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

pokey_valentine

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    86

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by pokey_valentine

  1. Posted

    I should clarify that I have seen Moshe Kasher's Netflix special, and I am speaking for myself.

     

    The quote I singled out in my previous post, that "if you become offended […] that's just you being a bitch," is in the context of Moshe saying that he's a comedian in a comedy club, and therefore he's "just kidding," because that's how the world works, or something like that. I don't like that or agree with it. And, anyway, I'd much rather be offended by a joke than to be warned at the top not to be offended.

     

    The thing about the ironic offensive comedy that's so ubiquitous now is that, if the jokes hit, they can be surprising, subversive, and funny, but if they miss, they don't just fall flat, they can easily be construed as petty and hateful. Dan, I'm not surprised you'd mention Louis C.K. He is to this type of comedy as Seinfeld was to observational humor. He's the best. He's mastered the voice. In Seinfeld's heyday, all the comedians were asking us what the deal was with airplane food. Now, they make rape jokes, or lob out generalizations about black people. Comedians who do something different (actually, Adomian comes to mind) tend to be the ones I get most excited about.

     

    About the blog in question, I agree that it takes a shotgun approach to identifying the "problematic," and it starts with the assumption that every artist/entertainer is "problematic" (which is probably true, but arguably unhelpful) and works backwards to find proof. The biggest stretch to me is the entry on Zooey Deschanel (although the cited Jezebel article is worth a read). But that doesn't invalidate all of her criticisms.

     

    On that note, she impressed me with this entry on what to do if your "fave" is "problematic." She's obviously zealous and passionate enough about this issue to maintain two tumblrs, but she's still willing to live with the tension of appreciating an artist's work without dismissing its "problematic" elements. I can get behind that.

    • Like 2

  2. Posted

    Out of curiosity, I searched for the blog Moshe Kasher was talking about, and found him on Your Fave Is Problematic (the person who runs it has another tumblr called Calling Out Bigotry). There's no editorializing or explaining, just a very long list of direct quotes (although, elsewhere, the blogger refers to the special as "vomit-inducingly racist and sexist").

     

    I enjoyed Moshe on this show, but large portions of his standup really are problematic. To start his special, he says, "If you do become offended at any point tonight during the show, we’ve now established that that’s just you being a bitch." I'm tired of this attitude from comedians, and I'm tired of "ironic" (post-ironic, or whatever) offensive humor.

  3. Posted

    I'm really surprised to hear all the praise for this episode... I'm new to this podcast . . .

     

    I was actually thinking that I probably wouldn't like this episode if I were new to the show. None of the guests were very famous, and there was no kooky fictional character. The Would You Rather bit was hilariously frustrating and confusing. The whole episode has kind of an inside-joke feel, with running gags and established personalities. It's definitely a departure, in style, from most episodes, so I can get where you're coming from.

     

    I loved this episode, though!

    • Like 2

  4. Posted

    Quick Question: Do other people enjoy HDTGM episodes more if they have NOT seen the movie they're talking about?

     

    I gave this movie a shot because it was free on YouTube, but listening to the podcast, I just got frustrated that they didn't bring up stuff that *I* thought was shitty. I didn't really enjoy this episode, mostly because I think they missed exactly what made this movie SO terrible (lack of drama/stakes) and got sidetracked with peripheral material way too often. And I've felt similarly disappointed when listening to episodes featuring movies I've seen.

     

    But when I haven't seen the movie they're discussing, it's fun to try to picture what they're talking about in my head, and because we hear how ludicrous it is, it gets even wilder in my imagination. So I definitely enjoy episodes more when I go in blind.

     

    Do you all prefer episodes featuring movies you've seen or movies you haven't seen?

     

    Yeah, the few times I've watched the movie in advance, I've regretted it, because I'll come to the podcast thinking about all these things that bugged me instead of just enjoying the episode. What's great about the show is the chemistry and the energy between the hosts (and their guest). Watching the movie almost distracts me from that.

  5. Posted

     

    In other words, damn, it hurts having to pwn you so hard, feel free to be quiet and disappear at any time, before you embarrass yourself again.

     

    I don't appreciate the way Shariq Torres made his argument, but I hope we can all agree that both Houses of Congress are woefully lacking in diversity. In the Senate, you've pointed out Cowan, Scott, and Hirono, and there's also Cruz and Rubio. That's only 5 people of color, and I believe there are only 21 women.

     

    The House of Representatives is a little bit better, but not by much! Take a look at this infographic on the Huffington Post, if you're interested.

  6. Posted

     

    But we won't get there if people like you keep on denying the reality about what is happening.

