Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Veegs

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    20

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Veegs

  4. Posted

    Just going to post this then I'm done for good:

     

    1. What Sun Kil Moon said was misogynist. That kind of language is demeaning to women in a variety of ways, from using bitch as an insult to the "you know you want it" implication.

     

    2. Kozelek's intent was to be insulting or at least offensive. He wasn't making a subversive joke or making fun of misogyny. In my opinion, those are the only types of things that could excuse this language, and it's pretty clear his intent was to indeed be insulting/offensive/a dick in general. To use misogynistic language to do this is unacceptable. Period.

     

    3. One cannot be an equal opportunity offender, as straight white males can not be demeaned in a similar manner to the way as Snapes was demeaned. This also applies to other "out of bounds" insults such as insulting someone's family, e.g. as someone who is not a parent I cannot be insulted/offended via verbal attacks on my children because I don't have any. Just like I, a straight, white, cisgender male cannot be demeaned in the way Kozelek demeaned Snapes.

     

    4. Ultimately, it seems to come down to the fact that many don't want to change their language/behavior. Essentially, they don't want to have to deal with this hassle of change and being condemned for their words, as they don't feel personally offended by it and refuse to acknowledge the enormous number of people who are offended and who have a logical thought process that legitimizes that offense. This is ironic because Besser and Souprman are essentially trying to control and condemn the "PC police" for their behavior/words. The difference is, U.S. PC police are promoting respect and equality, while Besser; Souprman, and Kozelek just want to be able to make stupid "jokes", be insulting, and generally say whatever the fuck they want without consequences. I think the respect and equality of historically and currently disenfranchised groups is more important than the constant comfort of the systematically privileged.

     

    5. All in all, this was a pretty upsetting episode to listen to. I have listened to every episode of i4H at least twice (most of them 3+ times), and I have also bought/watched as much of Besser's other stuff as I could in order to support him. The amount of happiness this show has brought to my life over the last few years is hard to quantify. Ever since those first listens, Besser has (had?) been a personal hero of mine. He always seemed to create the smartest, craziest, and simply funniest comedy, all while helping the careers of other great comedians by giving them exposure and generally showing the audience how awesome they were. He would also frequently "fight the good fight" and advocate for causes important to me, from marriage equality to gun control. But as a feminist/feminist ally/whatever you want to call solemn who believes in equality for women, it is very difficult for me to reconcile this episode with my previous view of Besser. It's going to be hard for me to listen to i4H again, simply because the views expressed in this episode are so infuriating/downright wrong and backwards. I'm sure future episodes will be funny, but, for me personally, listening to the show again would most likely be a reminder of prejudice and willful ignorance rather than the source of happiness it has always been. I'm not calling for a boycott or anything, all I'm saying is that I've been a huge fan of Besser and everything he's done, but this episode means listening to future episodes might not be a pleasant experience for me personally. So I guess you guys win, I won't be here to police your fun any more. If you want to call this over sensitive or whatever go ahead, because you're still missing the point entirely. So yell at me and promote prejudice, I won't be reading it any way, and my belief of gender equality is unshakable.

    • Like 7

  6. Posted

    I fully agree with Matt on this, but I think I can give a good devil's advocate summary of where the other side is coming from...

     

    Matt repeatedly insists that we need to put these (Kozelek/Meadows') comments in context, and think about the intent behind them, but he's actually overemphasizing the importance of intent. The critical issue is not what they meant, but how these comments are heard. Matt, you're a sophisticated consumer of comedy, so when you hear Tim Meadows make a joke like "White people ask me if I'm Don Cheadle, black people say 'Don't rob me!'" you realize he's skewering how black men are perceived in America. You know there's layers of satire and self-deprecation beneath the text of that joke.

     

    But not all (maybe not even most) people will hear it that way. They'll hear Tim say that, and laugh, and think "It's funny because black men really are all criminals! And now a black man is saying it so it must be true!" And so a harmful stereotype gets reinforced. And when that joke ends up on Twitter, without the giant quotation marks around anything said on the stage of a comedy club, he may as well be saying "Black men will rob you." Which gives people inclined towards prejudice a little more fuel for their rhetoric, and the world becomes a little bit more racist.

     

    Think about a film like Starship Troopers. It's a satire of jingoistic military culture, and the mentality that leads to preemptive strikes. But the satire is subtle and artful enough that most people who saw the film missed it entirely, and just cheered at seeing aliens blow up. The argument here is: it's a bad message to send, whatever the artist's intent.

