verse is terribly offensive. Then a scholar of Shakespeare (although I’m not saying that I’m in a better position to judge Jeffries) tells me that in fact Shakespeare means something quite different, something that I missed.
In that case, your misunderstanding would probably be due to a gap in your own understanding of Shakespeare’s time (several centuries ago, on a different continent); so it would make sense for you to defer to a more informed opinion of the subject matter.
If Al Murray’s views are used by bigots, it is the fault of the bigots and not Al Murray.
“If Al Murray’s views are used by bigots,” that’s probably because they think their views are the same as his, and Murray has done nothing to correct their misunderstanding. And that failure is Murray’s fault. And if non-bigots can’t distinguish his satire of bigotry from the real thing, that’s Murray’s fault too.
Plenty of people understand his intention properly, and those that don’t are simply mistaken. His intention seems important in this case.
IF his intention is important, then it’s all the more important for him to be clear about his intent. And if a lot of people are “mistaken” about his “true” intent, then he’s a lame comedian because he’s failed to be clear about his intent.
(Besides, I hear this lame-assed rationalization applied, not merely to failed comedians, but to some really bad “indie” or “art” films as well: the director is perfect, the director made absolutely no mistakes, his fans — cultured and enlightened beings that they are — understand this, and those who don’t are mistaken because they’re not smart enough to appreciate what a great work of art they’ve been offered.)
Mikee: Again, I didn’t like what I saw on his numerous youtube skits. Maybe I should copy/paste here the descrition of the show the OP video was taken from:
“Share this *Alcoholocaust: (Meaning: The aftermath of a drinking party, usually resulting in every available horizontal surface being covered in empty booze containers, spilled beverages and a general sticky alcoholic residue.) Jim Jefferies, the globally renowned Australian stand-up, returns to Just For Laughs with his brand new solo show. Alcoholocaust includes some of Jim’s favourite wild antics over the past year. As always, his material is set in reality, which is what provides him with his trademark brutally frank style. Among other things, you will hear about a hilarious yet touching true story involving his friend’s severely disabled brother, plus Jim’s traditional pet peeves – religion & idiots.”
Nice premises. bad execution.
I assumed you were Australian because of a directly defensive stance (on something I didn’t even hint). My bad, I’ll honestly admit.
As for humour, culture and misogyny, this is a wide subject. But I think one way (among others) to fight misogyny is to portray it in the most grotesque way possible, as to make it as ridiculous an idea as it should be. Again, don’t like the guy, but I can see kind of a point in what he says.
Josh Slocum: that’s kinda cute. Doesn’t adress anything aside from your own cultural bias, but still very cute.
And ERV/Slimepit denizen? hell yeah, and glad to be. This is one of the experiences that allowed me to get more open to varied viewpoints, on all subjects. And beside, Abbie RULES!!! [(sorry, I didn’t get my cheerleader outfit) <—-hyperbole again]
You and the rest of that crew are evil fucking shitheads, Phil. They’re over their right now making fun of Natalie Reed and denigrating her protests of trans-bigotry.
I hate you people so much. You’re so thoroughly fucking mean and you delight in dehumanizing people. Go die.
Wow, that’s a convenient position to take.
Too bad Johnny Cochrane’s dead.
“Brutally frank style” doesn’t give me the impression that he is lampooning the disgusting misogynistic views he expresses in his act.
Yeah, you know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, tastes like a duck…
It simply doesn’t matter if he actually is a Spearhead misogynist.
I’ve seen people who do an “absolute jerk” performance. They make very, very sure that everybody notices that they are performing a character (not that easy with Poe’s law and all of that), like putting on a hat, a certain item of clothing, alter their movements and their whole body language. In short, they are very clear that this is Danny McJerk speaking and not Jimmy O’Really who a minute before told about his last encounter with a cop over a parking ticket.
Oh, and Notung
Do go and read some stuff.
Learn about how the “funny stuff” actually matters, how it reinforces those things. Everything you do alters your brain. You can’t do without. Listening to Jeffries does, there’s no way to escape it. And it alters different people’s brains in different ways. It alters that of the woman who feels alienated and made the joke of the evening in a different way than it does alter the brain of the guy who laughs until he wets his pants.
The only thing it doesn’t do is vanish whenever the “performance” is over.
Of course, Josh, what was I thinking.
Respecting other cultures has been used to condone genital mutilation, wearing of the burqa etc. Why on earth shouldn’t it be used to justify misogynistic “comedy”
Silly me. 😉
Link?
Gross.
you_monster:
I won’t link them. You can find it on ERV’s blog in the “periodic table of swearing” sewer.
Josh Slocum:
“You and the rest of that crew are evil fucking shitheads, Phil. They’re over their right now making fun of Natalie Reed and denigrating her protests of trans-bigotry.
I hate you people so much. You’re so thoroughly fucking mean and you delight in dehumanizing people. Go die.”
Wait, what?!?
That is understandable.
Fuck ERV and the vile hatred it perpetuates. Abbie is a poster-person for the hipster misogyny Natalie wrote about. She doesn’t hate actually hate women, so she can call them “cunts” all she wants and that doesn’t contribute to the sexism in our culture. Blegh.
Phil Giordana FCD,
I appreciate you saying you don’t like the guy but I can’t agree that he is making a point in what he is saying.
I am only basing my view of Jefferies on what I saw at GAC – after that experience I don’t want to see any more of him. In his performance, I didn’t get any sense of “I’m playing an misogynist so you all see how bad it is” (as if we needed reminding!). All I could see were graphically misogynistic “jokes.”
Go read what your fucking friends write, Phil. Justicar calling transgendered people “trannies” and whining about how he’s not supposed to cuz boo-hoo they don’t like it.
Gurdur flaunting the fact that he doesn’t give a damn what “cis” means. Another one wondering whom to apply the insult “cissy” to.
This is why I hate all of you. You’re horrible, horrible people who don’t give a shit about the plight of anyone else. If you weren’t already so invested identity =-wise in being there Phil you’d see it for the horror it really is.
Well, as far as I see, you people around here do not seem to be complaining much about Abbie’s participation to conventions, alongside greta and others. Is there some kind of taboo going on here?
Or do you just think anyone who ever posted on ERV is a bad shit motherfucker? Or maybe, that’s just groupthink that should be analyzed and dealt with?
What the fuck is wrong with you Phil? Why aren’t you outraged at the hateful things they’re saying? I’m serious-stop seeing me as Enemy for a moment and stop seeing them as Friend. Just look at it. Do you feel nothing?
Raging Bee:
Exactly. So his intention is important!
Hmm, I think there’s a grey area here. Perhaps Murray should be more explicit, but enough people seem to ‘get it’. Either way, there is a sense in which the bigots are ‘wrong’ to see Murray’s humour in that way, even if he is a bit too cryptic about it.
I actually have more of an issue with Derren Brown and his ‘explanations’. A lot of people seem to think he’s some kind of mind-reader or NLP user, and when I say that I think it’s almost all trickery I get the kind of response I am getting here. There’s a grey area. If he’s too explicit, the faux-explanations lose their diversionary power. If he’s not explicit enough then people are misinformed.
Daisy:
Actually I did think of ‘funny because it is true’, but I always saw that as a satirical remark. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say it seriously (but I’m sure they probably do sometimes). All I was trying to say before was that if someone thinks that all women are merely containers, and a comedian states that, I don’t see why that would be funny to them. If you don’t think that and see it as clearly absurd, you might laugh at the extremeness and absurdity of the joke. It is a stronger joke if told to non-misogynists, in my view.
Oh, and you don’t like philosophy. That’s fine – we can like different things. I’m not trying to be ‘self-important’ or ‘pseudo-intellectual’ (Hannity said that to Hitchens – I’m in good company), I’m trying to give my opinion and defend it. I find in these threads I spend about 30% doing that and 70% of the time trying to address baseless accusations.
Josh: the last time I tried to look in on ERV’s latest “Monument” of excrememt, my browser froze, most likely because the thread was so fucking engorged with crap. Either that, or the Gods were just reminding me I have no reason to go there. Is anything new going on there, or is it just more of the same? What is it now, in the tens of thousands of comments?
4,000 comments, Bee. Same disgusting shit, now with New Trans “Humor.” I’m literally wiping tears away I’m so angry and disgusted. How in hell could anyone want to hurt a person like Natalie Reed or write her off when she’s suffered so badly and tells the world what it’s really like to be a trans person? Fucking sociopaths.
Perhaps Murray should be more explicit, but enough people seem to ‘get it’.
Fine — he can perform for people who like him, the rest of us can avoid him, and everything’s fine, as long as no one chooses to book him without first having a good look and finding out what kind of act he does, and whether it’s appropriate for their specific audience. That’s the big problem with Jeffries: he wasn’t the right guy for GAC.
Josh @209: There are many things there that I don’t like at all. And believe me when I say that Abbie doesn’t always like it either. But she keeps an open forum so that anyone and everyone can have a forum. When we got buggered by David Byron, it took a while to get rid of him, but not by banning, just by kicking his fucking misogynistic ass east west north and south until he gave up. There have been other commenters that went way beyond my personal pal, and I’ve made it clear as much as I could. Then there’s people like Franc and Justicar, kings of hyperboles, and when their hyperboles are taken at face value, they just push on, which is far from being the worst strategy when it comes to fighting pre-conceived ideas.
Is this a freethinking/skeptical community where we can discuss things, or not?
Josh: just do what I do — designate the place a “toxic waste repository” and stay the fuck away. The toxic waste exists whether we like it or not; but it’s good to know where it’s accumulating.
Phil G., if anything goes why not have dog fights at a global convention, umm say, at New Orleans or some other area? People laugh at dog fights and it is socially acceptable in some parts of society.
Fuck you Phil. If you don’t like what’s happening SAY SOMETHING TO THEM GODDAMNIT. This isn’t about an “open forum”; it’s about having license to shit on the people lowest on the social ladder. It’s disgusting and I have to think some part of you knows that. I hope to christ you come to your senses and wake up one day to realize you’ve been justifying a lot of evil to support your in-group identity over there. You might even wake up to the fact that the group you oppose—us here at these blogs—aren’t actually the bad actors.
Did this phil d00d seriously just refer to erv’s bigotpit as “is one of the experiences that allowed me to get more open to varied viewpoints, on all subjects”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL *BIG INHALE* LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
That’s the biggest, most horribly executed lie I’ve ever seen in an internet forum and that is quite the accomplishment.
my sides! my sides!
Well, as far as I see, you people around here do not seem to be complaining much about Abbie’s participation to conventions, alongside greta and others. Is there some kind of taboo going on here?
What? You mean people around here do not seem to be complaining much about Abbie’s participation at conventions? I haven’t seen any complaining about that. I wouldn’t expect any, either.
