EPISODE 191 — Drizzle, No Apologies

[freshy 154]

I was talking about this very thing with friends the night this episode went out.

 

Don't have much to add that hasn't been said, but this particular Sun Kil Moon example has an additional wrinkle.

 

http://uproxx.com/music/2015/06/sun-kil-moon-pitchfork-review/

 

It appears apology culture has started to inform art criticism.

[FaceLikeThunder 2114]

Loved most of the episode, but as is forum tradition, I have come to argue about Matt's rant near the end of the episode.

 

I really cannot understand how on earth Matt considers "but it's just their personality! He was just joking! You can't get mad at someone if it's just their personality!" a valid defense for saying something disgusting or hateful, as if that makes it immune from criticism. Every time a prominent personality says something shitty, do we just have to ignore it because "it's just the way they are?" A Nobel Laureate just resigned over some fucking terrible comments he made about female scientists in a speech. Imagine a scientist that works with him comes out and says "That's just his personality! He was raised in a time where women did not work alongside men, so its not his fault He was just kidding!" Does that make what he said OK?

 

We have heard you on this very podcast kick someone out of a show for calling another audience member a faggot. According to your logic, that was unfair. For all we know, he was just kidding! It was just his personality! In real life he loves gay people and treats them equally! He called them a faggot as a joke!

 

What Mark did to a women WHO JUST WANTED TO INTERVIEW HIM OVER EMAIL was clearly over the line. Singing "she totally wants to fuck me” and “get in line, bitch" on stage and saying things like "I’m the best person you never met and one day, if you ever meet me, you’ll probably want to have my baby" is scumbag misogynist behavior. No one is preventing you from continuing to support him and no one is stopping Mark from saying it. However, that does not give you the right to tell other people that they can't be offended and that they don't have the right to criticize him for saying that shit.

 

That whole rant reminded me of what's going on near my hometown now. Snoop Dogg was recently in Truro filming for Trailer Park Boys, at one point during an interview with CBC he comments on one of the camerawomen, says he can't concentrate because of the thick camera operator, says "look at the shitter on that quitter" to Bubbles. (Her name is Stephanie Clattenburg, and she is married to the creator of the show)

She went on CBC later and said she was very embarrassed and very belittled. It's hard to defend Snoop commenting on a woman's butt while she was right there, but isn't a certain part of you expecting some sort of behaviour like that? I'm sure if you looked into his lyrics you'd find he probably refers to women as bitches rather than women. Plus, what he said to her could be construed more as a compliment.

[souprman 10477]

digging the i3h 'sodes lately.

[FaceLikeThunder 2114]

digging the i3h 'sodes lately.

 

I 2nd that Soupman. I had some quality giggles in this ep.

[souprman 10477]

 

I 2nd that Soupman. I had some quality giggles in this ep.

thanks & how dare you?

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

Another thing I haven't seen talked about yet--Matt and Mookie's argument that it's better to just passively not consume stuff you don't like instead of publicly condemning it is total bullshit. They use the example of a comedian doing just straight up rape jokes all the time, saying he'll develop a reputation for it, audiences won't go to his shows, and clubs will stop booking him. But he'll never develop that negative reputation if no one calls him out on it. Russell Peters the all-stereotypes comedian is an incredibly successful multimillionaire. Jeff Dunham and his horrible racist puppets broke ratings records for Comedy Central. You can't trust in a passive public reaction to quietly get rid of problems as intractable as sexism or racism. If you want people to stop being misogynist, you have to speak out against misogyny, loudly and wherever you encounter it.

 

It's also straight up sickening to hear Matt compare Johnny Rotten spitting on the audience to Kozelek's shtick. Rotten's whole deal was about defying conventions and challenging authority, that's why it was compelling. There's absolutely nothing unconventional or rebellious about a man using sexual insults to shame a woman he doesn't like. That kind of shit is in the Bible.

 

Last thing: people are mad about the hate being directed at Kozelek, but he's a relatively famous musician who's been literally asking people to pay money to listen to him for over 25 years. He should know by now that if he says terrible shit onstage it's going to blow back on him. Can you imagine what this situation has been like for Snapes? Before this she was an anonymous nobody doing her job, and then Kozelek basically told his fans to hate her. Famous comedians are shitting on her because she objected to being called a bitch. Imagine what her inbox and twitter mentions and so on are like now compared to a few weeks ago.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

They use the example of a comedian doing just straight up rape jokes all the time, saying he'll develop a reputation for it, audiences won't go to his shows, and clubs will stop booking him. But he'll never develop that negative reputation if no one calls him out on it.

