Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Where is the line?

paranoidwriter waves hello

17:43 / 18.08.06

(I've been meaning to start a thread like this for a while in Headshop, but I'm scared shitless of this fora, so I worry I won't actually be adding anything positive to the mix. Please be gentle. I also ran a blank when searching for an appropriate, pre-existing thread in the archives, but if there is, I'll move for deletion [etc], accordingly.)

So, trying my hardest to keep this brief, succinct, and logical:

Due in part to Barbelith, I've been thinking for a while now about what's funny, justified, understandable, and acceptable in language and communication. Of course, out-right hatespeach is unacceptable, and confused, lazy thinking should always be challenged and assessed in any culture / society; but I wonder if there's always ever really a line between what is / isn't offensive, especially in more subtle and (even) deliberately ambiguous circumstances. And if this line exists, how can one better identify it to make sure we don't cross it by mistake and cause unnecessary trouble / harm?

For example, last night's episode of the UK satire program 'Time Trumpet' (see, this thread) featured a deliberately ironic and provoking spoof "alternative reality show", called "Rape an Ape"; which triggered my humorous nerve and made me burst out laughing (I was very tired and sleep deprived though).

However, within seconds I was asking myself "Why is this funny, to me? Is this funny?" Indeed, was it funny because I saw it as a scathing and clever attack on my society and the Media; and even so, does the fact that there are many (offensive) connotations that might be taken from the words "Rape an Ape" make this a joke that isn't actually funny and which should never have been told?

Where's the line? Is the concept of a "line" a bad / false one to start with in the first place? i.e. (as an aside), there's bit on the Time Tunnel website that says:

"Do you remember? 2009: Johnny Depp became so cool you needed special glasses to see him"

Also, similarly, when is an opinion/ point valid? How much experience is needed before it "crosses the line" and becomes an authority?

I may not have framed these topics very well, but I'm really hoping to sit back and pick up any knowledge, info, and tips from y'all, which might help me fathom all this.

Over to you, Barbelith.

Thanks.

23:19 / 18.08.06

One day uou'll stop worrying and just say what you think, PW, and it''ll be cool, without the parentheses. but I'm very pisseed and making little sense I expect son whon knows

paranoidwriter waves hello

03:59 / 19.08.06

Thanks, Xoc. But I can't help but worry about people's different sensibilities to various forms of communication and in different environments. If one's baker doesn't like one's manner and conversation, he's more likely to give one the older bread or spit in one's doughnut. Plus, of course, most of us don't like others feeling shit because of (say) a bad joke we made, but knowing what it is we've actually said wrong makes it easier to learn and move on, hopefully.

I was also thinking about trying to maybe establish rules of recognition and engagement for artists (and others) that might help them navigate these uncertain offensive zones, so to speak. e.g I picked up a website from elsewhere on Barbelith which might be related to this, and which I'm still re-rereading, enjoying, and questioning: www.highintelligence.com -- "OS 0 1 2 - Global Dialectic for the Internet".

And Xoc, you probably won't believe this, but I genuinely just looked up "Son Whon" in Google, thinking you might have been making a clever but tender joke that went waaay over my head, i.e. that "Son Whon" might coincidentally also be the name of some great philosopher I hadn't yet discovered and whose work might help me ponder these issues... I think I need a lie down.

All Acting Regiment

13:51 / 21.08.06

Is there always a clear and identifiable line between what's funny, justified, understandable, and acceptable in language and communication? Whose line is it anyway?

This has been said before and better, but I think what this (very big) question comes down to is being knowledgeable about what could be offensive, as in, knowing other people's boundaries, as much as you (by which I mean, any given entity) can, whilst accepting that you can't really be 100% aware of everyone's feelings 100% of the time, but willing to make amends and apologise if and when you do offend someone.

In terms of the question...yeah, there is a line, which is fluid, organic, and changes with time and and space. It isn't always clear and identifiable, but often is, and when not that is probably our fault, not theirs.

This post is rather floaty and general, I fear.

paranoidwriter waves hello

14:41 / 21.08.06

Not at all. Good points, I reckon.

And yeah, I didn't really think I was being original. I was just trying to draw on different sources, contexts, etc, and ask for the details of previous ideas related to this (admittedly) very fluid concept -- by which I also mean, thanks, Legba, for raising the point about fluidity, etc. I agree that this "line" is not a static, clearly definable, therefore always identifiable "thing", and relationships change depending on who is communicating and due to their own rules of engagement, etc.

Therefore, Legba, your points also have helped confirm to me "the line" is a bad way of describing this (erm?) phenomenon. Indeed, it was daft of me not to fully consider how other current threads around here were pretty much talking about the same issue, in one way or another, but within a slightly different contextual framework. e.g. "Internet Power Dynamics" thread; "But I'm on your *side*.....or, why clever people can't be racist" thread; or even the "Stranger in a Strange Land" thread.

To be honest, I think when I started this thread I got a bit thread-happy and excited by too many thoughts, or something. I probably should have been more patient. However, I'll keep reading the other relevant threads and re-read what's already been said here (etc), and then maybe return to this thread if necessary. Again, thanks all.

19:42 / 26.08.06

I think you'll have a futile time trying to pin it down with any rules at all. When we say anything to anyone else, we are drawing a kind of boundary afresh, based on our assumptions and previous knowledge of who we're talking too and what we're talking about. We are constantly making excursions over that line into the other's comfort zone, to try our luck or influence them, or even to offer comfort and love. The line isn't a passive boundary, to be respected in our interpersonal dealings, but rather the result of our words and actions. To be pushed and teased into a desirable border between two people's minds. The trick with humour especially, is to get as far into their territory as possible, without scaring the horses. This being a difficult job, we value people with the skills to do it well i.e. a sense of humour. See also: deep compassion or love, flirting, even bullying (although that isn't respected, as such).

Great comics can say things that others couldn't get away with, and end up getting laughs and love in return.

I guess they take the time, and have the sensitivity, to mould our boundaries into the shape that they desire, so that we will accept them trespassing on our Holy Ground. Does any of this make sense?

paranoidwriter waves hello

19:52 / 24.09.06

coq, I just returned to this thread to try to look at it with fresher eyes, and noticed you'd responded.

I think you may be right. Thanks, comrade: you've given me a lot to ponder.

22:34 / 15.11.06

The rape an ape is almost just funny because it rhymes. As funny as fuck a duck or kick a dick (oh wow kick a dicks good, might be a new gameshow)

08:12 / 16.11.06

The rape an ape is almost just funny because it rhymes. As funny as fuck a duck or kick a dick (oh wow kick a dicks good, might be a new gameshow)

Well yes, rude words that rhyme can be funny. Not terribly sophisticated though. It's a middle school level of humour. That isn't to say it can't be funny for adults, childish humour has its place to be sure.

18:43 / 16.11.06

Really humour shouldn't be judged by its intelligence. The gut laugh is the most honest really.

18:45 / 16.11.06

I'd rather laugh at a childish rhyme wholeheartedly than snigger self-consciously at organised comedy I think.