Or do you mean people around here do not seem to be complaining much about Abbie’s lack of participation at conventions? You mean we should be saying Abbie should be invited alongside Greta and others?
If so, don’t be ridiculous. She’s been hosting and encouraging and joining in active frothing misogynist ranting on her blog for, what is it now, eight months? No, among all the women who should be invited to atheist/secularist conferences, Abbie is not on my list. That guy at Mala Fide isn’t on my list either. Neither is Fred Phelps. Neither is Michelle Bachmann.
Hell, are you stupid?
It has nothing to do with Shakespeare’s intentions.
We’ll never know those, he’s been long dead and didn’t leave a lot of anoted comments to his own work.
The scenario you’re painiting is about missunderstanding a different time and culture. It’s like getting offended that your Japanese business partner didn’t shake your hand. Or wondering what Shakespeare actually meant when he wrote “some of your French crowns have no hair at all”.
The question is: Would the Elizabethan audience have understood him?
They probably did, because if they’d left the theatres puzzled and alienated his work wouldn’t have survived.
Unless you can come up with substantial evidence that Australians use English in a totally different way the rest of the world does, your argumet is void.
Oh, and Shakespeare was racist and misogynist, of course. Love his writings, though.
That’s because unlike Jeffries, he couldn’t have known better.
And believe me when I say that Abbie doesn’t always like it either.
No. I don’t believe you for an instant.
You’re talking about two different things. The damage caused by reading Shakespeare and his meaning. He may have meant the exact opposite but they really has no affect on what happened, does it? It may make it easier to swallow or read, but that’s another issue.
Which leads me to
You should be corrected. And you should stop screaming Belgium when in polite company.
But that’s quiet different from knowing a certain phrase, word or action carry a certain meaning and have a certain impact on people. And going on to do it repeatedly while making it clear you don’t care how you come off or the impact you have on others.
I don’t see how that’s acceptable.
Okay, I applaud women for sticking up for women, BUT… I made it thru the entire act & even smiled once. While I found it vulgar & rude, I also understood how it could be seen as funny. I’m a woman of 47, w/ above average IQ, have been date raped, etc (not an air-head blonde or dike), yet I understood him to be MAKING FUN OF MEN WHO THINK THE WAY HE WAS SUGGESTING – hence the humor; not offense. In my view he was, in affect, making fun of himself by sounding completely self-centered & clueless regarding sex. Anyone who would not ensure the woman is also enjoying herself during a sexual interlude probably would not, or at least should not, get laid again (he’s better off w/ his hand & probably very used to it, which, btw, he probably wets). That was what I took away from his dialog. Anyone else? I didn’t read all 100+ comments before I responded, so maybe someone else saw it this way.
Notung #173
I think that comparing Jefferies to Al Murray is actually quite useful for seeing where Jefferies goes wrong. Murray built a character that clearly isn’t him, adding a costume, props, mannerisms and an accent so that nobody* should be in any doubt as to the separation of the comic and the act. Then he threw in absurdity “Fabrizio, a proper English name, guv.” and piled on wild exaggeration (the Pub Landlord frequently outright lies and clearly isn’t an honest witness) to seal the deal and he was still adopted by the ‘Two World Wars and one World Cup’ crowd.
In comparison, Jefferies trots out an MRA manifesto without even the slightest nod to the ugliness of the message. It’s clumsy and encourages the audience to think that he supports misogyny.
Nobody ever left a Jerry Sadowitz show saying “You know what? That Nelson Mandela really is a cunt.” I wouldn’t be surprised to find that some people leave a Jefferies show agreeing with everything they heard – and crucially, aside from the odd interview, he doesn’t seem to bother to discourage them from doing so.
*that worked well, eh?
This. That persistence is an act of aggression and contempt for others around you. It indicates something scary about one’s personality. I literally do not trust such people in a physical sense; I won’t be alone with them.
Josh @217: I don’t oppose you on your views. Most of these I accept. Well scratch that, I live by them, because my culture and upraising thaught me that.
I do oppose you on your very specifically ethno-US-centric stance on things, as well as your absolutism that to be an atheist/skeptic you have to embrace X,Y,Z causes (I happen to embrace most of them, but that’s not the question, Different cultures). And this I will do until you people understand there’s more than your little sphere of influence.
Sod right the fuck off. Misogynist and homophobic slurs aren’t welcome here.
Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar-who dropped off a dumpster at B&W?
What. Is. Wrong. With. You. Phil? Why can’t you see how hateful those people are? I’m totally serious—is there something wrong with you? I’m having a very, very hard time watching your utter lack of caring about that.
Opheli @219: Ah, yeah, right, the witch!
And this I will do until you people understand there’s more than your little sphere of influence.
I sense a Nobel Peace Prize in the offing.
Just another of Phil’s hilariously bad lies.
If ever there was a “chick” who thrived solely on how much she could get the boys to like her if she hated other “chicks” enough, it’s ERV.
Josh @228: because for most part these people are being hyperbolic. And any checkout on their comment history would have shown it. The crazy fucks were all weeded at some point or another.
There is always the option that I didn’t get this straight and have been mingling with people that really wish they were female so they could punch Greta in the… But again, Occams’s razor says otherwise…
Ah, thanks for that, Ophelia. Needed a giggle and a reminder how useless it is to talk to Narcissism-bot 5000. It is not programmed to actually engage issues; its punch-card contains a severely limited set of regurgitations.
“If ever there was a “chick” who thrived solely on how much she could get the boys to like her if she hated other “chicks” enough, it’s ERV.”
And no one at all sees any problems there? I’m amazed…
Translation: I’m not any of these things, but you’ll believe me if I pretend to be, right?
Don’t give me that, Phil Giordana. I don’t call people witches. Or bitches or fucking bitches or cunts or Twatson or smelly snatch. Abbie does, I don’t. That’s why Abbie’s not on my list of women who should be invited to atheist/secularist conferences. I can come up with a long, long list of women who should be invited; there’s no need whatever to include Abbie on it.
Yes, I’m an ‘idiot’ and a ‘moron’ too.
Exactly – we realise the the Japanese didn’t intend any offense (we know this because we know about the cultural difference) so we don’t take offense!
If Shakespeare wrote one phrase that we are fine with but we later find out that is intended to attack Asian people (or something like that), we would suddenly find that phrase distasteful (wouldn’t you?). The intention is important, surely! Even if I’m wrong, I don’t see that the suggestion (which is essentially H.P. Grice’s theory of meaning) is so outlandish that it warrants such insults! You’d think I’d just denied the Holocaust or something…
Why? I’ve not made the argument that others have, that his Australian-ness makes a difference. If he was English or an American it would be the same.
LOL @234. So, he can’t bring himself to speak out against actual bigtory, but he can surely try to manufacture some outrage about . . . . . uh . . . . . the mocking use of the word “chick” – COMPLETE WITH SCARE QUOTES.
LOL classic.
Ophelia @236: And thus fulfill your PC, affirmative action view of the movement. Fine by me, just state it.
But as far as Virology goes, you gonna get a bit stuck for a while whith regard to engaging female scientists in the field. Won’t you?
Oh, fuck off.
Still can’t bring yourself to call your bros out for their trans bigotry, huh Phil? Even though you don’t approve of it, allegedly? Nope. More important to treat us as the enemy.
Martin, thanks for making my point for me…
…eh?
Uh-oh, someone’s starting to let his bigotry show. relapsing into bigot buzz phrases! Better zip that up, diddums, before we have to start listening to you complain about reverse-racism, and not even being allowed to coerce women into sex anymore!
No. We realize the Japanese businessman is ignorant of the significance of shaking hands in our culture, explain it to him and ask if there were any practices we should keep in mind to ensure we’re showing the respect we feel for him.
The offense doesn’t vanish. You (or the person in this hypothetical) was still offended by the perceived sign of disrespect. Later, when the situation and the ignorance of the Japanese visitor was explained, this person forgave the perceived slight.
Don’t bother trying to figure it out, Martin. The bigotbot has lost his script and can’t reboot.
But as far as Virology goes, you gonna get a bit stuck for a while whith regard to engaging female scientists in the field. Won’t you?
Abbie Smith is the only female virologist in the country? Or perhaps the world? I suspect that’s not the case.
Anyway I certainly didn’t say anything about scientific conferences. I don’t know enough to know who should be invited to those. I said “atheist/secularist.” I assumed that was what you meant, since you mentioned Greta.
Josh: let me be clear: I have no enemies in the movement. I have disagreements with some views in said movement. For exemple, Ophelia is supposed to be an “enemy” for that weird blogosphere going around these days, because I post at ERV. I love her writings, own a beautiful hardcover of Voices of Disbelief, and read her chapter often.
Are we agreed so far?
Well, among other early denizens of ERV was… Russell Blackford, co-writter of same book. Ophelia and himself disagreed on some subject during last year’s mess, but they are still friends and share the same goals. Not enemies.
I don’t see anyone as an enemy in the community, because we share common goals. But mostly, someone with a differing opinion is viewed as the enemy in these parts (FTB, that is). I do not agree with this way of working, and I’m not alone. Make of that what you will, but a lot of people will be driven away from the movement because of that.
Ophelia: “Anyway I certainly didn’t say anything about scientific conferences. I don’t know enough to know who should be invited to those. I said “atheist/secularist.” I assumed that was what you meant, since you mentioned Greta.”
Ok, my terrible bad. I did done fuck up on my argument.
Yes, that’s why your argument doesn’t have a fucking leg to stand on. He was using misgynist language, memes and tropes, making fun at women, denigrating them as not really people all without the slightest indicator that he was speaking “in character” so he comes off as the real thing. Therefore, his intent is absolutely of no importance whatsoever.
Because he’s not coming from a different culture, time or place. He actually knows the terms of the culture he’s working in and therefore doesn’t have any excuse.
And again, Jeffries doesn’t have any cultural differences. “I couldn’t be gay because I couldn’t fuck people I actually respect” (paraphrased) cannot have a different meaning than “I don’t respect women as a whole, they’re just good for fucking”.
Oh, and btw, if somebody from a different culture greeted me by complementing on my broad hips that are perfectly built for bearing many children, this may be intended as a big compliment, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a misogynist asshole who only sees me as a baby-making machine. His intent to pay me a compliment is absolutely irrelevant.
Maybe I’m sick, cuz I also thought that Lisa Lampanelli bit was (rudely) funny! Thanks Stacey (#93)!
Still not against trans bigotry enough to condemn it where it’s happening Phil?
julian:
I think that might be down to the individual. I feel that any offense that I take is necessarily down to the intention of the other person. Maybe other people are different.
You make a useful distinction in the post before that – intention and social effects. This ties in with Jef’s (also good) post about Al Murray. I think that one can laugh at that sort of humour and if they ‘get it’ properly then they aren’t a bigot themselves, but there is an important question about social effects (as I mentioned with Derren Brown). Murray is very obvious about it (the real Al Murray seems like a thoroughly decent fellow, from what I’ve seen on Twitter) but interestingly I was taken in by his act and found it unfunny and stupid. Now I ‘get it’ properly I find it much funnier!
