Spoilers The Flash - Season 6

[Guy Gardener]

He's just doing edgelord humor. Literally the same thing James Gunn did. That's why they call it edgy and dirty and offensive. It's suppose to be. Just go watch some stand up comedy, especially in the past. They do stuff that made that stuff look tame.

Jason

The world changed.

 

[Jayson1]

The world changed.

Or it's reverting back. Lenny Bruce and George Carlin pretty much experienced this kind of stuff before. Christians were always trying to turn America into some wholesome Norman Rockwell painting. People are always trying to turn humans into something we aren't and that is saints.

Jason

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's different.

Lenny was told not to be funny by a dozen boring old white christian men.

These days it's 3 billion women insisting the jokes about rape stop, and a billion black people saying that jokes about water melon will no longer be tolerated, and 5 billion LGBTQ putting a nix on all jokes about sodomy and crossdressing.

It's called democracy.

 

[KennyB]

It's called democracy.

Or progress

 

[Kirk Prime]

The available facts, beyond the tweets, are scarce. But the biggest difference I see, this early, is Gunn had people stand up for him immediately while Sawyer does not appear to have such support. Meaning? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps a sign there is more than just the tweets.

Fair point, but it also could be as simple as Sawyer not being able to help the actors make money. Let's not pretend Hollywood has a moral high horse--these are the same people that honor rapist Roman Polanski.

Gunn is a director that can make them money. My guess is that they aren't friends--they are co-workers, and there is no loyalty at all. It would also take more guts to stand up for Sawyer and say, "despite those tweets, he's not like that." Of course, maybe he IS like that, but I doubt he lasts that long if that were true.

IMO, some humor should be off limits if they are hurtful or offensive. For example, saying something racist is not bad if it is serious but totally ok if it is a joke. Racism should always be wrong. And I would hope that people would use common sense before making jokes. Yes, joking and humor can be good things but we should still think before we make a joke and ask ourselves if the joke is in good taste or not. For example, I would never make a joke about Hitler being a great guy, not even for shock value, because I understand how such a joke would be in very poor taste and very offensive..

I can't fault you for this opinion. It's your choice. But here's the thing--who decides? What if I find something offensive but you find it funny? Sometimes racist humor actually drives home the point of how stupid racism is. Think about Blazing Saddles. That's one of the funniest movies ever made. The racism in those movies were so outlandish and the racists were made to look so stupid that anyone who gets offended looks more stupid.

Archie Bunker was an amazing TV character. His comments were made out of ignorance, but even black people on the show found him more amusing than bad. Today, he might be vilified, but humor can drive home a point in ways even a protest cannot. Good Times was another example of that.

I don't consider Sawyer's tweets to be like that, but given the length of time, it seems more like a witch hunt/chance to show how "non-racist" they are, rather than a punishment fitting a crime. He was wrong, no doubt. But I don't know if this is fireable.

As far as I can tell, the actor posted the tweets before getting hired as Elongated Man and had actually deleted the tweets. So TPTB probably did not know about the tweets when they hired him. But folks had screenshots of the tweets and that is how TPTB found out. Sawyer claims the tweets were just jokes. If Sawyer really is a nice guy who is not misogynist, then yeah, it sucks that he got fired and yeah, his co-workers should probably defend him. But I think TPTB don't want to risk the bad PR now that the tweets are public. Unfortunately, very poor decisions when you are younger, like tweeting offensive jokes or putting on black face, can have serious consequences even many years later.

What does that say about TPTB's character and the character of their co-workers?

He knows who he is. Sometimes these crusades turn the wrong people into victims. You don't go after a fly with a flamethrower.

Plus, where do you draw the line? If you can't do humor that offends someone, then soon there will be no humor.

They're different shows with different storylines and different creative teams. They're also different categories of character, lead and supporting. It would be illogical to expect the same outcome from two such different situations. Each show's team should make the best decision for its show. Someone else's show is someone else's responsibility, not theirs.