 

I have to agree with this. There are enough people out there that support terrible people (see also; terrorism) that if civilized culture doesn't call them out on it they do get away with it. Now, taking things out of context and attacking people for one-off comments or statements is one thing. Continuing to let them get away with nonstop bad behavior because 'the market will sort it out' is another.

[souprman 10477]

TLDR to all of this.

 

I have to agree with this. There are enough people out there that support terrible people (see also; terrorism) that if civilized culture doesn't call them out on it they do get away with it. Now, taking things out of context and attacking people for one-off comments or statements is one thing. Continuing to let them get away with nonstop bad behavior because 'the market will sort it out' is another.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_9zH9Q44o

 

I was SO waiting for this and YOU DID NOT DISAPPOINT!! HA HA HA HA HA HA! DELIGHTFUL!!!!!!!! (if you noticed, I pretty much repeated what PF said just to see if you would call me on my bullshit!) I'm in love with you! Let's run away together!

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

Now, taking things out of context and attacking people for one-off comments or statements is one thing. Continuing to let them get away with nonstop bad behavior because 'the market will sort it out' is another.

And that's a huge difference between the Kozelek situation and Tim Meadows' situation that Matt completely glossed over. For Tim, the "reporter" conflated two different bits and took them out of context to force a narrative on to it to be intentionally misleading. Outrage over Kozelek isn't isolating stuff and taking it out of context. Both the Snapes article and the pitchfork review frame his comments/song as part of a pattern of behavior that he's already infamous for, there's nothing dishonest or misleading about how they're portraying him. We all understand the context, and we still don't think he should get a pass. Kozelek's lying in the bed he's made for himself.

[mattbesser 605]

Case Closed will be recorded on Wed. morning around 11:30am PST

Topic: Is Kozelek a misogynist, and should he be condemned for the Snapes song?

[squoopy doops 157]

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.

 

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 what 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.

[crumbcake 104]

Case Closed will be recorded on Wed. morning around 11:30am PST

Topic: Is Kozelek a misogynist, and should he be condemned for the Snapes song?

 

If you need any more voices in this argument, I'm perfectly willing and available to call in.

[Veegs 59]

 

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.

[squoopy doops 157]

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.

 

Nice!

 

About medical research using animal testing: I don't know enough about the effectiveness of the research or its necessity to have a strong opinion, but I do know that the overwhelming majority of animals killed/used are for food.

 

It definitely can be hard to avoid all animal use (for example, plastic bags use animal fat as a slip agent), but it's definitely worth it to strive to do as much as possible, whatever that may be (in fact, 'as far as is possible and practicable' is included in the definition of veganism).

[Blink 1844]

I think I'd freeze up and go into people-pleasing mode if I got on one of my favorite podcasts to disagree with people I respect.

 

I'd also have to skip that part because I hate my voice.

[Veegs 59]

Hate to disappoint everyone, but I probably won't be able to call in for your least favorite segment. But I feel like I've still gotten a lot of my key points out on Thursday, so hope it goes well for those that to get to call in and I look forward to listening.

[souprman 10477]

I think I'd freeze up and go into people-pleasing mode if I got on one of my favorite podcasts to disagree with people I respect.

 

I'd also have to skip that part because I hate my voice.

Hate to disappoint everyone, but I probably won't be able to call in for your least favorite segment. But I feel like I've still gotten a lot of my key points out on Thursday, so hope it goes well for those that to get to call in and I look forward to listening.

you're both fired.

[FaceLikeThunder 2114]

thanks & how dare you?

 

I'll second any statement I damn well want!

[souprman 10477]

 

I'll second any statement I damn well want!

respect the r.

 

please.

[Blink 1844]

respect the r.

 

please.

 

Nope!

 

(look closely at this post)

[souprman 10477]

 

Nope!

 

(look closely at this post)

what's supposed to happen?

 

edit> wait i wasn't even replying to you.... are you trying to start some mischief?

[souprman 10477]

HOW DAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEE.........

[souprman 10477]

Case Closed will be recorded on Wed. morning around 11:30am PST

Topic: Is Kozelek a misogynist, and should he be condemned for the Snapes song?

Is Thomas going to contact people? Trying to find out how to call in. Thanks.

[FaceLikeThunder 2114]

respect the r.

 

please.

 

I calls 'em as Scotty reads 'em