Perhaps you’re right, they need less subtlety when putting on an act like that, for the benefit of society. I think it’s a shame, since subtlety is something I value, but perhaps you’re right and Jeffries needs to be more explicit about his real thoughts. I definitely feel that about Derren Brown. There was a moment in one of his shows where he castigated his audience for only getting offended about the Christian jokes and not about the mocking of other groups, but perhaps that’s not enough.
Ophelia:
Do you include bullies in that list, Ophelia? I can certainly think of one or two who you frequently defend. Bullying is mitigated and justified by many in the atheist/skeptic community, but “bad werdz” are considered unacceptable.
Oh, and who controls this “list”. This is another example of the clique at FTB who think the whole atheist/skeptic revolves around them. Outside the Baboon Bubble most atheists and skeptics think you lot are bonkers, are suffering from cognitive dissonance, and are hypocrites.
Perhaps the community should have another “list” and ban people like you, PZ and Miss Watson. A lot of people believe you will not be missed.
Here we go. Who put out the Slime Signal?
Josh: No, won’t condemn it in the ERV magisteria, because there’s a great chance it’s hyperbolic. Also, there might be the fact that Justicar is rightly pissed off by over-entitled transgenders. Yes, they exist too. It is the basis of equality to akcnowledge any and all minority/majority groups can be fucking assholes. I don’t know Justi personaly, but if he says he had bad eperiences with transgender persons, who am I to complain?
Maybe you should allow “minorities” to be assholes as well. It would help…
Here’s an idea:
Go do it.
Organize your events, conferences, panels.
Nobody’s stoping you.
You can have your community all the way you want.
Let’s say we meet again at this place in 3 years and see how you have done.
Not that popularity were a meassure of quality (look how Twilight sold), but as far as I can tell you people never seem to get anything done except complaining.
If you don’t want to listen to those people, why waste time on their blogs? If you think the movement would be bigger, better faster without those people go organize it. You should outdo the old new atheists and especially the FTB and Skepchick crowd in no time!
Why are you still here?
You immoral fuck. You’re a damned liar, too. There’s nothing you’d condemn over there. There would always be an excuse.
Jeezis you lot are digusting. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
I did not get the impression whatsoever that Jeff intended to lampoon misogyny. Regardless of his intent, the fact that it was not obvious that he was lampooning misogyny contributes to a sexist culture. Someone said it upthread in re Chapelle, when you realize that bigots view your schtick favorably, you are not being clear enough that your intent is to lampoon, and you are contributing to bigotry. But, this is all a little game to the denizens of the slimepit. No one but the most privileged and naive could think Jeff’s act was lampooning sexism. Only someone who erroneously thinks that merely because the material was so vile and bigoted, that he MUST have been joking.
So, if you are not completely ignorant, you will realize that many people share his bigoted views and that it is completely plausible that he is sincere. And, because he gave no indication his rant was all a schtick to satirize bigots, it is more than plausible that he is sincere.
The slime-pitters are aware that this shit is sexist. They aren’t naive. They are sexist.
cleanup needed. We have got a hoggler on our hands.
Oh, and who controls this “list”.
God, what a stupid question, when a mere flick of the eyes takes you to the comment where I said “my list.” If I say X is not on my list that’s obviously not some public official list that someone “controls,” it’s just my list.
Josh, I don’t know, but it was some hours ago; stats show lots of cross-traffic from there. I haven’t looked at it in months, so I don’t know the details. Anyway Tuvok won’t be back. There’s a limit.
CommanderTuvok at #254
Oh fuck off you self-righteous prick. I’d rather be at a convention with Ophelia, PZ, and Rebecca than “come bash women!”-Abbie any day of the fucking week.
She *fosters* misogyny at her blog. She thinks it’s fucking hilarious… at least, that was the impression I got from her and ERV over the whole Elevatorgate dust-up (men being pissed of at a completely reasonable comment: don’t corner women at 4:00 in the morning in a fucking hotel elevator… please, pray tell… what the fuck is so unreasonable about that?)
I can’t comment on their trans-bashing because I left during Elevatorgate. I couldn’t take the bullshit over there…
I’ve no doubt that Abbie would watch the video Ophelia posted of Jim Jefferies and laugh her ass off, too… because she just doesn’t fucking get it. She’d feed right in to the culture that allows Jim Jefferies to make these unfunny, misogynistic rants.
“Baboon Bubble” and “bad werdz” in one comment; that gets a person the ban hammer.
Can you unban him in 3 years time to tell us how the super-duper new-new-atheist movement (now with all the misogyny the other crowd didn’t like) took off?
Pleaaaaase?
Josh:
“You immoral fuck. You’re a damned liar, too. There’s nothing you’d condemn over there. There would always be an excuse.
Jeezis you lot are digusting. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.”
Maybe now is time to put it to rest and think about it. You seem quite angry at something or other…
Do you love your Jesus?
Gilliell – well surely it’s already going strong. It has at least eight people on board!
Maybe it’s time for you to take a nap on a beehive.
Fuck this attitude. Using hateful slurs like “tranny” and “cunt” is bigotry. Even if you are rightfully pissed at someone, you have no right to use bigoted slurs to express your valid outrage. Well, you have the right to express your prejudices, but we have every right to correctly call you a bigot in return. And what do you mean to say when you suggest it is “hyperbolic”? Hyperbole is exaggeration. If someone was an asshole, it is hyperbolic to call them “the biggest fucking asshole on earth” or something. It is not “hyperbolic” do use a bigoted slur to call our their assholish behavior, or at least, it may be hyperbolic but it is ALSO fucking bigoted. How dense are you? Just because someone uses a bigoted slur to exaggerate their point, that doesn’t make it non-bigoted.
You know full well that we are unhappy with the bigoted slurs and the prejudices that are supported by their use. Call any member of any minority an asshole, no one gives a fuck. Use racist, transphobic, sexist, homophobic… ect. slurs to do so and guess what, you are contributing to bigotry.
Fuck you. No bad experience with any individual gives you the right to be a bigoted piece of shit.
Fuck you, dishonest asshole. See, right there? Where I called you an asshole? That is me showing that the issue is not about insults. It is about bigotry. Be insulting all you like, don’t contribute to the oppression of minority groups while you do so.
Did I mention, Fuck you.
Well, you_monster @267: fair enough. I’m just saying that I can’t condemn a person’s character based solely on whatever I know of their internet history.
Each to their own. Culture again, I think.
So, would you disagree there are assholes in minorities?
Fuck off Phil. We’re not playing your derail.
Josh: what derail, please?
Oh for Hesinde’s sake, there are assholes everywhere as you are so elaborately proving (for example, of all the French people I ever met in my life, and they were many, you are the first and only to piss me off completely. That’s you personally, not something I’m going to hold up against France as such).
The point is that you call an asshole an asshole because they’re an asshole. You don’t use a bigoted slur that hurts the whole underprivileged group associated with that person by the common denominator of minority.
And I don’t think that you’re too stupid to understand that. It’s just that you don’t want to understand that because that would mean you’d have to change something.
you_monster:
Actually nor did I. I don’t think he was satirising real bigots as someone like Al Murray does. I just think he was stating those absurdities as shock statements to make people laugh at their absurdity. Another example of this is Louis CK: “It’s not ok to rape anybody. But what about Jews?”. I don’t think he’s lampooning anti-semites – he just seems to be offering a hugely over-the-top extremely shocking absurdity such that people laugh. It’s funny (if at all) because it’s ridiculous. I find Louis CK much funnier than Jeffries, but in terms of whether they are themselves bigots I think they are equal in that regard.
Well you claim to be an atheist, which would mean you are part of a minority in the US, and you are a total arsehole, so I think we can concede that not only can minorities contain arseholes, but atheism can as well. Of course this is something many of us has been saying for sometime, but then we know you are a bit stupid so we can excuse you taking so long to catch up.
First, I am perfectly willing to condemn someone’s character if they repeatedly and delightedly make bigoted remarks. If repeated displays of bigotry aren’t enough for you to condemn a person’s character, what is? People make mistakes though. Many of the most well-meaning amongst us make comments that contribute to many different kinds of bigotry. The difference between assholes and non-assholes is the ability to listen to criticism, reflect on your actions, and make a change. Self-betterment and all that.
Second, did you mistake me for someone who is swayed by your bullshit cultural-relativit perspective. I am fine with criticizing other cultures. Your culture oppresses women? Your culture sucks. There, that was easy.
Yep, you are really fucking dense. No, I don’t disagree. God you are fucking stupid. Abbie is a woman. She encourages misogyny on her site. She is an asshole.
You know who else is an asshole? You. “Tranny” is a hateful slur. You know that but would rather dance around condemning bigotry in order to go on believing that the slime-pit is hip and post-sexist or some bullshit.
Can you just fucking take a side against bigoted slurs? Is it that hard? I am not asking you to condemn anyone’s character as a whole. Even if it is out of character for the person using the slur, can you not agree it is wrong to use the slur?
Giliel @271: ok, I can get behind that. Again, as I do the effort to put myself on your cultural understanding. No such stigma is apparent in France (in fact, it’s punishable by law here to hold hate speeches against minorities).
I guess I just don’t put too much importance into internet back-and-forths, because in the end it’s not what matters most. But it can raise someone’s consciousness.
No, not “each to their own.” That’s a copout. Mitt Romney doesn’t get to call Obama a nigger. Obama didn’t get to call Hillary Clinton a bitch. (John McCain was visibly uncomfortable when one of his supporters – a woman – called HC “The Bitch” at a campaign event in 2008.) John Boehner doesn’t get to call Barney Frank a faggot. And so on.
There’s a floor. Life is worse without it. It’s not a matter of “each to their own.”
If his point was to imply that these views are absurd and should be laughed at, then he is lampooning misogyny and misogynists. That was not what he was doing. If he was, it was spectacularly unclear.
Again, if bigots can nod along to your joke in agreement, you need to be more clear that what you are talking about is something you find absurd.
Why is it that those who are so certain that he was making a point about the absurdity of these views are the slime-pitters who we know don’t actually find misogyny all that absurd? Why is it that those of us who find these views most appalling and absurd are under the impression that Jeffries was not mocking misogyny?
Don’t answer that, it was rhetorical. It is because those arguing that he was mocking sexism are transparently sexist. Go back to ERV. Have fun calling people “cunts” and “trannys”, and supporting eachother when mean mean people like us call you fucking bigots.
I am quite sure anyone who has spent anytime hanging around forums on the Internet has said something which caused others to take offence. Decent people, when they are made aware they have caused offence and that offence was not intentional will apologise, learn from the experience and try to do better next time.