You're quite right. It's illegitimate to say that hurtful comments are somehow not hurtful if the person who says them thinks they're funny. If someone thinks it's funny to cause someone else hurt or to demean them for their identity, that is exactly what they are doing wrong, so it's bizarre to claim that somehow makes it okay.

When I was a kid in school, the bullies thought it was hilarious to torment me, to demean me, to make me feel hated and worthless and afraid. They thought it was a terrific joke. But I was traumatized for life. Thinking it's funny to be hurtful does not make it harmless.

Now, Sawyer has shown signs of understanding. He hasn't used "it was just a joke" as an excuse to say he didn't do anything wrong. He's accepted that it was wrong and harmful, he's apologized, and he literally said "Thank you for holding me accountable." So he understands why they let him go and he agrees with the decision. Still, the fact that he ever thought such jokes were okay to voice in public, where their targets could see them and be hurt by them, is not an easy thing to excuse. It's something he appears willing to work to redeem himself for, but part of redemption is accepting consequences and making amends. Lots of people before Sawyer have resigned from their jobs once inappropriate comments they made in the past have come to light. It's a way of doing penance, and the fact that he accepts it rather than resisting it is a good start.

But does the punishment fit the crime? I think that's the bigger issue here--as opposed to "it was just a joke." This happened years ago. He deleted them, which shows he knew they were wrong.

There's that famous saying, "to err is human, to forgive is divine." The people on their high horse should learn that.

Like I said, Sawyer himself accepts it as justified and has already apologized, which pretty much settles the debate. No point arguing it's excessive when he has literally thanked them for it.

Lots of other people have resigned from their jobs when past statements like this have come to light. It's not ridiculous, it's a way of taking responsibility and making amends. Too many people in today's society reject the idea of responsibility and just try to dodge and deny and make excuses. That's how we got into the current mess.

There's also the question of the people he'd have to work with if he stayed on the show. Eric Wallace and Grant Gustin have both said in their statements that they were very angry when they learned of Sawyer's tweets. How can you ask Wallace and Jesse L. Martin and Candice Patton and Danielle Nicolet to just quietly accept working with someone who thought it was funny to demean their race? It's unfair to expect that of them, especially with all that's going on in the country right now.

I think that they should be professional enough to look at how he behaved with them, reflect on their own lives and see if they ever made a racial judgement or joke based on another race, see if they are perfect people, and learn to forgive. It was years ago.

Like with James Gunn, I don't think Hartley should be fired for tweets he made 8 years ago. It's a chance to take responsibility, apologize to his fans/audience and learn from it. "Canceling" people doesn't seem like a productive exercise.

And it can happen to anyone.

If they actually have done so. The fact that his colleagues and friends -- including a black showrunner and costars -- had to learn about it this way, that he kept it hidden from them all these years, makes it questionable to claim that he's learned anything other than how to conceal it. Nobody is automatically entitled to be forgiven for bigoted words or actions. They have to prove they've earned it.

Why would something so irrelevant come up in any conversation? Think about that--do you remember your tweets from 8 years ago? Do you remember every goofy joke you made?

It's different.

Lenny was told not to be funny by a dozen boring old white christian men.

These days it's 3 billion women insisting the jokes about rape stop, and a billion black people saying that jokes about water melon will no longer be tolerated, and 5 billion LGBTQ putting a nix on all jokes about sodomy and crossdressing.

It's called democracy.

That's not democracy. That's mob rule and censorship.

 

[valkyrie013]

100% correct.. its mob rule.. if you did actual democracy, took a poll of people.. well maybe not during this era of race riots.. and you'll find that no.. he should not be fired, he should applogize, and he did, and he already deleted his tweets long ago it seems.. knowing that they were wrong.. but the internet lives forever.. and some jerk decided to earn some brownie points with the twitter mob to cancel some guy who said something 8 years ago.. ugh...

and what really irks me.. his coworkers.. freinds as it were.. throw him under the bus.. thats complete crap..
Don't support "Cancel Culture" .. you might be next!

 

[Romulan_spy]

I can't fault you for this opinion. It's your choice. But here's the thing--who decides? What if I find something offensive but you find it funny?

