Enjoyment as political factor - Slavoij Zizek

[NinaBrooke]

Due to recent events i came across an article by Zizek that i found very interesting and thought i`d share. I tried to make an argument against a group of people that make all sorts of crude jokes in the internet (racist, antisemitic and rape jokes) and some of them see it as a limitation of free speech when you try to explain to them that some jokes are simply promoting hate rather than fun.

I personally think that if you take the time to gather in the internet and make "rape jokes" there must be something inside humans that trigger them to find that "laughable". There must be a common denominator of an intrinsic hate or "yes yes- its a gentleman`s crime" if you think its fun to make such jokes. I was argumenting with the notion that the pure fact some things are made jokes off and others are not , are promoting second class citizenship and make it harder for minorities and people in bad situations to be taken serious.

I wonder what you guys think. Am i "interrupting free speech" (of course i went into the beehive and protested against it - typical Nina , there are only people gathering that make such jokes and i tried to argue them out of doing so - in a polite way) . I went into the "beehive" because this group is participating in an internet organization that i really do like and someone founded a subgroup with that content i stumbled across. Some people are really polite in discussions and its interesting. What do you guys think? Are there some jokes that are "too much" or am i overreacting?

Here is an interesting article i used to point out my take on it, its called enjoyment as a political factor which basically holds the notion that "if you find it funny then there is a subliminal hate within that group of people that finds such jokes funny", because what triggers the laughter? My question is - how far can we go in jokes about other ethnicities and prejudices? Am i rigid or am i just more aware or how to find a consense between the outrage that i feel when i read jokes like "How to rape a blind and deaf woman - you break her hands so she can`t tell her mum" and between jokes that are not as severe, but still pointing in a similar direction? .

Here is a quote:
"We are dealing with what I am tempted to call a kind of canned hatred. In the same way that the TV set laughs for you, relieves you of the obligation to really laugh, [a Nazi like] Eichmann himself didn't really have to hate the Jews; he was able to be just an ordinary person. It's the objective ideological machinery that did the hating; the hatred was "out there.With the disintegration of state socialism, we are witnessing this eruption of enjoymnet in the re-emergence of aggressive nationalism and racism.
With the lid of repression lifted, the desires that have emerged are far from democratic. To explain this apparent paradox, says Slavoj Zizek, socialist critical thought must turn to psychoanalysis. For They Know Not What They Do seeks to understand the status of enjoyment within ideological discourse,"
- Slavoij Zizek"

here is a full excerpt of his book. I hope to trigger some fruitful discussions about boundaries and how far is too far, and i hope this topic is not too "serious" either.
Love Nina Sastri

http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm

[Tiffani Jameson]

Canned hatred is right. It's called ignorance. Ignorance is the reason they laugh at jokes like these.

I think it's indicative of either one of two things, Nina. Either the jokes don't apply to them, or they have no direct experience with those it does apply to. For most women, joking about being violated is NOT funny. To men who have known someone who was raped it's not funny either, because they know that no part of it is funny. Even the human part of putting yourself in danger by not making wise choices is nothing to be laughed at or mocked. Usually when people make fun of things like rape and escorts, it's because they feel like one puts herself in a position to be ridiculed. There is no innocence. It's her fault, or with escorts, if she can't handle the criticism that comes with the job, she should quit. But with most humans usually when the tables are turned on something that pertains to them, they don't think it's funny.

As far as race jokes (especially Black jokes as they pertain to me), they can be funny as they can be based on truth. I will be the first to tell you that some stereotypes are true, but of course not true to everyone. It's what you do to change them that matters.

I don't think there is a re-emergence of anything in a political scope as I feel that ignorance has always been here and never stopped existing. It's form is just lagging behind the content (yeah, I'd never think I would find myself agreeing with Zizeck on a direct level). I do think it's their right to say what they want. They are doing it on the internet. It gives them a platform of anonymity. Most are doing it because they don't have the balls to say it out loud or make fun of rape victims, people of different races, or escorts to their faces because then they wouldn't have the room to talk about someone else.

As far as the cruel joke about the blind girl, I get the reason why it's supposed to be funny, and as a mother and a woman I find it heinous. I'm pretty sure anyone who has, knows, or works with blind or deaf children wouldn't find it funny either.

God, I've missed you woman....

[Snuggles]

everyone (in a free country) has free speech. That part everyone has down. The parts that ppl dont understand at times is.
1: you can speak but nobody has to listen
2: speech has conceqinces. what you say may get a response either favorable or critical. In many dif ways from verbal response, social response such as shunning, boycott, disassociation, praise, cheers, or even indiffernece. You responding to what someone says with your own free speech isnt interrupting. While talking over someone can be rude, you have not stopped that person from speaking.
3: free speech has accountability: you can be held civilly/criminally liable for slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater. lying in court...etc..if you damage or infringe on the rights of others.

just my fast 2 cents

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Due to recent events i came across an article by Zizek that i found very interesting and thought i`d share. I tried to make an argument against a group of people that make all sorts of crude jokes in the internet (racist, antisemitic and rape jokes) and some of them see it as a limitation of free speech when you try to explain to them that some jokes are simply promoting hate rather than fun.