People like Giordana get some kind of perverted pleasure from knowing they are hurting people. It would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility he may be a sociopath. He certainly exhibits the required lack of concern about others. The likes of Giordana are dangerous, since one can never be sure if the hatred they express in words on the ‘net will be matched with hatred expressed in a physical manner in real life. That he is violent towards women must be considered a real possibility, to the extent that should Giordana (and others like him) attend atheist conferences they should be closely monitored, and consideration given to banning them.
A tip for the Australian organisers of the GAC, from an Australian abroad:
With relatively few exceptions (Tim Minchin, some Paul Hogan), Australian humour does not travel well. Comedy films that were great successes in Australia (The Dish for example) absolutely bombed in the USA, and sometimes in Britain as well (Kenny, for example), despite the sense of humour being closer in Britain. I know this is tough to hear, but there is no getting away from it (Australians who venture outside of Earls Court know how negatively many Brits react to Australian humour, just as many Australians struggle with the English ‘Barmy Army’).
If you are going to bill an event as ‘global’, then you either need to stump up the cash for an Australian comic who ‘travels’ (Tim Minchin, Dame Edna), or borrow some overseas talent (Dawn French? Rory Bremner? Chris Morris?)
Take it on the chin, stop engaging in a perverse reversal of the cultural cringe and accept that what many of you find funny will bomb for many Brits and probably most Americans.
The humor there is far more sophisticated than “extremely shocking absurdity”. That joke works if you know something about bigotry, about its psychology and its world-historical expression.
If he’d said, “It’s not ok to rape anybody. But what about quadriplegics?” it would be even more shocking. But it wouldn’t be funny.
Matt: “Well you claim to be an atheist, which would mean you are part of a minority in the US”
Bravo, made my point for me!
Matt:
“People like Giordana get some kind of perverted pleasure from knowing they are hurting people. It would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility he may be a sociopath. He certainly exhibits the required lack of concern about others. The likes of Giordana are dangerous, since one can never be sure if the hatred they express in words on the ‘net will be matched with hatred expressed in a physical manner in real life. That he is violent towards women must be considered a real possibility, to the extent that should Giordana (and others like him) attend atheist conferences they should be closely monitored, and consideration given to banning them.”
This is hilarious!
skepticlawyer,
Perhaps you missed the memo. The topic isn’t so much that Jeffries was unfunny (though he was), it is that his act is pure misogyny. Any thoughts on that topic?
Wow, I made a point of checking out Butterflies & Wheels because I enjoyed Ophelia’s interview on Point of Inquiry. Yes, I’m way behind on PoI podcasts, but I very much like them. Unfortunately it seems there are some angry people here who are just looking to pick a fight rather than discuss ideas…
I watched the Jeffries video to learn what the fuss was about. I stated that I wasn’t sure what was so horrible about it because I thought I could see both sides of the argument (#223). I was slammed (#227) & called a liar (#235). Guess I won’t be back soon. I’m rather disappointed, as I’d looked forward to visiting.
As for lying… I do turn 47 May 1. I’m a woman dating a man. I was both molested by a relative & years later date raped. It so happens I’m also a ‘fruit fly’ & bi-sexual, so I’m certainly not anti gay! I meant to point out that I may have reason to be but was NOT feeling threatened/offended by Jeffries’ material. I’ve simply learned to avoid the type of men he was joking about. I also wouldn’t seek out his brand of humor, as I didn’t find it funny. I just assumed he was creating parody; not stating truths s he saw them.
And now I’m finished wasting time here. Thanks anyway Ophelia. And I think you’re on the right track, Notung. Feel free to look me up in FB – I’m a real person w/ nothing to hide.
Really.
You don’t actually know much about Carlin’s material.
Let’s see. One great quote: “We don’t mind it when Eddie Murphy and RIchard Pryor say it…THEY’RE NIGGERS”. That would be carlin talking about language.
On feminists:
Pro Tip from actual Carlin Fans, who actually know his material: if you think there was some group he held sacred, you’re probably wrong.
A lot of Australians won’t see it as misogyny, I’m afraid, but as an expression of self-loathing exaggerated for comic effect. I notice a few Australians on this thread have made that point.
I haven’t made any comment on the humour in this show per se because I don’t find any stand-up comedy funny – it just bores me. I like comedic theatre or cinema, or ‘sketch’ comedy. So, in that sense, I am a bad person to ask – all stand-up is just a waste of my time. It just doesn’t tickle my funnybone.
I do, however, understand that many people like stand-up comedy (I recognise that my views are a matter of taste), and I also understand my erstwhile countrymen and women, what they find funny, and why. And I am well-travelled enough, both alert and aware, to recognize that Australian comedic values — even in genres I prefer, like cinema and theatre — are very much an acquired taste. And if people do not acquire that taste, then I am not going to judge.
And if Australians are going to run an event with large numbers of people from other countries in attendance, then they have to yield to a large degree. This is not something Australians do well.
No, ShelLynn. It’s that you’re not familiar with the culture here. Yes, we’re angry when bigotry gets lobbed about. Though you don’t know this (so really you ought to take it on board and realize your unfamiliarity with BW doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with us) this section of the blogosphere has been inundated over the past year with the most disgusting, sustained, blood-curdling misogyny and bigotry. We’ve had it. We’re done. You would feel the same way had you been here.
So, yes, it’s probably not a good idea to come to a new place and just assume everyone’s going to know you’re a queer ally. I’m sure you can see why dropping the word “dyke” in your very first post didn’t make a good impression, and that the reaction was not unreasonable.
Okay Josh, apparently I was just naive. I guess I didn’t realize “dyke” would sound offensive coming from one. lol
Yeah, I understand passive-aggressiveness & feeling like you must be always on the defense. I’m NOT always defensive & think it’s just a shame you feel you have to be. I tend to evaluate people individually…
So happy fighting. I’m out.
Learn to read, Welch.
I did not say Carlin held any group “sacred”. I said he did not direct contempt downward. Hell, you even quoted me–and still managed to miss the point.
If you think those jokes you quoted derived their humor from Carlin directing contempt at blacks and women, you’re even stupider than I thought you were.
So, anybody on this:
““People like Giordana get some kind of perverted pleasure from knowing they are hurting people. It would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility he may be a sociopath. He certainly exhibits the required lack of concern about others. The likes of Giordana are dangerous, since one can never be sure if the hatred they express in words on the ‘net will be matched with hatred expressed in a physical manner in real life. That he is violent towards women must be considered a real possibility, to the extent that should Giordana (and others like him) attend atheist conferences they should be closely monitored, and consideration given to banning them.””
Or are we all dandy? Why are none of you condemning such accusations, such words. Because it’s not about a minority? Think again, it is…
Because people can read minds over the interweb. lol
Well, Phil, the difference between vile misogyny, homophobia and transphobia and making a solid prediction based on your own stated beliefs is that one of them is grounded in reality. I sure as shit wouldn’t feel safe around a piece of human filth like you.
Well done Stacy @290! Seems you just understood what Jefferies was doing!
If we condemned this claim about you, you wouldn’t be able to go play the martyr at ERV. I don’t want to ruin your fun.
Of wait, did you say you were a minority? OHHHH. In that case I retract all criticism of you. There is no way you could have done anything wrong, or could harbor any negative prejudices. You are a minority, you can do no harm!
Nice non-sarcastic réponse to Phil. I couldn’t bring myself to take him seriously enough to not respond with snark.
Y U not back at slime-pit yet?
Not been called an asshole enough yet?
Hey phil, still unwilling to say bigoted slurs are not a good thing?
you_monster: are you one of those who prefrer to dig the hole than build the bridge?
Wow… every time I check this thread there’s another 30 replies.
Anyway
@Shel Lynn
Somehow the world will keep spinning without your presence.
*snort*
Yeah, sure.
__________
I dunno. There’s a certain absurdity to the set up and proposition that (to me) makes it different. It begins with what should be (though it isn’t) a universal given (it’s not ok to rape) and follows by offering an exception that clearly stems from bigotry (what about Jews).
We have already agreed rape is always wrong. Any ‘special cases’ are just absurd to offer and obviously coming from either a bigot or a moron. Like the guy you have to explain something 5 times to only he’s a racist on top of that.
Anyway, those are my (poorly formed) thoughts so far.
Notung:
…For fuck’s sake. Do you not understand the difference between a misunderstanding based on the shifts of culture and language over time, and a difference of opinion over something that exists in the same culture shared by both parties?
Usually, Notung, someone who made such a slip would apologize profusely. Because they would actually give a shit that they gave offense, intentionally or otherwise.
I’m tempted to tell you to get out more, but other people don’t deserve to have their nights out ruined by an asshole who ignores the sorts of baseline social conventions designed to make people feel comfortable with one another, then attempts to gaslight his targets with arguments that his behavior is perfectly acceptable.
Phil:
What do you want, a fucking cookie? As Josh said, grow a spine and say something.
It’s her blog. She can do whatever she wants there. She’s not keeping an “open forum,” she’s catering to human scum.
Hahaha, because there’s such a difference between Byron’s misogyny and the misogyny the rest of you spew and tolerate.
I have yet to see any skepticism or free thought from you in re the issue of misogyny. You’re content to parrot the societal default.
There are plenty of commenters here, at Pharyngula, and elsewhere who are not Americans and who take the same stance on misogyny and related issues of bigotry. MartinM is, I am guessing, one of them.
Nope. Abbie is a textbook case of internalized misogyny.
“I don’t know George Zimmerman personally, but if he says he had bad experiences with black persons, who am I to complain?”
But you’re OK with doing so if you or someone else you know has had a bad experience with another member of that person’s demographic.
Shel Lynn:
I can see why you’re part of Jefferies’ ideal audience.
Some things are very much worth getting angry and fighting about. If you can’t perceive that, you’re right that you won’t really enjoy yourself here.
Josh:
Your instincts are correct. Habitual boundary pushers are dangerous.
CommanderTuvok:
ERV threads like “The Monument,” of course, are paragons of calm reason.
There’s a tell if I’ve ever seen one.
John C. Welch: I’ve been a Carlin fan since adolescence, and I’m in my 40s now. While I didn’t care for Carlin’s bit about feminists that you quoted, overall I agree with Stacy and not with you. And while I had not heard the racial bit you quoted, I’m gonna guess that Carlin’s delivery of that line, and thus his point, were lost on you.
Tee hee! Funny how the most vulgar players in the game, right now, are you.
Groupthink, thin…ponder about it, because you seem to have it…
If you are asking if I bend over backwards to find common ground with bigoted pieces of shit who throw around terms like “cunt” and “tranny”, then I prefer to dig.
I don’t want to construct any bridges that allow hateful pieces of shit (and those who protect them, i.e. you) to get anywhere near me. You stink up the forums you are in just fine without me reaching out to you and getting shit all over my hands too.