     

    When Kozelek played that not-especially-funny song about the journalist, he may well have been an ornery guy being ornery, nothing more. (Though if you think "War On Drugs Suck My Cock" proves he's an equal opportunity offender, you should read this: http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/515-sun-kil-moon-yells-at-cloud-the-problem-with-male-pattern-violence/ . The phrase "patriarchal herd mentality" is invoked.)

     

    But to a woman in the crowd who doesn't know who Laura Snapes is, who doesn't know about Kozelek's history, who just bought a ticket because "Benji" is a tremendous fucking album, he's just on stage, telling some anonymous woman she totally wants to fuck him, and the crowd is laughing, and now she feels deeply uncomfortable because Kozelek and a whole room of fans are cracking sexual jokes at some woman's expense. Maybe Kozelek isn't misogynist, but the song was, and the reaction was, and a whole lot of misogynist attitudes have now been reinforced. And you can understand why people worried about the reaction to Kozelek or Meadows would turn to social media to push back against it.

     

    Now, if you take this line of thought to its logical conclusion you end up in some nasty places, but it comes from a coherent, well-intentioned place.

    Well since I won't be on the podcast might as well just keep arguing...

    I think you're making a mistake like Matt did by conflating the Meadows and Kozelek issues. What Meadows said was fine and no one is arguing that. You seem to understand a lot of things I was saying, but I take issue with what you said about intent. Kozelek's intent doesn't prevent the song from being offensive, because his intent was to insult someone, and using misogynistic language to fulfill this intent is not acceptable. As I've previously explained it is possible to act on this intent without using misogynist language. Essentially, it doesn't matter if Kozelek didn't intend to do a misogynistic thing because he did a misogynistic thing anyway. I agree that following the logic of "intent never matters" is a bad thing, but if Kozelek's intent was to avoid demeaning someone based on the fact that she's a woman, he failed. So it's not that intent can never enter into the discussion nor is that we're not "sophisticated" enough to understand Kozelek. It's rather that the outcome is still negative. Perhaps this is to 100% intended hate speech as manslaughter is to murder, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

     

    In this very episode, Matty B expressed discomfort about the possibility of the cat video depicting animal cruelty. This is indicative of a few things that most people accept: 1) animals can feel pain (that is, they are sentient), and 2) causing animals to feel pain should be avoided whenever possible.

     

    Combine this with the fact that animal products are unnecessary for health or survival for almost everybody, and it becomes clear that the only justification for eating/using animals is a prejudice against the species that we choose to eat/use (they don't deserve moral consideration, or their pain is less important than our desire to eat/use them), even when it is clear that they feel just as much as the animals (and certain humans) we as a society go to great lengths to protect from pain.

     

    So, I identify using animals for food/clothing/experiments/etc to be based upon a prejudice (known as 'speciesism'). And because the logic you present in the quoted post, combined with the info I presented in this one, was a huge catalyst in me changing my own habits, I'm curious if it has had (or will have) the same effect for you.

     

    Apologies if this is an unwelcome tangent.

    No problem, I actually am a vegetarian of 6 years (hence the stupid username), and I have always been confused by people who claim to be animal lovers/are obsessed with their pets but will criticize me for my choices. I get if you don't want to be a vegetarian for whatever reason, but to go out of your way to criticize them is confusing, especially given if you claim to love animals. It's really hard to eliminate all of your support in avoiding the "speciesism" as you put it, because animal products are so prevalent. Also, as someone who has done and will have to do a lot of experiments, it's obviously less of a hassle to use animals people tend not to care about, i.e. mice, but I don't really have a problem with this when it's for a morally just cause, e.g. cancer research. That said, I do try to avoid this stuff in general, and I actually think this was a huge element of the debate that went completely ignored during Gemberling's beastiality episodes.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    I will say that I tend to agree with your points, Veeg, but I wouldn't agree that it's "simple" to not be misogynistic. Misogyny is a socially-defined construct, and as such will continue to change over time. Indeed, a lot of the arguments we're having now are often between people who think of misogyny as anti-1950's homemaker stereotypes, whereas the more progressive-minded folks are looking at the more subtle forms of misogyny that still persist, yet are not visible to those that take part in perpetuating them.