In many cases, I think the target of the joke gets to decide. The person telling the joke should be sensitive to the person who is the target of the joke. Their feelings matter. I don't get to just say whatever I want because I think it is ok. That's selfish. And I don't get to hide behind the "it was just a joke" defense to give me a pass to be hurtful to others. And I think this should apply to everybody. Women get to decide if a joke is misogynist or not. Minorities get to decide if a joke is racist or not. And rural conservatives get to decide if a "redneck joke" or a "Trump joke" is offensive to them or not.

Ultimately, I would hope people would just use some common sense and be sensitive to how others might take their comments or jokes. We should always try to treat others with the respect and dignity they deserve. And we should always try to think before we speak or tweet.

In other cases, society as a whole decides. We decide by expressing our opinions or protesting. But more importantly, we decide through how we spend our money. If enough people boycott a certain show or movie, then the producers of that show or movie will have to stop. And when advertisers start pulling out, the network execs take notice because of the loss of revenue. We've seen this happen with several TV shows. In fact, it might be one of the reasons why the Berlanti Company fired Sawyer. Even if they were ok with forgiving Sawyer and his co-workers also accepted his apology as well, if advertisers pulled their ads then the show would lose a ton of money.

Sometimes racist humor actually drives home the point of how stupid racism is. Think about Blazing Saddles. That's one of the funniest movies ever made. The racism in those movies were so outlandish and the racists were made to look so stupid that anyone who gets offended looks more stupid.

Archie Bunker was an amazing TV character. His comments were made out of ignorance, but even black people on the show found him more amusing than bad. Today, he might be vilified, but humor can drive home a point in ways even a protest cannot. Good Times was another example of that.

Societal views on racism, misogyny, homophobia etc have evolved over time. What was more acceptable or tolerated in the past, is no longer acceptable or tolerated now. So a character like Archie Bunker might have been acceptable on TV back then, but might be completely unacceptable today. And yes, context matters. So, if you are making a parody like Blazing Saddles that ridicules racism, the racism in the movie is "ok" because it is serving a useful purpose of criticizing racism. And of course, we don't fault historical documentaries for showing racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc. because they are merely presenting what happened in the past for educational purposes. But there is a big difference being mocking racism or showing historical racism and being racist.

At the end of the day, some conservatives seem to think it is unfair that society does not approve anymore of what they still think is acceptable. It is what it is. Heck, there are some liberals who probably think we have not gone far enough and are frustrated that society still accepts behaviors that they think are offensive.

I don't consider Sawyer's tweets to be like that, but given the length of time, it seems more like a witch hunt/chance to show how "non-racist" they are, rather than a punishment fitting a crime. He was wrong, no doubt. But I don't know if this is fireable.

Considering the CW runs ads about how progressive and tolerant they are, Sawyer's tweets were not compatible with that culture. So it is understandable, why he was fired. Ultimately, private companies get to set their own policies on what is fireable or not.

 

[Guy Gardener]

If Ralph goes, it's silly to keep Sue.

Who ever the new hero is to full the empty slot, they have their own family of supporting characters to draw upon.

Grace Choi on Black Lightning is an Outsiders character from the Judd Winick days. Did not know that. It's also unlikely that she is related to Ryan Choi, who has not been seen since Crisis... But what if they were cousins?

 

[Christopher]

In many cases, I think the target of the joke gets to decide. The person telling the joke should be sensitive to the person who is the target of the joke. Their feelings matter. I don't get to just say whatever I want because I think it is ok. That's selfish. And I don't get to hide behind the "it was just a joke" defense to give me a pass to be hurtful to others. And I think this should apply to everybody. Women get to decide if a joke is misogynist or not. Minorities get to decide if a joke is racist or not. And rural conservatives get to decide if a "redneck joke" or a "Trump joke" is offensive to them or not.

Exactly. What matters is the impact, not the intention. If you didn't intend to drive over someone's foot, that doesn't mean you're entitled to claim they weren't actually hurt. They're more qualified to decide that than you are. Carelessness is not a defense, or an escape from responsibility for the effects your actions have on other people.