Yu_monster: pssst: not everyone has your cutltural bias. Can you get this?
Yep, complaining about tone now. Substance and argument? Who needs it, the person disagreeing with me used naughty words* therefore I win!
Bingo!
*Please don’t use this as a jumping off point to make the asinine claim that we are the ones complaining about naughty words. We are not. We are complaining about bigoted slurs. Do not equivocate them.
Surprised this thread hasn’t been locked yet…
skepticlawyer,
Australian here, and I see it as misogyny. He is representative of one stream of Austalian comedy, the ‘Ah, women, eh?” one, but that is hardly specific to Australia (in the video above he’s basically just doing a bogan variant on the standand men/women shit a lot of American comedians do) and there is a lot better local comedy out there. Hell, we currently have a comedy festival on in town, so there are hundreds of comedians in Melbourne at the moment.
Julian: it’s because hopefuly this is freethoughtblog. Could also just be Ophelia sleeping..
Oh, so that did come across. Guess Phil was just being dim, then.
British, for the record.
Except I don’t understand that that’s what Jefferies was doing.
If that’s what Jefferies was doing, he’s doing it wrong, IMO.
“A lot of men think that way. They think it’s the woman’s fault. They like to blame the rape on the woman. They say, ‘Hey, she was wearin’ a short skirt.’ These guys think women ought to go to jail for being cockteasers. Don’t seem fair to me. Don’t seem right. But you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything. It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is. Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be waaay out of proportion.”
He deconstructed his own comedy as he was performing it. Carlin was a master.
Notung
Murray started the character in the mid 90’s and it wasn’t until a decade or so later that he started attracting that sort of audience. By this point he’d tried a couple of other things that hadn’t worked and was making bucket-loads of cash from The Pub Landlord so I can see why he wouldn’t abandon it just because some very stupid people thought it was celebrating Little Englanders. He’s repeatedly pointed out his intentions to mock the sort of attitudes a minority of his audience hold; it’s not an ideal situation but it’s not Jim Jefferies.
I don’t really know much about Louis CK and I doubt he’s going to win too many humanitarian awards but look at “Louis CK – Suck a Bag of Dicks” on Youtube and I’m sure you’ll agree that in this case (even if nowhere else) he’s highlighting the stupidity of a homophobic insult in a way that seems beyond Jefferies.
Try typing “Jim Jefferies – Retarded People” or “Jim Jefferies: I Swear To God – Dicks and Scum” and see if you can be as charitable about what he says.
I do not accept arguments based on cultural relativism. Can you get this? Oppressive cultures should be condemned for being oppressive, not ignored merely because there is an understandable cultural history that explains their oppressiveness.
Just because a practice is common in some other culture that doesn’t mean it is beyond reproach. If you are going to continually bring up the “cultural bias” canard it is up to you to explain either A) why I should accept culture relativism, or B) why the culture I am criticizing is not actually worthy of my criticism
Again, A) why is another culture beyond criticism?
or
B) Why shouldn’t I be criticizing Jim Jeffries’ misogynistic act*?
*Also, why I shouldn’t call out the prevalence of slurs at ERV like “tranny”, “cunt”, “twatson”, … we both know I could go on.
Skepticlawyer,
I’m not sure that Jefferies “comedy” is uniquely Australian. I’ve seen similar acts performed by Americans and find them just as repulsive.
Anyway, He was just one of the Australian comedians performing at GAC. Stella Young was another, and she was just great. I missed some of the other comedians but apparently they were good as well.
While there are various Australian comedians who probably use the same sort of humor as Jefferies, I think it is a mistake to call this “Australian” humor. As I said before, I’ve heard American comics just as bad as this.
I would suggest that most good humor “travels well”. And there is humor – American, British, Australian etc which does not travel well.
I note that even some Australians found this fellow over the top (Chris @306), which if nothing else indicates that, next GAC, find a different comic.
[If, of course, one decides a comic is necessary. Why is one necessary? That seems a reasonable question.]
I can’t resist.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-m,2338/
Ah, I didn’t relize Notung was a slimepit denizen. No wonder he’s confused by the concept of “thriving in validation”–he’s too busy living it. Fuck trying to talk to someone that ignorant and dishonest.
MartinM:
Well, to be fair, it’s a day whose name ends in -y.
Ugh, the slime to honest interlocutor ratio is getting to be too much to handle.
@you_monster
aye
Shame, we had been having a decent run here over the last few months.
Ah well. Not like this Jefferies jerk is worth all that many words. His routine is a raving misogynistic rant and he hides behind comedy to behave like a worthless sack of shit. Not much else to say.
Oh, don’t worry. I’m not going to let slimers take over.
Yay. The thread is looking better already. keeping up with the mess by cleaning up the small accumulations of slime goes a long way towards a creating a livable space.
Slimers, wipe your feet before you enter someone else’s home. No one appreciates you getting your
misogynymud all over their stuff.Better yet, stay at your place where nobody minds the smell of shit wafting around everywhere.
This spat is all because of Rebecca Watson’s bullying.
The atheist/skeptic community needs to kick bullies out of its ranks.
Watson should be the first to go.
The question is not whether or not his comedian is funny. The question is whether the conference organizers are idiots, and what they will do to redeem themselves.
Why are you blaming Rebecca? Because she told it as it is? In case you haven’t noticed, there is a War on Women in our political system and there is misogyny.
Did Watson even mention this until her comment in this thread? Bringing her into this seems suspiciously like blatant trolling.
Phil Giordana? Here? Trying to lecture us on Australian culture? Most of the Australians on this thread are pretty damned unimpressed with Jeffries. See if you can identify them, since you’re such an expert on Australia. Go on, Phil. You’ve probably even watched Crocodile Dundee, so it must be easy.
Parody is supposed to be different from reality. If you make it look exactly the same as reality, then you fail at it. Personally, though, I’m so inured to misogyny that I just rolled my eyes and groaned. The hilarity of shooting Iraqis from a helicopter was the real stomach-turning part of his schtick for me.
Brownwilly, you lost me with your convoluted statement, what does Ms. Watson have to do with the misogynist Jeffries? Nothing.
Actually by admitting that I didn’t know what it meant, surely that was the honest thing to do. I could have pretended, but I didn’t. And what is a “slimepit denizen”? Do you mean I’ve posted comments on a certain science blog (ERV)? I don’t consider myself a ‘denizen’ of anywhere, let alone a ‘slime pit’. Surely I should be judged on what I said, rather than what other people have said on the same forum.
Crickey, Lieutenant Steven Hauk would yelp in excitement and sheer unadulterated joy at having found this comment thread…and he’d likely agree with the local hive minds opinion on this Jefferies fella.
Whilst the video posted here isn’t the funniest routine ever seen there is a bit at the end that ties it all together and whereas I wouldn’t dream of telling folks here that they do or don’t get something, but the roaring laughter after those final words in the video would suggest that a fair few folks in that audience did get it.
Was it offensive? It sure was. So was his clip on religious folks and likely to be other routines he does. So what? Mr Gormsby would likely to have some choice words for people who get a bit thin-skinned when the ‘joke’ gets to close to home.
Some folks, like myself, are just not into analysing comedy like a Werner Herzog movie. If it makes one laugh, then that’ll do. And if it doesn’t I tend to just not watch it.
Which brings me to the discussion about taboos, offence etc. that was had earlier. Personally, in comedy I think anything goes . No if’s and but’s and yes I even find Frankie Boyle funny as fuck. Want to label me a misogynist, a racist or anything else for this? Fine, it’s only a label and not like I’ll burn in hell for eternity for being such an ‘evil’ little person once my my mortal coil shuffles off.
Notung,
it’s really quite disingenuous of you to dissociate yourself from the eight-month hate campaign (with regular sexist outbursts against Ophelia amongst others) over at ERV where you’ve been a regular commenter, by saying “it’s all those other people, not me” – when you never utter a word of dissent to their misogyny (and of late, Justicar and John Greg have jumped on the trans-misogyny bandwagon in targeting Natalie Reed).
If you don’t want to be tarred by association, I suggest you mend your ways over there by airing your views about the bigotry of the other posters there, to make it clear that you don’t agree by implicit consent. See how that fares, and get back to us later.
Pardon me. I didn’t realize I was stepping into a ‘mud-slinging party’. Apparently this site is full of angry dykes & trannies who think they’re being persecuted & want to rant about it. Since I don’t fit in, I’ll be on my way. Too bad, as I was looking forward to some interesting intellectual exchanges after hearing Ophelia interviewed on Point of Inquiry. I was also a bit curious about her orientation & in general, when I heard her husky voice & rough inflections. I guess this site was just a clue, per the biting responses I received as a newcomer who meant no harm but was quickly shunned anyway…
Oh christ. Sock-puppetry, “Shel Lynn”? Do better.
Captain Dingleberry, there’s a difference between being deemed sinful and having it pointed out that you support and agree with misogynist, racist, homophobic, etc. “humour” and ideas. The difference is that the former is based on imaginary supernatural bullshit where you’ve offended a nonexistent being, and the latter is where you’re actually hurting, and helping to harm real fucking people. Do you get that? not giving a shit that you’re actually harming oppressed groups isn’t edgy or new or clever, it’s just the same shit your redneck uncle pulls when he’s not complaining about too many immigrants in the neighbourhood.
Shel Lynn: I’d give that trolling a C-. Get the fuck out, you won’t be missed.
I found Jim offensive and nasty. His comic timing was excellent, but having gone off and looked more at his other work, I see nothing at all that indicates that he respects women.
But let’s think about the context in which he was presented. Two years ago, the GAC came roundly under fire for having only token women’s representation, a women’s panel, and two featured speakers across two days. They have clearly worked hard and had many more women thinkers presenting.
However, this was marred by the opening night. What we had was two men making dick jokes, the fabulous Stella Young, and then a misogynist rant, with a few insults to religious folk thrown in. It didn’t come across as a great way to welcome and celebrate women’s contribution to atheism. It didn’t make me feel comfortable or welcome. It put me on the defensive from the get go.
He might appeal to some audiences. Fine, folks, go see him in the comedy festival or something. I paid four hundred freaking dollars to be at the convention.
He’s not a good choice for a diverse crowd in a movement that is still proving it can welcome, honour and celebrate women. I call on the organisers to apologise.
@ Greg Laden 320
The choice of Jefferies as entertainment at GAC was a very poor decision. However, I thought the rest of the convention was brilliant so I don’t think the organisers are idiots nor that they have to “redeem” themselves.
Kylie has already said that she was horrified by the “comedy” of Jefferies so as one of the MC’s I’m sure that will be fed back to the organisers. It will be interesting to see how and if they respond.
Oh dear, this is all getting rather off-topic. I can’t get tarred by association since I can only be reasonably judged on what I myself have said. Of course, I could be unreasonably judged, but that would just be unreasonable!