     

    I'm not denying anything. I'm trying to emphasize the nuances and the subtleties of the American political-economic system. I would like to understand how racism starts, what purpose it serves, and how it keeps going.

     

    Privilege isn't as simple as the way you put it. Discrimination and privilege are not mutually exclusive! A person can face racism regularly and still have privilege. Dr. Gates and Chris Rock both demonstrate that. Yes, Dr. Gates was wrongfully arrested, and that's horrible. But, how many homeless, poor, and middle class black men are harassed, wrongfully arrested, or brutalized by racist cops every day? Their stories won't make the news, and the charges against them won't be dropped. They won't be invited for a beer at the White House, and they won't get to tell their stories on Oprah. His privilege (afforded by prestige, prominence, connections, fame, and wealth) allowed Dr. Gates those opportunities. Chris Rock can't buy racism or sexism away, but he can put his daughters through the finest schools and still set them up with nice trust funds, and that is privilege.

     

    I'm not denying that the Rockefellers and Appalachian "hillbillies" aren't both racist! I'm denying, absolutely, that they would see each other as peers! They don't respect each other for being white, they have contempt for the other!

     

    And, back to my original point: the Rockefellers (along with the Morgans) were actually "in charge" for a large part of the 19th and 20th centuries. Poor whites in Appalachia were not. What's objectionable to you about that distinction?

     

    The "working class hero" is propaganda that seeks to convince white working class men to accept their lot in life nobly, giving them the idea that they've got something to protect. It's the same exact message as what Jane Marie asserted on this episode: white people in charge. It's wrong.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    I'm not Andrew's biggest fan, but I really don't think he's racist. I suspect he probably just thinks about race/racism way too much for the good of his mental and emotional health, and it comes across that he's exasperated and burned out. Then, sometimes he'll groan and say, "Fuckin' white people, they're the worst." It's not helpful, to say the least, but, given the time the man spends thinking about racism in America, it's a pretty mild reaction.

     

    But, he seems to treat all his guests with respect and kindness, and, at his very best, he's thoughtful, measured, funny, and offers really good insight.

  9. Posted

     

    But white people are in charge. The judges, the police force, business leaders, politicians are overwhelmingly white and have been for 98% of this country's history.

     

    Let’s not confuse the babysitters for the parents.

     

     

    I don't its wrong to gloss over that and not take that into consideration when talking about the power structure in the country. Pointing that out does not perpetuate racism. What keeps racism going is the myth of white superiority that is told to other white people in this country, subtly and overtly, through various mediums/mechanisms/systems.

     

    Exactly. Part of that mythology is to say that America and its values belong to white people. Or, put another way, "white people are in charge." A disapproving tone doesn't change the overall effect. And it's not accurate, anyway, if you really mean "in charge," and not just "privileged with a little power."

     

     

    The reason poor whites don't band together with poor blacks is because those poor white have the ability to access the wider mainstream and be successful in it.

     

    You're severely overestimating the upward mobility of white people in poverty. And, anyway, poor white people are more likely afraid that poor people of color are going to "steal" the work that's currently available to them than they are to fancy themselves moving into a different tax bracket.

     

    Even so, the opportunity to succeed isn't even privilege, let alone power, is it? That's not something that white people shouldn't have, it's something everyone should have. But, as long as we choose to see things as us-vs-them, we can forget about that happening.

     

     

    That is something that even rich black people lack. Chris Rock said it best in his joke, "There is no white person in this audience who would trade places with me....and I'm rich!"

     

    I don't want to take a comedy routine too literally, no matter how sociologically poignant, but I do think it's safe to say that he has "accessed the mainstream and been successful in it."

     

    By the way, for perspective, at $70M net worth, that puts him only $1.03B short of cracking the Forbes 400. Even supposing he had that, wealthy individuals don't hold the same power as wealthy families with powerful corporate and political connections (e.g., the Kochs, the Waltons, et al.), so not even being "rich" means being "in charge."

     

     

    There are many spaces in society where black people will never belong, no matter how much money they make (for example, the Henry Louis Gates incident).

     

    Dr. Gates has taught at some of the most prominent universities in the country for decades, and at Harvard for over 20 years. He's received dozens of accolades and honors, published quite a few books, and reached a level of fame higher than most academics even think about. He is extremely successful, and seems to have been accepted, embraced, and even celebrated by his academic peers. He sat down to a beer with the officer who harassed him (oh, and the President and VP of the US), and seemed to leave it on friendly terms.

     

     

    That access is powerful and will help a poor white person get to a middle class white person. The other power players in society -- other white men, but it is increasingly adding white women -- will look upon that white person as a peer. They will see themselves in that other white person and relate to them better than an Asian woman or a black lesbian.