In other cases, society as a whole decides. We decide by expressing our opinions or protesting. But more importantly, we decide through how we spend our money. If enough people boycott a certain show or movie, then the producers of that show or movie will have to stop. And when advertisers start pulling out, the network execs take notice because of the loss of revenue. We've seen this happen with several TV shows. In fact, it might be one of the reasons why the Berlanti Company fired Sawyer. Even if they were ok with forgiving Sawyer and his co-workers also accepted his apology as well, if advertisers pulled their ads then the show would lose a ton of money.

It's more than that. The causes of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. in our society are institutional. We can't fix them by pretending it's just about individual choices. The systems have to make a commitment to stop tolerating hurtful and discriminatory behavior in the people they employ, as a statement that it won't be tolerated going forward. Giving one person a pass can open the door to giving worse offenders a pass, and then nothing actually changes. This is not about Hartley Sawyer. This is about the institutions of Berlanti Productions and The CW committing to their principles, sending a message about what their standards are for their employees.

And to those who think that's unfair if someone is penalized for something not so bad, think about the process of recusal. Judges and politicians -- at least ones who care about ethics -- often choose to recuse themselves from involvement in cases where it might be perceived that they have a bias or special interest, even if they actually don't. Just the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest is enough reason for an ethical person to step aside. Their recusal is not about "punishing" them as individuals, it's about preserving the public's faith in the integrity of the system itself. The institution has to hold itself to the highest standards in order to retain the people's trust.

Societal views on racism, misogyny, homophobia etc have evolved over time. What was more acceptable or tolerated in the past, is no longer acceptable or tolerated now. So a character like Archie Bunker might have been acceptable on TV back then, but might be completely unacceptable today.

That doesn't make sense. The whole point of Archie Bunker was that he was wrong. He was the misguided blowhard surrounded by better, more decent people who argued with him and stood up to him, and the show was designed to expose and deconstruct his beliefs for the small-minded follies that they were.

Besides, there's a profound difference between a character expressing unacceptable views for other characters to argue against (how else would you ever have villains and conflicts) and an actor engaging in unacceptable and hurtful behavior. They're not even the same conversation. Many of the most awful villains are played by some of the sweetest, kindest people you'll ever meet, while some of the noblest heroes have turned out to be played by bigoted or abusive creeps. Heck, a ton of Jewish actors have played Nazis, up to and including Hitler. It's not about the character's beliefs or actions. That's not the question at all here.

 

[Romulan_spy]

That doesn't make sense. The whole point of Archie Bunker was that he was wrong. He was the misguided blowhard surrounded by better, more decent people who argued with him and stood up to him, and the show was designed to expose and deconstruct his beliefs for the small-minded follies that they were.

Besides, there's a profound difference between a character expressing unacceptable views for other characters to argue against (how else would you ever have villains and conflicts) and an actor engaging in unacceptable and hurtful behavior. They're not even the same conversation. Many of the most awful villains are played by some of the sweetest, kindest people you'll ever meet, while some of the noblest heroes have turned out to be played by bigoted or abusive creeps. Heck, a ton of Jewish actors have played Nazis, up to and including Hitler. It's not about the character's beliefs or actions. That's not the question at all here.

Oh I agree with all this. There's definitely a difference. I was just trying to reply to @Kirk Prime by pointing out that what society considers funny has changed. So yeah, maybe Archie Bunker might be vilified today because what we consider funny or where we draw the line between funny and offensive has changed.

Case in point, ABC did a live reenactment last year of an episode of "All in the Family" and they added a disclaimer in front of the episode paraphrasing that the episode may contain material considered offensive today and that the audience should bear in mind that the episodes aired at a different time in our culture. So the episode tried to address this issue of how a modern audience might be offended and might not see the episode the same way as it was seen back when it first aired.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

In many cases, I think the target of the joke gets to decide. The person telling the joke should be sensitive to the person who is the target of the joke. Their feelings matter. I don't get to just say whatever I want because I think it is ok. That's selfish. And I don't get to hide behind the "it was just a joke" defense to give me a pass to be hurtful to others. And I think this should apply to everybody. Women get to decide if a joke is misogynist or not. Minorities get to decide if a joke is racist or not. And rural conservatives get to decide if a "redneck joke" or a "Trump joke" is offensive to them or not.