    No I'm not saying that it's always obvious to the people being misogynist, as, like all forms of prejudice, it can be subtle. What I was trying to articulate is that, from a moral perspective, it is black and white if someone can explain to you why something is misogynist/whatever. Like if you could get someone to accept that the wage gap is not a myth, they should then be able to make a simple judgement that the wage gap is morally wrong. Destroying and identifying misogyny at a 100% success rate is the goal, but obviously doing so is not simple. However, I do believe that, on a case by case basis, if you can identify prejudice in something it is then a simple decision to not support that prejudice. I don't know if that clarifies things, but I definitely do agree with you that not everything that is misogynist is necessarily easy to identify/put a stop to.

    • Like 5

  12. Posted

    context is the only way to appropriately judge any situation, that's why it's the only point I need to make and the only one you have to ignore to be so willfully obtuse. if you don't understand the facts of a situation how can you say - this is just wrong? furthermore - why would you? what's your agenda? equality and respect? if that's is the case i have to tell you it comes off more like intolerance and censorship. if you "get" why Kozelek said those things it would then be easy to see that it wasn't meant as hate against women, and that's the point - what did the artist mean? not - what's the worst possible meaning I can extrapolate from it? do you see how there's a difference between offensive context and an agenda of hate? or do you not make such a distinction?

     

    anyway I wish you luck in your quest to build a world where no one is offended or more importantly actually hurt by someone something says. that place sounds fucking lame. oh is lame a sideways slam on the differently-abled? or is it hate speech against horses?

    Oh man, so now it's ok if the artist's intentions were acceptable? I didn't mean to kill that kid when I was driving drunk, that wasn't my intention, therefore what I did was acceptable right? I think you're confused as to what censorship and intolerance are. I'm not advocating that the government stops Kozelek from being a jerk, I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't support blatant misogyny. Also, now you're doing the whole right wing, "liberals are so open-minded and accepting until someone disagrees with them" thing. This isn't a matter of opinions, this is really, really simple and black and white. Don't be a misogynist, that's all it is. You still seem confused as to what context is. By your logic I can call someone a dumb pussy, but if I provide context and say, "don't worry I don't associate women with being wimpy, I was just trying to call him a wimp", then that's ok? Being prejudiced is ok if you back-peddle? It's not extrapolating anything to think the use of the word faggot would be homophobic. So why would it be extrapolating to say using misogynist language is misogynist?

    • Like 5

  13. Posted

    the power people are so willing give to words to sway their emotions. if you know your own mind you needn't be a proxy for the possible offense of others.

    What? Are you saying it's not your place to be upset if the words don't directly offend you? So by that logic, one should never be upset by anything unless it directly harms them. Because, hey, people might be blatantly homophobic, racist, misogynist, etc. but it's not my problem and those special interest groups should really just get off their asses and defend themselves if it's so damn important! Is you're whole argument now really just down to sticks and stones?

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    1st are these two men strangers? Do they know each other at all? Do theym;dkgsapr

    k g]

    ropskg;lrsd

     

     

    this is so boring kids. Have fun being offended by every little fucking thing. It's really gross.

    \

     

    EDIT> context kids context.

    Lol oh ok, so behind closed doors us bros can say whatever we want because those stupid fun police aren't around to ruin things with their lofty ideals of "equality" and "respect".

    • Like 5

  15. Posted

    men have been calling each other bitches for a long time - is that just a roundabout misogyny? I agree calling someone a pussy is so because there is no other context for it. funny how that word context keeps coming up, as though nothing is just completely good or bad black or white. hmmm...

    So if two straight men called each other faggots it wouldn't be homophobic? The word context keeps coming up because it's the entire basis of your faulty argument.

    • Like 4

  16. Posted

    so any time female gender is part of the context of an insult it is hate-speech and misogyny?

    What are you trying to say? Calling someone a bitch is misogynistic. Calling someone a pussy is misogynist, as I believe Besser himself mentioned offhandedly on this podcast a few weeks ago (it could be another podcast, I listen to too many). To bring it back to the homophobia example surely you could recognize that if someone was to use the word faggot as an insult that would be hateful and insulting to all gay people? Why would it be any different for women?

