EPISODE 191 — Drizzle, No Apologies

[souprman 10477]

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.

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.

[Veegs 59]

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".

[souprman 10477]

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.

[Veegs 59]

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?

[Noah 89]

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.

Very easy to say that from a position of privilege. You might as well have written "I'm straight white guy and words like faggot, nigger, and bitch don't hurt MY feelings, why should they hurt anyone elses?"

[souprman 10477]

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".

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?

[souprman 10477]

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?

Very easy to say that from a position of privilege. You might as well have written "I'm straight white guy and words like faggot, nigger, and bitch don't hurt MY feelings, why should they hurt anyone elses?"

that's funny stuff kids. you don't know me.

[souprman 10477]

[mattbesser 605]

as they say in Hotwives season one, maybe everybody should "calm down". I think everybody made their point.

 

However, I will open up the Case Closed Octogon if anyone wants to step in next recording.

But I won't participate.

[crumbcake 104]

Thing is, when War on Drugs pissed him off, he sang a song about them sucking his dick. When this journalist bothered him, he sang a song about her fucking him. I imagine other conflicts have resolved similarly. There doesn't seem to be enough thought behind it for it to be homophobia or misogyny, just kinda seems like an immature response to people he doesn't like. I agree sexually based insults are pretty indefensible, but it seems strange to be offended in two different by him doing the same thing to two different groups.

 

I liked Stephanie's point about getting as annoyed over praise being given for the wrong reason - i.e. this woman was funny, what a feminist! This guy was mean to a girl, what a misogynist! I also agree that Besser's "That's just who they are, how can we hold them accountable?" argument is a crappy argument. In this one situation, however, it makes sense. I think that's the difference between what he did and the Nobel Laureate saying women should have separate labs because men and women can't work together without distraction. Comparing a (indie-ish, right?) musician having a hissy fit to a prominent member of a scientific community admitting he lets gender bias who he works with seems like a giant incongruence. The scientist's opinions might keep women who could and want to do good, prestigious work from having the opportunity. The musician who doesn't do interviews and has a history of improvising mean songs improvising a shitty song about about this journalist will... keep her from interviewing him in the future?

[crumbcake 104]

Goddammit, did I really have my comment miss getting read by Matt by seconds?

[souprman 10477]

as they say in Hotwives season one, maybe everybody should "calm down". I think everybody made their point.

 

However, I will open up the Case Closed Octogon if anyone wants to step in next recording.

But I won't participate.

i'm in.

[Blink 1844]

I'm not going to weigh in on the PC stuff, but I think all of you are wrong

 

What I'm really here for is to point out the annoying background chatter you can hear the entire episode

[Veegs 59]

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?

[Veegs 59]

as they say in Hotwives season one, maybe everybody should "calm down". I think everybody made their point.

 

However, I will open up the Case Closed Octogon if anyone wants to step in next recording.

But I won't participate.

I would also be in

[souprman 10477]

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?

you are adorable. I hope you work it out.

[Veegs 59]

you are adorable. I hope you work it out.

Sorry posted this before I saw Besser came in. If you would like to patronize me some more, I probably should calm down first, and then we can do this another time (doesn't even have to be on the podcast).

[Noah 89]

Very excited to hear this debate on case closed. Last couple times I was disappointed with the quality of debaters but seems like Veegs is a pro. Please don't be a no-show!

[Blink 1844]

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.

[souprman 10477]

Sorry posted this before I saw Besser came in. If you would like to patronize me some more, I probably should calm down first, and then we can do this another time (doesn't even have to be on the podcast).

i can't wait!

[Veegs 59]

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.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

Y'all motherfuckers need to get some profile pics because I can't tell people apart.

[Big Dumb Luke 201]

Y'all motherfuckers need to get some profile pics because I can't tell people apart.

 

Please don't use the term motherfucker, you are being incredibly anti-father right now.

 

/snark

 

From my (albeit young, white, male) perspective, I got the impression that Sun Kil Moon was attacking a specific reporter for a specific incident. Do I think he hates all women because of that? Not really. Sure, he wasn't particularly couth in his delivery/word choices, but I don't hear what he said and think he looks down on women as a whole.

 

I don't think that the use of the word bitch is typically justifiable ... but should there be this level of backlash against every person who has used it disparagingly? Because that would be a shit-ton of people.

[matte 588]

Oof. I didn't get my comment written before Master Blaster stepped in, but I can't help myself...

 

I definitely side with Matt on this one, that there is a major trend of people being quick-to-offend these days. There seem to be people out there looking at the world through “what could be offensive here” glasses, and they set off a chain reaction of offense. ESPECIALLY on the internet.

 

It almost seems like this trend is the flip-side of cyber bullying: while it used to be super common to see a bunch of hate-speech, threats, and insults in the comments sections of articles, now it seems much more common to find people espousing on social justice. People are taking the same opportunities to insult people they don’t know, only now it’s totally acceptable because it’s coming from a moral pedestal.

 

The troubling part isn’t that people are offended; that’s their right or whatever. What sucks is that their offense gets categorized based on which race/gender/etc may have been implicated; suddenly a minor incident is seen in a larger context, just based off of one little detail. Was the Sun Kil Moon song offensive? Definitely, and intentionally so: he was trivializing and insulting this journalist’s harassment of him by throwing some female stereotypes in her face. But there’s not much in the context of the song suggesting that he honestly feels that way about all women.

 

Is Mark Kozelek a misogynist for referencing stereotypes for insult effect? Not necessarily. Is Tim Meadows a racist for referencing stereotypes for comedic effect? Not likely. Is that scientist sexist for referencing stereotypes to keep women from working with men? MUCH MORE LIKELY, so why not save the word for folks like that! And for everyone else, we say they’re being an asshole?

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

I wish Matt had separated out the two stories a bit because I think what happened with Moon appears to be debatable (example, see debate above) but the thing with Tim Meadows is unforgivable. You have someone writing something as 'news' that combined different moments to create a narrative. You can look into what Moon said and take sides, but when you have a comedian doing their thing and you combine those moments and take them out of context to paint them (and create a very dangerous point) in a specific light, that's just wrong.