Well, this is obviously not the way to go. Or it should be obvious. So, to give just a few of the reasons why this is in now way a good idea:

- How do those "targets of the joke" can judge whether it is offensive or not before they hear it? You obviously have to tell them the joke before they can even decide whether they are okay with it or not.
- Those targets, women, minorities (which means ethnic minorities, I guess), rural conservatives, they are not a hive mind. These are individuals, and what one woman laughs about, another woman is deeply disturbed by. There is an argument among black people about whether the n-word should be taboo for them, as well. So, do all members of these group have to be in agreement, or does one single individual among them qualify as reason enough for a joke not to be okay?
- Rural conservatives? So, political ideologies get to decide, as well? And about Trump jokes? That has the potential to not just be harmful, but destructive for society, as it would mean the death of satire. And people shouldn't be able to make you shut up, either, as some things are in desperate need to be heard, even if people don't like it. Not to mention that Trump finds any criticism of himself offensive (unless Comedy Central pays him a lot of money to sit there and smile).

Ultimately, I would hope people would just use some common sense and be sensitive to how others might take their comments or jokes. We should always try to treat others with the respect and dignity they deserve. And we should always try to think before we speak or tweet.

Common sense and being sensitive are hard to argue with. But it is also important to remember that we all sometimes say stuff that we don't mean, stuff that we don't know any better, and yes, jokes that sounded funny in our heads but really aren't.

Societal views on racism, misogyny, homophobia etc have evolved over time. What was more acceptable or tolerated in the past, is no longer acceptable or tolerated now. So a character like Archie Bunker might have been acceptable on TV back then, but might be completely unacceptable today. And yes, context matters. So, if you are making a parody like Blazing Saddles that ridicules racism, the racism in the movie is "ok" because it is serving a useful purpose of criticizing racism. And of course, we don't fault historical documentaries for showing racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc. because they are merely presenting what happened in the past for educational purposes. But there is a big difference being mocking racism or showing historical racism and being racist.

At the end of the day, some conservatives seem to think it is unfair that society does not approve anymore of what they still think is acceptable. It is what it is. Heck, there are some liberals who probably think we have not gone far enough and are frustrated that society still accepts behaviors that they think are offensive.

Thing is, characters like Archie Bunker actually helped evolving those societal views. And while we now view racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc, differently than we used to, they obviously still exist in our society. So satire is still very much needed. But it isn't as easy as you describe. Some mocking of racism can be superficially interpreted as racist. Seth McFarlane, South Park, are prime examples of this. Or take the movie "Starship Troopers", which a lot of people didn't recognize as the satire that it is and condemned it for its fascism and militarism. And that are cases where people were honestly mistaken. Remember there are also people who are not honest actors out there who love to use social mechanisms for their own goals.

 

[Kirk Prime]

In many cases, I think the target of the joke gets to decide. The person telling the joke should be sensitive to the person who is the target of the joke. Their feelings matter. I don't get to just say whatever I want because I think it is ok. That's selfish. And I don't get to hide behind the "it was just a joke" defense to give me a pass to be hurtful to others. And I think this should apply to everybody. Women get to decide if a joke is misogynist or not. Minorities get to decide if a joke is racist or not. And rural conservatives get to decide if a "redneck joke" or a "Trump joke" is offensive to them or not.

I think in this case, there is a difference between targeting a specific individual versus a group. I think there's a difference between joking specifically about Fat Timmy in school in a humiliating fashion and a generic joke about fat people.

Think about a few things--by this definition, can you make fun of a president without his permission? Forget which side of the aisle. Should SNL be canceled? What if 100000 women let the joke slide, but 10 get offended? By the above definition, I think it will be very hard to ever find ANY humor that will get by ANY censor.

Shock humor--offensive humor--is still free speech and should remain that way. Freedom of speech must require us to allow for offensive and uncomfortable things to be brought to light.