Hate is part of the human condition and very subjective. To be brief, you have every right to display your displeasure but I would never be for limited speech by law. Either yours or theirs.

Arguing against certain speech is not a limitation of free speech, in fact if you were not allowed to, that would be a limitation on your free speech.

Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

God, I've missed you woman....

And I'm with Tiffani J on this one!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

here is a full excerpt of his book. I hope to trigger some fruitful discussions about boundaries and how far is too far, and i hope this topic is not too "serious" either.
Love Nina Sastri

Personal boundries are one thing, trying to make your personal boundries universal is a lesson in Colonialism.

[NinaBrooke]

Hello Tiffani,

You made some interesting and very thoughtful observations i consider to be accurate. I did not think of these following points and it makes perfect sense:

Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

I think it's indicative of either one of two things, Nina. Either the jokes don't apply to them, or they have no direct experience with those it does apply to. For most women, joking about being violated is NOT funny. To men who have known someone who was raped it's not funny either, because they know that no part of it is funny. Even the human part of putting yourself in danger by not making wise choices is nothing to be laughed at or mocked. Usually when people make fun of things like rape and escorts, it's because they feel like one puts herself in a position to be ridiculed. There is no innocence. It's her fault, or with escorts, if she can't handle the criticism that comes with the job, she should quit. But with most humans usually when the tables are turned on something that pertains to them, they don't think it's funny.

It strikes me as interesting because jokes are made of either two areas, the one is - like you mentioned both of them: You are either very far away from the arena in which the jokes are taken place (holocaust victims, rape victims, sexworkers, people with special needs, and so on and so on), so it does not touch you at all or you are even opposed to these areas. Which is simple to explain by prejudice , mobbing, ridiculing etc. and so on. Thanks for pointing this out to me, i already love the discussion. And - hell yeah, i missed your brilliant intellect as well. (((hug)))

Or the other point is the one i consider much more open to intricacies, misunderstandings and challenging. Its the point you also made, which we in europe call "black humour", which means you are part of the group you yourself make jokes about. Which specifically means for example for black people (call me out if i am wrong) making jokes about black people, for jewish authors making jokes about jewish people, for catholics making jokes about catholicism, and for victims of rape making jokes about victims of rape. Or for surgeons making "surgeons jokes". It is somehow considered political correct, and even books are written by prize winning artists with things like that.

That is the interesting part of the discussion: Do people do that to get rid of some tension (rape victims or victims of abuse laughing about it amongst each other) or do they repeat the pattern of victimization again? I am inclined to think , maybe a little bit of both. What do you guys think?

[NinaBrooke]

hi snuggles,
thank you for that

Originally Posted by Snuggles

everyone (in a free country) has free speech. That part everyone has down. The parts that ppl dont understand at times is.
1: you can speak but nobody has to listen
2: speech has conceqinces. what you say may get a response either favorable or critical.
3: free speech has accountability: you can be held civilly/criminally liable for slander,
just my fast 2 cents

these are very important parts to consider. so i assume , like WTF said earlier already, my approach to limiting their speech is a wrong one, but what you pointed out here, is a way better and more interesting way to deal with it, especially when it comes to legal intricacies bz carrzing responsibilities. That is, what i assume makes the internet so much more intriguing, its much harder (not anymore) to be made responsible. That also explains why so many escorts are "stalked" anonymously, outed secretely with fake webmails and such things. If you are a lunatic, at least you don`t have to look yourself in the face and get credit for it :-).
so , to be precise, the way of "doing harm" is not reciprocative, only one person (the one who gets mobbed, ridiculed, joked about) receives the pleasure of taking responsibility.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by WTF

Personal boundries are one thing, trying to make your personal boundries universal is a lesson in Colonialism.

True too, or state boundaries or - as pointed out - legal conflicts. (of course - that is after colonialism has already shaped the two former areas ;-))) ....lol)

[surcher]

Jokes about things like rape and racial jokes come down to context. George Carlin has discussed this and here's a bit he did on it. The entire bit it below.

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

Ohhh, some people don't like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things.
You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk.
Tell you what you can't talk about. Well, sometimes they'll say, well you can talk about something but you can't joke about it.
Say you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time.
Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny."
I say, "fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?"
I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.
See, hey why do you think they call him "Porky," eh? I know what you're going to say.
"Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky.
Porky couldn't help himself, he got a hard- on, he got horney, he lost control, he went out of his mind."
A lot of men talk like that. A lot of men think that way. They think it's the woman's fault.
They like to blame the rape on the woman. Say, "she had it coming, she was wearing a short skirt."
These guys think women ought to go to prison for being cock teasers. Don't seem fair to me.
Don't seem right, but you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything.
It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is.
Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.
Give you an example. Did you ever see a news story like this in the paper?
Every now and then you run into a story, says, "some guy broke into a house, stole a lot of things, and while he was in there, he raped an 81 year old woman."
And I'm thinking to myself, "WHY??? What the fuck kind of a social life does this guy have?"
I want to say, "why did you do that?" "Well she was coming on to me. We were dancing and I got horney.
Hey, she was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe." I'll say, "Jesus Christ, be a little fucking selective next time will you?"



Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/george...#ixzz1WqZ9JTDD
LetsSingIt - Your favorite Music Community