I don’t read all of the comments, since I just skim to find things that pique my interest (as I do with most things on the internet). I do notice things I disagree with, but since I’m not an internet policeman, I don’t make it my business to personally attack other people on the internet, even if I disagree with something they say. People have said all kinds of nonsense on this thread but I’ve done my best to just stick to the argument (while defending myself against the more personally-directed nonsense). I tend to try to enter into arguments about substantive issues (i.e. issues and arguments that I can apply to other things) or anything that I find interesting rather than soap-opera stuff – something some commenter said about some other commenter.
If you feel strongly about it, I suggest you do it yourself, rather than requesting that others do it for you. If I was to attack every person who I disagreed with on the internet, I’d never get anything important done.
@ Happiestsadist:
Oh, I do get that some people appear to have some undergarments mightily knotted over some humour failure. What remains however completely nebulous is where exactly I’m “actually hurting, and helping to harm real fucking people. Do you get that? not giving a shit that you’re actually harming oppressed groups” by having a different opinion on what constitutes comedy from some folks on here? Perhaps you’d like to point these “oppressed people” out to me that are supposedly harmed by me daring to laugh about things that clearly are not meant to be laughed about? Because clearly I do not get that. What I do get is that it’s a fucking comedy, funny or not, get over it (naahh, just kidding I know you won’t).
As for your plump assumption, I’m an immigrant almost everywhere I live(d). So, bring ’em on, the more the merrier, I say. Happy labelling! 8-P
Alethea (with emphasis added by me):
Having had the chance to meet up with Alethea on Sunday arvo, this particular gag came up in conversation, so I’ll enlarge on the point here that comedy can involve setting up expectations and then confounding them by the unexpected, which is why comic strips often have three panels where the first two cartoons set up the joke, and the third delivers the gag and/or punchline: and I can think of one “joke” that works almost exactly like Jeffries’ helicopter gag that most people will probably be familiar with.
In the first Indiana Jones film, Indy is confronted by a sword-wielding Arab who challenges him to a duel with an extremely intimidating flourish of his scimitar. Indy’s response is not to find a sword (since the movie has provided the audience with a wonderful set-up for a full-on sword fight) but to draw his pistol and shoot him. The audience expectation is impressively built up, and then brutally confounded in a split second, and in context the gag works – even though we are supposed to feel horror for someone being shot dead, the audience is meant to identify with the title character who doesn’t want to have to go through with a sword fight.
The critique here is, in the right hands, a pretty horrible thing (a guy being shot dead) can be made into comedy. The others besides Alethea were mixed on whether Jeffries’ joke, which involved the punchline of a guy in the US helicopter shooting an Iraqi dead, and whether it was actually funny. Alethea pointed out that there was no indication that this was parody or exaggeration, or whether in fact the event had taken place exactly as Jim Jeffries had narrated. What in fiction like Indiana Jones is an obvious fantasy, becomes rather horrible if it’s an actual life shooting. I gather what Jim found funny, which was “I was feeling unsafe in this helicopter, but the US soldier solved that for me by shooting the Iraqi guy on the ground dead” is situational, and that he was not skilful enough as a comic to actually make his narrative funny. A good joke is all in the telling, as they say.
Per Althea and Philip: I spoke to Russell Blackford about this – he asked me what I thought, since as he notes on his blog, he wasn’t in the audience at the time – and I said that I (personally) didn’t find it funny (I don’t usually find misogyny funny even as parody) – and thought on a more objective level that it didn’t work because if he was parodying misogyny, he didn’t provide any kind of context to suggest that – i.e. use any of the kinds of methods/techniques you’ve mentioned.
However, I spoke to a few people myself and found opinion to be somewhat divided on that; those who were familiar with his material (which I wasn’t; I’d never heard of him before the GAC) seemed to think that it was his schtick – though that means the organisers presumed he was well-known enough that the audience would all be aware and be prepared for what they saw, which the many negative responses indicate wasn’t the case.
Either way, I think that given the serious problems the wider atheist community has had (and is still having) relating to misogyny (explicit and implicit) it would have been better to err on the side of caution and not include that sort of material. That might not have been communicated to Jefferies, though.
Gee whiz, golly. Ya think?
As compared to, say, erring on the side of basic human decency.
You realize that it’s not “caution” for delicate sensibilities we’re talking about here, right? That it’s about not paying someone to spew misogynist hatred in the middle of a world conference? Do you think that kind of shit would have been more “appropriate” somewhere else? At A Voice For Men, perhaps?
Thank goodness Russell Blackford is examining this in a dispassionate, objective manner. Since he wasn’t in the audience he surely couldn’t know whether Jefferies’ routine was misogynistic. It’s very good that he’s polling people to take their temperature. I wouldn’t want him to jump to rash conclusions like taking women at their word that this was a hostile shit show.
Josh Slocum wrote:
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think misognyistic humour is funny, or even thought-provoking – but I do think parody and satire has its place when done the right way under the right circumstances, and with that in mind am making a charitable interpretation of what happened, which was that the organisers thought – very wrongly – that it would work on that level.
Josh Slocum wrote:
I was – to my knowledge – one of the first people who spoke to him about it; it was at the first break the morning after.
And I think it’s more than unreasonable to criticise him for getting a range of opinions – and as for ‘taking women at their word’, as he and I (and more than a few others) have noted – despite the fact that it doesn’t mean it wasn’t objectively misogynistic – Jefferies’ defenders included plenty of women, as Rorschach and I experienced first-hand.
Wowbagger, that’s a good point. I should have allowed for the reality of women who find their own oppression funny (I’m honestly not being snarky to you, I mean it. There are tons of women out there who justify their own degradation to maintain their status in the patriarchy.)
What gets me is Blackford’s detached tone. . the Objective Observer. Whatever. If he can’t see we’re wallowing in misogyny by now then he can fuck off.
Being an Australian, I’m obviously out of whack with the time zones and don’t have much further to say that hasn’t been raised but I would like to add that I am horrified by the suggested defence that this is some sort of Australian humour that may not translate well elsewhere.
Just as we can see that many in this thread think he is funny, I’m certain that there are many men and women in Australia who would equally find him amusing. I would even wager that in my youth and ignorance, I would have found this to be edgy and funny in parts.
Despite these examples, Jeffries is NOT an example of special Australian humour and is not somehow redeemed or understandable if one is Australian (as I most certainly am).
Wowbagger,
As was my observation at second-hand, as far as I could tell reading the #atheistcon Twitter stream on Friday night – the division of the audience was not completely on gendered lines, since plenty of self-identifying women found Jefferies funny, and likewise there were men objecting to Jefferies’ sexism. (As well as those who thought Jefferies was funny but also sexist – which takes us back to my comment at #58.)
It – women defending him – threw me at first.
To me it was unambiguously misogynistic and cringe-inducingly so, and when I spoke to women who was insisting it wasn’t, I didn’t know what to think; I considered it a possibility that they were ‘in on the joke’ while I – as noted upthread – being unfamiliar with Jefferies, had misjudged the situation.
I found Jim offensive and nasty. His comic timing was excellent, but having gone off and looked more at his other work, I see nothing at all that indicates that he respects women.
But let’s think about the context in which he was presented. Two years ago, the GAC came roundly under fire for having only token women’s representation, a women’s panel, and two featured speakers across two days. They have clearly worked hard and had many more women thinkers presenting. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was magnificent, and Eugenie Scott fascinating. Historical atheist women like Hypatia and Vashti McCollum were honoured. Kylie Sturgess warmly welcomed our heroes, and the political panel had some great fiesty debate from women in politics.
However, this otherwise excellent conference was marred by the opening night. What we had was two men making dick jokes, the fabulous Stella Young, and then a misogynist rant, with a few insults to religious folk thrown in. It didn’t come across as a great way to welcome and celebrate women’s contribution to atheism. It didn’t make me feel comfortable or welcome. It put me on the defensive from the get go.
He might appeal to some audiences, fine. They can choose to go see him at a comedy night of whatever. I paid a month’s rent to be at the conference, and I am gutted that it was opened in this way. Jim Jeffries was not a good choice for a diverse crowd in a movement that is still proving it can welcome, honour and celebrate women. I call for an apology.
I want to add my name to the list of Australians who find Jeffries supremely unfunny. It’s telling that he is not well-known in Australia. From what I can gather, his main audiences are overseas.
rorschack @32:
Would it help if you knew that that tweet was from a female?
Would you change your opinion in any way?
Listen to the women, guys.
A female tweeted you to say that she found the remark hilarious, and whilst apparently sexist, it was merely a filter to weed out those who are predisposed to seek offense, as the opening intrioduction to this post strongly implies.
But, shutup and listen to the women!
Isn’t that what you promote?
Oh for crying out loud! Google “gender feminist” and the first article that appears is a wikipedia entry that very clearly explains the term.
And neither do Americans, Brits, people from various parts of Europe…
And that’s 105% irrelevant as to whether it actually is misogyny.
That’s a fucking problem with society and its still ramapant misogyny.
Do women buy into that shit? 100%. To quote the wonderfull Sally Strange, Patriarchy is a system, not a group of people. It fucks with all our minds.
The point is to get better, to realize it, to learn, to work on ourselves. Inviting a rampant misogynist doesn’t exactly do that trick.
Oh my goodness, it must be getting lonely in the slimepit.
See the problem here?
No?
I thought so.
Well, if you want to present a bigotd performance it’s good to get the people who actually have something against bigots out first. Makes sense.
Doesn’t make one less of a bigot…
As Alathea said at 323:
QFBT
It was a typically Australian male schtick: say something abusive, and watch for the reaction. If there’s a reaction, say “Can’t you take a joke?”. If there’s no reaction, try something worse.
Comedy? Not so much.
It’s bloody offensive, cowardly and bullying behaviour.
michelle
Quite. Except there was no inflection to send the signal that he was sending up misogyny. No knowing looks, no raised eyebrow, no vocal inflection, no sly nod or shake of the head. She [Maddox] didn’t get it because it was only there if you wished it so and used your imagination.
It’s not like Colbert, who can play his right-wing character straight as a die because he knows his audience is already clued in. An atheist audience is not pre-clued-in about misogyny. If Jeffries had played a George-Pell-like character straight, that might have worked. But not a misogynist.
I’m a woman, Michael. I think Jeffries’ ‘comedy’ is an absolute pile of shit.
Shush ! Wouldn’t want to give the GAC organisers any ideas, now would we. They could always book her a Twin share with Jefferies for 2014.
Who let the slimepitters in ?
I am confident that this will be regulated by the community itself, and as long as PZ Myers fills 4000 seats and resonates with an audience the way he did this last weekend, I don’t see a problem really. Maybe those demanding that PZ or Rebecca Watson be banned could found their own community. As far away as possible from any decent human beings, would be my suggestion.