Ultimately, I would hope people would just use some common sense and be sensitive to how others might take their comments or jokes. We should always try to treat others with the respect and dignity they deserve. And we should always try to think before we speak or tweet.

Likewise, it should be held to a reasonable standard, and should not be restricted based on the views of others. Ultimately, if someone says a joke you don't like, he will find that people aren't laughing. Without the intended effect, the joke dies on its own.

Societal views on racism, misogyny, homophobia etc have evolved over time. What was more acceptable or tolerated in the past, is no longer acceptable or tolerated now. So a character like Archie Bunker might have been acceptable on TV back then, but might be completely unacceptable today. And yes, context matters. So, if you are making a parody like Blazing Saddles that ridicules racism, the racism in the movie is "ok" because it is serving a useful purpose of criticizing racism. And of course, we don't fault historical documentaries for showing racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc. because they are merely presenting what happened in the past for educational purposes. But there is a big difference being mocking racism or showing historical racism and being racist.

And the audience is more than capable of deciding that. Ultimately, I don't think there are writers talented enough to pull off an All In The Family story, but that show absolutely holds up today. It's when you white wash history that you get into trouble.

Considering the CW runs ads about how progressive and tolerant they are, Sawyer's tweets were not compatible with that culture. So it is understandable, why he was fired. Ultimately, private companies get to set their own policies on what is fireable or not.

Ironically, all they have shown is INTOLERANCE. There's a difference between forgiving and condoning. They attacked a fly with a flamethrower here. This man is likely nothing like those jokes from YEARS ago. If he were, it would have come out much sooner. The inability to have a dialogue and give him a chance to face what happened is anything but tolerant.

Exactly. What matters is the impact, not the intention. If you didn't intend to drive over someone's foot, that doesn't mean you're entitled to claim they weren't actually hurt. They're more qualified to decide that than you are. Carelessness is not a defense, or an escape from responsibility for the effects your actions have on other people.

Yeah, but you don't lose your license over an accident. The punishment fits the crime.

That doesn't make sense. The whole point of Archie Bunker was that he was wrong. He was the misguided blowhard surrounded by better, more decent people who argued with him and stood up to him, and the show was designed to expose and deconstruct his beliefs for the small-minded follies that they were.

Even more interesting was that the people that surrounded him weren't always right either. Yes, on racial issues they were, but on other things, they were not. That's one of the things that made the show so great. Archie was wrong on a lot of things, but he wasn't all bad. There was enough good in him to make him likeable. Even most black people liked him on the show. His ignorance on race was a source of amusement. Imagine if his family and friends and employers shut him down because they didn't agree with him.

And today's acceptable comments are tomorrow's unacceptable comments.

 

[valkyrie013]

Well, lets take him.. he made these twits 8 years ago, and even deleted them.. the question is.. what frame of mind was he then, and what is it now? Can a person change?? and in this day and age.. IS a person allowed to change and it be accepted??
Only reason he should be fired NOW is that this behavior HASN"T changed.. If it has.. if the past 8 years he has been a glowing beacon of responsibility and cleaning up his act.. then isn't that enough? How long is the past suppose to follow us??
In this matter, from what I know.. he should have appologized, go on an appology tour, show that he has changed, then get back to work.. but now? he's fired.. I doubt he's swiming in money, so this more than likely will result in him not being hired AT ALL for maybe the rest of his life.. is he deserving of that?? His life is more than likely Destroyed.. because of a few deleted tweets.. and some rando looking for the next cancel victim.. All BS.. Empire state building size BS pile..

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ You have to pay the pound of flesh to the Twitter congregation #flesh

I get what he did is stupid but it seems there's only one recourse for such things.

 

[valkyrie013]

Twitter.. You'll never find a more wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy.. we must be cautious!