     

    You're either underestimating socioeconomic division, or overestimating the notion of white solidarity, but people don't reach across class lines that readily, and the wealthy don't tend to see the poor as "peers."

     

     

    Even in their status as poor whites, they still have the a major political party and political movement telling them that they are the salt of the earth and the true backbone of the nation. For every type of white person in this nation there is a story, a narrative, to make them feel good. For every type of black person in this nation, there is a story to tell you how much you are not worth anything. If you're poor, then you're "ghetto". if you are rich, then you're "uppity'.

     

    Political pandering and feel-good narratives do not constitute being in charge, though!

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    American history starts with the genocide of indigenous people and the most shameful system of slavery ever conceived, and progress has been slow but not steady. If and when white people in the U.S. today face prejudice for being white, it's usually interpersonal, not systemic, and it's usually unfair instead of unjust.

     

    It's also true that white people have privileges for being white, but privilege is not the same as being in charge. The idea that white people, in general, are in charge is wrong, for one thing, and, worse, the kind of thinking that perpetuates racism. It's a sleight of hand trick that the rich and powerful learned when unity between black slaves and white indentured servants was posing a potential threat to their wealth and power.

     

    We are all well aware of the perverse wealth inequality in the U.S. Most white people--even if they face no discrimination based on gender or orientation, even if they've benefitted from white privilege--have very little real power in their own lives, let alone the lives of others. Very many live paycheck-to-paycheck. Very few have the power to affect change on a large scale. The suggestion that these same people are "in charge" is ludicrous.

     

    Poor and lower-middle-class whites lack economic and social stability, which creates anxiety. That anxiety, the fear they have something to lose, is very real, and very profoundly felt. If it is accepted that "white people are in charge," that distorts the perception of what they have to lose and who poses a threat. So, there is no focus on the people who are in charge, the "white-collar" crimes they commit, or the system that serves the consolidation of wealth and political power for only a very few. Instead, they focus their resentment on their nonwhite socioeconomic peers, with whom they compete for underpaid jobs that offer little security.

     

    I agree that the racial prejudice that white people experience in the U.S. is fundamentally different in kind from the racism nonwhite people experience. I agree that white people receive privileges that nonwhite people don't. And I think it is appropriate and necessary to emphasize the asymmetrical nature of racism in America. But, I suspect that the statement that "white people are in charge," aside from being wrong and unnecessarily sensationalist, ultimately serves the system of inequality that perpetuates racism.

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    And the fact that the primary conflict turned out to be boredom, lack of video games, and inability to defrost dinner-- there's a lot there and I can see the character returning.

     

    Well…there's also the fact that Todd was either abandoned or kidnapped (or both). And he's being locked up in his uncle's house. He's being denied education and socialization. And his diet consists strictly of grounded meat. And he's being forced, by way of corporal punishment, to watch a rape. And he's rewarded for racism. Also, he kinda sexually assaulted another kid.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    but there's no effort at being a teenager

     

    I don't think that's fair. She has all these quirky, teenaged contradictions: she freaks out about sex even while she brings it up, she's super confident and also insecure, she's unexpectedly mature in some ways and woefully immature in others. Besides that, she's inappropriately loud, easily excited, and her voice has a teenage energy.

     

    Part of the depth of her character is that she's unlike most teenagers. She doesn't get along with them or talk like them, and she's not interested in the same things.

     

    Just find what teen girls watch and read or say

     

    I do get what you're talking about, but stuff like that wouldn't sharpen the character…it would be a different character.

    • Like 5

  19. Posted

    Speaking of Wompler, she should do what Lapkus obviously did and hang out with a 16 year old for a couple of hours to really sharpen her character - wompler is funny, but obviously 30 something!

     

    Marissa Wompler doesn't talk like an average 16 year old because she's absolutely not an average 16 year old. She's a precocious weirdo. That's why she's such a great character!

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    The more this movie works itself around my mind, the more convinced I become that it's some kind of dismal, surrealist self-portrait in three parts, some absurdist, coke-addled cry for help.

     

    Dan Aykroyd plays a shell of a man, glory days behind him, whose egomania and enablers support his horrible decisions. He also plays a giant, overgrown baby-man.

     

    Chevy Chase plays a rich, arrogant prick who will do literally anything to get with a beautiful woman while scoffing at poor people and laws from the driver's seat of his BMW. His survival is inexplicable.

     

    John Candy plays a put-upon lackey who wants to do right, but ultimately sells out (he serves the J.P. for promise of inheritance, and helps the Brazilianaires escape for the promise of fortune). He also plays a voiceless woman who is undesirable because she's fat.

     

    This is the only way the movie, or its existence, even makes sense to me.

×