    • Like 5

  17. Posted

     

    The point you seem to be missing in this story is that the journalist seems to have been aggressively pursuing Kozelek for an interview, and even went so far as to say, when he declined a face to face interview and made a mockery of the email interview, that she was going to interview his friends about him. That's fucked up, in itself. If you're a journalist who is trying to get an interview with someone famous who historically doesn't like to be interviewed and is a known asshole, what do you expect when you move beyond the boundaries they have for themselves? It is a very underhanded move to interview friends of a person because you cannot get direct access to that person. Kozelek deserves his privacy as much as the next person. Was what he said silly and stupid? Of course, but I am not sure he deserves the widespread condemnation that he has been getting recently. His song was not demeaning to ALL female journalists, it was demeaning to one female journalist who overstepped the boundaries of the person she was trying desperately to interview. And to what end? It's not like Kozelek has some secret knowledge and he just won't share it with the rest of us - he's just a guy that plays sad bastard music, and surprise, he's a bastard. And, further, as a singer-songwriter, I would imagine most of his output is completely to mostly autobiographical, why does he need to answer boilerplate questions when you can gain an understanding of who he is through his art?

     

    Ian MacKaye of Discord Records/Fugazi gets the same kind of bullshit heaped on him because he doesn't like giving interviews. He's not a jerk, he's just a guy doing what he loves and doesn't need to sit down and explain his day to day life to some jackass music journalist.

    Once again, you can be a jerk and not give interviews or whatever without being a misogynist. It's not offensive not to cooperate with journalists. What is offensive is to attack people based on gender, and, while his comments might have been inspired by the behavior of one individual, the language and implication of what he said is simply offensive in general. If a woman cut me off in traffic and I said she was a bitch who couldn't drive, that would be offensive, regardless of the fact that it was caused by the behavior of a single individual and directed at this one individual.

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

    I feel like that attitude unfairly puts women in the default position of victim no matter what the context. That seems like some kind of inverse misogyny. The point of Kozelek's words weren't; hey this woman is over here being a woman doing these women things stupid women can't help but doing cause she's a woman, y'know because I uniformly am attacking an entire gender.

     

    Steph Allynne says it best at 1:15:09.

    No you can still attack a woman for being stupid, but you can do so in language without attacking a whole gender. It would be within Kozelek's rights to get to say, "She's stupid and I hate people like her", because that's not attacking her, not her gender. What he did say was that she was a bitch, while insinuating she was a weak-willed woman who was only annoying him because she couldn't control her sexual desire for him. Surely you can see the difference between pointing out individual flaws within a specific person rather than attacking an entire gender?

     

    Stephanie's point is valid in general, but I don't feel it's applicable to the situation. It would be more applicable if a website was to post a headline saying, "Mookie Blaiklock calss Stephanie Allyne 'a bitch' on i4h", because, in context, you can tell Mookie is making fun of stupid men. Kozelek, whether intentionally or not, did attack someone based on gender, and an attack of this nature is going to be unacceptable pretty much always.

    • Like 4

  19. Posted

    You somehow missed the whole point about context. The question is; does this person have an agenda or do they behave in an equally "offensive" way towards everyone. The point is not that understanding context makes it "okay", it's that it doesn't need to be looked at as either okay or not if you can wrap your brain around the subtleties of the situation. Also I didn't hear any instruction from Besser NOT to be offended, he's just pointing that you're kinda weak, whiny, sad, and pathetic if you are. And if you seriously think that calling someone a faggot in public out of context from the performance, and a satirical song about how someone wants to fuck someone else that directly addresses the subject as introduced by the performer are analogous, you are completely lost. If a woman had said those exact lines it would be funny to people. If your whole point is that Besser doesn't have the right to tell people not to be offended, I guess I have to wonder what gives you the right to tell him he can't say that? That was a rhetorical question btw.

    No you're the one missing the point. He doesn't behave in an equally offensive way to all people. I can understand why some of the War on Drugs stuff could come off as homophobic, but this stuff at the concert is so overtly misogynist. There's a difference between "just being an asshole" and demeaning someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. By definition it's impossible for him to be that offensive to straight white men. It's fine if his thing is being a jerk or if his schtick is all about being abrasive in an unfunny way, but one can do this without trying to tear someone down based on their gender/race/whatever. Besser tears into all kinds of people all the time on the show and uses offensive language in the process, but the actual joke and the actual criticism is never directed to a historically disadvantaged group of people. With the Kozelek song, the joke is specifically demeaning to women in general.

    • Like 4
×