Chalk me up as yet another Australian who finds the routine in this clip inappropriate due to woman-bashing. I understand that humour can be derived from juxtaposing a harsh, tell-it-like-it-is delivery with a subject normally treated with delicacy and sensitivity, and if I were in the audience I might have even laughed reflexively. But once your brain parses Jefferies’ dehumanising and aggressive language, and connects it to the violent realities faced by women every day, it kind of ruins the possibility of any enjoyment.
I disagree with skepticlawyer on two points. Firstly, I don’t see Jefferies’ routine as a kind of exaggerated self-critical parody. While his on-stage character was obviously larger than life, the character didn’t exhibit any signs that it held views opposing Jefferies’ own; rather it came across as a sincere, forceful and uninhibited expression of Jefferies’ own feelings towards women. There was no “tell” that the character was supposed to be the butt of the joke, rather than the protagonist who scores points against his “stupid” girlfriends.
The audience reaction did not appear to be that of people who had been spurred to contempt for misogynists and deeper introspection in their personal relationships. Judging by the sound of the clapping and cheering, it was more likely that they were cheering on the stereotype of the “alpha male” – also known in Australianese as a “legend” or “champion” – a bloke who doesn’t give a shit about women, indeed openly ridicules and disrespects them and ignores their feelings, but is so awesome that he effortlessly convinces them to sleep with him anyway. Of course he doesn’t care about whether sex is painful or enjoyable for them, because he’s a selfish wanker who sees women as something to ejaculate into. Jefferies’ character is so awesome that he just stops calling his girlfriends when he gets bored of them – haha, take that, you silly cows -, eliciting another laugh from the audience.
This homosocial alpha male myth allows men to bond over their disrespect of women. I am sure a significant number of people in the audience were laughing and clapping not because they thought Jefferies’ character was ridiculous, but because they thought it was a shining and noble example of legendary masculinity. It should bother us that a significant number of males in our society think the ideal man is one who disrespects women, doesn’t care about their comfort or enjoyment during sex, ignores their thoughts and feelings, and explicitly describes them as objects and masturbatory aids.
The second point I disagree with is that this is some kind of special “Australian” humour that sensitive overseas types won’t get. I love me some Australian humour, having watched golden oldies like Full Frontal, Fast Forward, Big Girl’s Blouse, Frontline, Mother and Son, anything with Shaun Micallef… I have also caught, in more recent times, Good News Week, Backberner, Glass House, Big Bite, Kath and Kim among others… I watch a significant amount of UK comedy too, anything from Fry and Laurie to Catherine Tate. Now I don’t pretend to be a great critic, but while there may be a few regional and stylistic differences, I personally don’t believe there’s any exclusive Australian comedy that foreigners won’t understand.
I think the big divide here is not a geographical or cultural one, but rather a philosophical or ideological once. Some of us demand a basic level of respect for human beings in our comedy, while others just don’t care. I’m sure if you asked Sydneysiders whether Kyle Sandilands (who, in a long career of saying offensive things for lulz and cash, recently returned to the spotlight for referring to a female journalist as a fat talentless slag) is inappropriate and offensive or just having a laugh, there would be a big difference of opinion within the city’s population…
This is not an Australian/non-Australian thing. This is a respecting people/nah, comedy exists in a vacuum, comedians are totally exempt from social standards and taking responsibility for their actions thing.
Exactly right. There is just as much stupid misogyny to be found in any British, German or American comedy. Jefferies mostly works in the US, from what I can tell, that video I linked a while ago was a standup done in the US iirc. The shooting Iraqis from a helicopter thing may have appealed to an US audience, one can only assume. I just think the guy is hideous. Unfunny is pretty much the kindest thing that can be said about him. But really, the fact that slimepitters are defending him here tells you all you need to know.
Not particularly shocking. He seems charismatic enough, and plenty of people respond to that level of shock comedy. (Look at Howard Stern.) Plus, a lot of women also spout misogynistic lines and ideas themselves (listen to the million and one women online or on the radio who’ll laugh at women like Britany Spears for thinking ‘they can just decide to close up their legs.’)So it’s to be expected a good portion of women would applaud this sort of thing.
Just so you know, there are quite a few service members who’d like to turn the whole place into a field of glass. Many still don’t care if some hadji kid gets hit. The general attitude I still see is ‘fuck ’em.’
I was trying to make sense of why anyone would want to make such a gruesome scene a part of a comedy routine, true story or not.
I liked it.
But I can see why it would offend people.
I found this wonderful review by Brian Logan in The Guardian:
Would seem to be pretty much nail it.
Way to kill an entertaining thread, Penfold ! Barging in with the like, truth. Jesus, man, where is your sense for comedy ?
I’d just like to echo what a couple of other people have said. I’d never heard of this guy until now, so please don’t think of this as Australian humour.
I’ll echo Chris. If Australian humour has a unique characteristic, it’s that it is self-deprecating. Jim Jeffries just set a tone that was completely off for an event that was explicitly meant to demonstrate a welcoming attitude to women.
It’s a pity, because I did like his God at the party routine.
Did anyone catch to followup to the Iraqi helicopter bit? The second, and more sobering punchline?
Wow, it looks like the ERV crowd are trying to make themselves relevant outside of their designated repository…
There are many things there that I don’t like at all. And believe me when I say that Abbie doesn’t always like it either.
No, I don’t believe that either, because a) she’s the owner of the blog, so she’s perfectly capable of dealing with what she doesn’t like; and b) she’s explicitly encouraged and invited the infantile hate, and smugly offered her space for their enjoynent.
But she keeps an open forum so that anyone and everyone can have a forum.
News flash: letting obvious bigots and morons dominate a conversation and drag it down to pointless repetitive insults is NOT how you “keep an open forum.” If you don’t know that already, then you’re really too dumb to talk to.
When we got buggered by David Byron, it took a while to get rid of him, but not by banning, just by kicking his fucking misogynistic ass east west north and south until he gave up.
What a fucking joke. He didn’t “bugger” you, he supported all of your babyish hate, and received support in return.
There have been other commenters that went way beyond my personal pal, and I’ve made it clear as much as I could.
No, you didn’t. You were a willing part of the problem, and you still are. And you know you’re wrong, which is why you’re here trying to redeem yourself and pretend you weren’t the asshole you clearly still are.
Then there’s people like Franc and Justicar, kings of hyperboles, and when their hyperboles are taken at face value, they just push on, which is far from being the worst strategy when it comes to fighting pre-conceived ideas.
What the hell does that poorly constructed sentence even mean? Franc and Justicar were just kidding so it’s all okay?
Is this a freethinking/skeptical community where we can discuss things, or not?
THIS is a freethinking skeptical community. ERV is nothing but a cesspool where overgrown Beavis-and-Butthead imitators wallow in their own shit and brag about how they bravely resisted the feminazi tyranny of toilet-training.
@ #328 Shel Lynn “Apparently this site is full of angry dykes & trannies who think they’re being persecuted & want to rant about it.”
What gives you the right to say you are walking into a mud-slinging party and then turn about and call people such names? IMHO, “dyke” is a very close second to the N-word. It is abusive and harmful. Secondly, it doesn’t matter what Ophelia’s orientation is. So what if she’s gay or straight, except maybe to you, who hurls such names. If you had an issue with that, why did you come here in the first place? To call someone such slurs, IMO, shows one has a problem that only they can resolve. No one else can do it for them. That same goes for “trannies”, if you mean what I think you do with the use of that word. It’s just plain cruel and hateful to use such words, IMO, no matter what one’s orientation is. I really don’t see why one’s orientation matters anyway. It’s not like they are going to hit on you, esp since your words and attitude are so ugly.
As for fitting in, I would say if you are a non-theist/atheist/humanist/skeptic, you fit in, because, and as far as I can tell, Ophelia doesn’t base who may comment based on what sort of sex they prefer or their sexual orientation. The only reason I’m here is because Ophelia is a fellow atheist/humanist and I appreciate her writing and comments. Not once did I consider her sexual orientation as a basis to comment on her blog nor did I even care. It doesn’t matter to me, but because you brought it up with slurs, it must be important to you to the point you have to hurl such hateful and abusive words. If that is your attitude and that is the most important thing on your mind, then I’m sure many of us (straight, gay, bi, trans) will be glad to see you go.
I have no clue what possesses a person to jump from such a misogynistic video to someone’s sexual orientation, except maybe hatred. That was a big leap, IMO, and had nothing to do with what Ophelia was talking about.
Apparently this site is full of angry dykes & trannies…
“Apparently” Shel Lynn is a newcomer and has absolutely no clue what he/she is talking about, and didn’t bother to have a look around before making transparently stoopid assertions and pretending he/she was the smartest person in the room.
I agree, Raging Bee. I think people really should look around before making assumptions about a site and if they are bigots, misogynists, racists, etc who take issues with some of the topics a blogger posts about, in a such a way that they cannot comment civilly, maybe the site is not for them. They cannot learn, not even about misogyny, if their minds are full of hatred. I think such remarks are as bad as the video Ophelia posted on and do not contribute to the discussion. Then again, given Shel Lynn’s relate indirectly it could be said his/her comments are another form of misogyny, esp since they were directed at women.
Whoops, blockquote fail in #369, sorry.
Also, this cultural differences thing is ridiculous. I see this type of humor ALL THE DAMN TIME in the US. Ever watch one of Comedy Central’s stand up specials? It’s mostly just unfunny men making stupid, sexist jokes about women.
It is not a case of the ERV crew setting up their own “conferences”.
The idea is that PZ, Opehlia, Watson and the other bullies are banned from the ones currently established.
You have provben yourselves to be nothing but troublemakers and bullies. They particulary have a habit of targeting young women.
Scumbags.
Especially in lifts.
Elvira:
One of these things is not like the others…
Michael Kingsford Grey:
Another tell. As if you weren’t already recognizable from the slime in your hair.
Also, “My wife/girlfriend/female friend doesn’t find it sexist!” doesn’t mean it’s not, bonehead. That’s how systems of oppression work: They convince some of their victims that they’re not actually oppressed.
Winterwind:
And you’re correct. This same brand of “humor” has a huge audience in the U.S. Not just the misogyny, but “jokes” like that involving the Iraqi being shot from a helicopter.
Brownwilly, have you ever considered getting a job as an IMAX projector?
Matt: Zing.
Ophelia, you need to set off a roach fogger in this place.
You and your lot would know a lot of systems of oppression.
The FTB clique is a exemplary working model. Bullying young women is part and parcel of the system of oppression – and so is censorship and abusing others.
The funny thing is, outside of this small clique, the larger atheist/skeptic community frown upon this bunch of losers, or they completely ignore them. The FTB clique suffer from illusions of grandeur.
I reiterate my plea that the FTB clique, including PZ, Watson, Opehlia, et al, should be banned from conferences. They can take their bullying somewhere else.
brownwilly @375
Do you think you could do me a favor and provide examples (with context included) of this bullying you claim goes on here at FTB? You can go with anyone, anywhere on FTB, but I would like to see examples from PZ Myers (where it doesn’t concern Young-Earth Creationists, which I, for one, think is justified), Rebecca Watson, and Ophelia Benson?
I’ve been reading all three for a while now and although I think things have sometimes gotten heated, especially when the issue concerned is misogyny within the skeptic community, I’ve yet to see any of the concerted outright bullying that I saw towards Rebecca Watson over at the ERV community, which didn’t just bully Rebecca, but used misogynistic insults in order to bully her, while Abbie cheered it on, practically asking commentators to be misogynistic about it.
So maybe you can enlighten me (and the rest of us), and highlight what you consider to be extreme bullying efforts, especially those targeted, as you say, towards young women.
To everyone else reading, please don’t jump in. I only want to hear from those who claim this bullying exists. I want examples, with links and context so I can see exactly what they’re talking about, the context it’s in, and make a judgement upon it myself. I wish to do this because it seems relatively non-existent to me. Hating blatant misogyny and campaigning to get it erased does not seem, to me, to be bullying… unless lobbying for atheists to be treated equally along with everyone else in the public sphere is also bullying… which, as well all know, is not bullying.
So please… either you, brownwilly, or any other reader of ERV, respond with linked to and quoted examples of this bullying. I really don’t understand what you’re talking about and would very much like to know.
Brownwilly,
You seem to be rather confused. In one post you said this:
Which can only be a reference to those who were so hostile to Rebecca Watson, but now you are saying:
Which is just nonsense, one, it is rubbish to claim PZ et al are bullies, and you can only re-iterate something you have first iterated.
I am quite willing to believe you are a denizen of the slime-pit though, since you seem to be stupid enough.
brownwilly: Right, that’s why FTB has so very many young women taking part, BECAUSE it provides a safer space in not tolerating misogyny. You’re a terrible liar. Censorship? I wasn’t aware FTB was the federal government. Having house rules and expecting people to follow them and not letting people shit all over the place is in no way censorship.
Stop whining that you’re so put upon for not being able to be a bigot in one tiny corner of the internet. For one, your posts are clearly visible here, so even that’s not the case.
I’m very late to the party and I’m sure this point has been made in one of the 377 posts befor emine but I figured I may as well as not post.
For those who are arguing that Jefferies is being satirical, you should learn the lesson that Fox News learned when it tried to launch a Daily Show-format comedy program:
Satire speaks to power; not from power. When you speak from power and make fun of people, you’re not a satirist, you’re a bully.
I appreciate that can be a difficult concept for people to grasp when they possess power, but it is very easy to understand when you’re part of an oppressed group. There is a difference between Chris Rock making fun of white people and Michael Richards making fun of black people.
If you don’t understand that difference, you understand neither satire nor human society.
As a comedian, Jefferies is worse than offensive; he’s boring, predictable and hackneyed.
Very interesting that this “clique” seems to attract ever more prominent atheist writers all the time, not to mention readers and traffic. They also seem to be ever popular at conferences. People do not seem to leave the room when they’re speaking.
While “the larger atheist community” seems to consist of about as many people as I have digits.
Oh, what “young women” do they bully, apart from telling Abbie Smith that they find her misogyny disgusting?
PZ and Ed had providing a safe place for women bloggers a priority when setting up FTB. I would say they have succeeded.
I kind of just want everyone to know that his stuff isn’t new, and it’s not Australian.
This song is written by someone I once counted as my all-time favorite comedian:
YouTube | Bill Hicks – Relentless – Chicks Dig Jerks (15/15)
Again, I have to stress this is not a defense of Jim Jefferies. It’s actually one of the biggest criticisms I now have of the late Bill Hicks. Jefferies is just cashing in one what appears to be a disgustingly long tradition in darker forms of comedy.
There is a lot of stuff from Bill that I still love (his bits on smoking, on marijuana, on Young-Earth Creationism, on Ronald Reagan and George Bush and Bill Clinton, on politics in general, on guns and crime, on beaches, on drugs in general, on music, on capitalism, etc), but man could he go wrong (“Chicks Dig Jerks”, New World Order, JFK assassination [I just realized… is it really spelled “ass ass ination”?], and other stuff like that). Jefferies is really just taking this to the next level. It’s the subtle sexism of “Chicks Dig Jerks” blown up into blatant spoken misogyny.
I wonder if it can be traced back earlier than the 90’s in comedy?
sambarge,
You have been on fire of late! Another excellent demolition!
Bollocks. I doubt you’d accept the same argument coming from someone who posted at, say, Stormfront.
The FTB clique is a exemplary working model. Bullying young women is part and parcel of the system of oppression – and so is censorship and abusing others.
Examples plesse, dumbfuck? The fact that you’ve posted so much insulting stupidity here with impunity kinda disproves your “censorship” allegations.
And bullying is something that a lot of people find amusing, even funny. I’m sure those of us who were bullied in our younger yearrs (or are bullied now) can attest to that fact. Mocking, belittling and ridiculing people ‘beneath’ you is something a lot of people respond positively to, even if they don’t consciously consider themselves bullies or doing something wrong.
Ya gotta wonder how many of these guys extend that good will to believers.
The funny thing is, outside of this small clique, the larger atheist/skeptic community frown upon this bunch of losers, or they completely ignore them. The FTB clique suffer from illusions of grandeur.
That seems to be a favorite meme of the ERV gang’s. It’s very silly. If “the larger atheist/skeptic community frown upon this bunch of losers” then why were some of the “losers” on the podium at the Reason Rally? Why were some of them on the podium at the GAC?
And as for illusions of grandeur – what illusions of grandeur? Are we always going, “How grand we are!”? Not that I know of. We just blog our blogs. What’s so illusion of grandeur about that?
Oh and this business of my “orientation” – that’s a weird one. Nobody’s ever asked that before, that I recall. I’m boringly straight, I’m afraid (and answering the question because I don’t want to come across as closeted). It’s true though that in real life people often assume I’m not, I suppose because I’m not what you’d call feminine. (What you would call it instead naturally depends on degree of hostility.)
Can someone translate the Dipshit Bigotese that brownwilly is typing. it’s not making any sense. Is it saying that people who fight against bigotry are bullies? Exactly how does that convuluted bullshit come close to reality?
And, if the FTB crowd is the “losers” of the bunch, why is it here talking to us? Surely, if we’re so irrelevant and so totally not cool (because only straight up bigots are cool, you know!), why it is here?
Of course, I already know the answer, but it’s always a nice laugh to see the tea-bagger levels of bullshit these bigots can puke out in desperate attempts to seem not completely worthless.
Come on guys, I don’t think this is really the place for this. I thought we were talking about offensive comedy and Jim Jeffries?
If I wanted to inquire as to what someone on Stormfront believed, I would still do well to look at what they themselves wrote, rather than what someone else who just happened to post on the same forum wrote. Yes, they’re posting on a racist forum (in the case of Stormfront), but there might be some reason why they’re posting there other than simply that they’re a massive racist.
Also, Stormfront is dedicated to racism. ERV seems to me to be dedicated to science. There is a stark difference. Even if you find ERV abhorrent, you’d still do well to judge each poster on their words, based on this difference.
Is your case really that whoever posts on ERV must necessarily hold every view espoused by every other commenter on the blog, so long as they didn’t attack it expressly?
No, but then non one is saying that. What they are saying is that you choose to hang around ERV then some of the shit will deservedly stick to you. If someone wants to hang out with a bunch of misogynist sociopaths they should be expect to be judged for doing so.
Oh, and the only person who gets to decide that is Ophelia, not you. Quite why you think you are in charge escapes me, but it shows you are fucking arrogant.
are you REALLY this clueless or have you reached the point of deliberately trolling?
Illuminata, I think Brownwilly is saying, “Help, help, we’re being oppressed!”
Nate: Bill Hicks had some brilliant routines, but his misogyny was absolutely foul. Even worse than “Chicks Dig Jerks” was a spittle-flecked rant about the existence of the pop star Debbie Gibson, who obviously couldn’t compare to Jimi Hendrix because she didn’t have a dick. Complete with the line, “When did we start listening to teenage girls?” As if we’ve ever stopped listening to teenage boys… at least the white middle-class ones, anyway. Then you pair that routine with “Goat Boy,” in which he fantasizes about fucking 16-year-old girls… grr.
Notung:
Thread cop badge number, please?
Godless Heathen, I am from the States, saw Comedy Central, and rarely watch it. Hell, I hardly ever watch TV anymore because most of it sucks.
That seems to be a favorite meme of the ERV gang’s. It’s very silly.
Actually, it’s kind of dangerous: they’re basically trying to crash the atheist movement, crowd out everyone who disagrees with them, wear our identity-badges, and shout down any of us who don’t just obediently shut up and leave. And a lot of them are using the rhetoric of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance” to justify totally flouting all of the values that led us to leave organized religion in the first place.
It’s a downside of atheism becoming popular: the relatively intelligent and motivated vanguard are starting to be displaced by a much less intelligent wave of poseurs who don’t share any of our values, don’t want to do any work or make any sacrifices, and just want to join the party because we’re “hip,” without actually giving a shit about anything more important than their own self-gratification. (I kinda suspect most of our major religions go through such a degrading metamorphosis when: a) the leaders make boosting their sheer numbers their first priority; and/or b) the cool new cult gets discovered by the louts the old cults didn’t want or need.)
Come on guys, I don’t think this is really the place for this. I thought we were talking about offensive comedy and Jim Jeffries?
If you don’t like the direction this thread is taking, you’re perfectly free to leave, and no one will try to stop you.
@ 375 Brownwilly I reiterate my plea that the FTB clique, including PZ, Watson, Opehlia, et al, should be banned from conferences. They can take their bullying somewhere else.
I’ve met PZ and Rebecca at least 3 times at conferences and they are hardly bullies. I don’t know where you get that idea from, but be that as it may, PZ is a good educator and I find Rebecca is a nice young woman. Personally, if she were my daughter, I’d be proud of her.
I also know something about oppression and misogyny, given my sons are part black and I’m a woman. I may know a lot more than you do about it.
Brownwilly, I used to read erv a while back for her science posts. When she weighed in on elevator guy her posts on science were no longer interesting to me. Erv is on the wrong side.
As far as Ophelia, PZ, Rebecca and the FTB bloggers, I don’t see your claims of bullying. What I see are the detractors voicing a STFU sentiment that is not welcome to me.
Banning the voices of PZ, Ophelia, Rebecca…(would I be surprised if you would include R. Dawkins?) would set back the atheist movement at least a decade. These folks(and more) have created an excitement for the movement that has been unparalled in history. What has ERV done to be included in the movement or to be considered one the contributors to the movement?