 

[Jayson1]

I have always felt when it comes to edgy jokes that are trying to be offensive on purpose that how well they are received mostly usually actual falls on just how funny they are more than content. Also like with James Gunn his jokes simply weren't funny thus the outrage. Also with the passage of time sterotypes tend to change and some jokes simply get old and dated so their is always a need to keep up but it still always comes down to simple fact that if someone laughs people don't mind and if not then it can upset people. If you laugh you might have the 'I know I shouldn't laugh but..." feeling and if not the joke feels so much worst. Plus it's hard being funny in tweets. Another thing learned from James Gunn.

Jason

 

[Romulan_spy]

I think in this case, there is a difference between targeting a specific individual versus a group. I think there's a difference between joking specifically about Fat Timmy in school in a humiliating fashion and a generic joke about fat people.

Think about a few things--by this definition, can you make fun of a president without his permission? Forget which side of the aisle. Should SNL be canceled? What if 100000 women let the joke slide, but 10 get offended? By the above definition, I think it will be very hard to ever find ANY humor that will get by ANY censor.

Shock humor--offensive humor--is still free speech and should remain that way. Freedom of speech must require us to allow for offensive and uncomfortable things to be brought to light.

Of course, people have free speech up to a point of course. Even free speech has some limits as the Supreme Court has said. I am not advocating that we ban all humor or all satire shows because it might offend one person. That's absurd. Yes, we should allow satire and political humor and even shock humor. Sure.

But that is totally different from what Sawyer did. He did not make those comments as part of a SNL skit or satire show. He tweeted them.

- How do those "targets of the joke" can judge whether it is offensive or not before they hear it? You obviously have to tell them the joke before they can even decide whether they are okay with it or not.

Well, yeah, obviously. People can only react after the fact. That's why Roseanne got in trouble after she made her comments, not before. And Hartley Sawyer got fired after the tweets happened, not before.

- Those targets, women, minorities (which means ethnic minorities, I guess), rural conservatives, they are not a hive mind. These are individuals, and what one woman laughs about, another woman is deeply disturbed by. There is an argument among black people about whether the n-word should be taboo for them, as well. So, do all members of these group have to be in agreement, or does one single individual among them qualify as reason enough for a joke not to be okay?

In many cases, it is done on a individual basis. For example, if I tell a joke in the office, they don't poll all women to see if all women are offended by my joke, they just ask the female co-workers who heard the joke or complained to HR about it. And no, they don't have to be a monolithic group. They don't all have to agree. But generally, we can reach a general consensus. Just like with the current protests. I am sure not everybody agrees. But the protests are big enough and loud enough that, society has rightly taken notice of a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

- Rural conservatives? So, political ideologies get to decide, as well? And about Trump jokes? That has the potential to not just be harmful, but destructive for society, as it would mean the death of satire. And people shouldn't be able to make you shut up, either, as some things are in desperate need to be heard, even if people don't like it. Not to mention that Trump finds any criticism of himself offensive (unless Comedy Central pays him a lot of money to sit there and smile).

I was just trying to be consistent in my position. It would not be right for me to say that you can't make fun of women or minorities but it's ok to make fun of rednecks and Trump voters.

And I am fine with political satire. But again, we are getting off topic. There is a big difference between someone tweeting things that are racist or homophobic and a TV show that is designed to provide satire and humorous commentary. Plus, people have the freedom to change the channel if a TV show offends them.

Common sense and being sensitive are hard to argue with. But it is also important to remember that we all sometimes say stuff that we don't mean, stuff that we don't know any better, and yes, jokes that sounded funny in our heads but really aren't.

Sure. That's why it is a good idea to think before speaking. Because not everything we think, is worth saying out loud.

Thing is, characters like Archie Bunker actually helped evolving those societal views. And while we now view racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc, differently than we used to, they obviously still exist in our society. So satire is still very much needed. But it isn't as easy as you describe. Some mocking of racism can be superficially interpreted as racist. Seth McFarlane, South Park, are prime examples of this. Or take the movie "Starship Troopers", which a lot of people didn't recognize as the satire that it is and condemned it for its fascism and militarism. And that are cases where people were honestly mistaken. Remember there are also people who are not honest actors out there who love to use social mechanisms for their own goals.

I am against a minority censoring any little thing they don't like. But I am also against people being allowed to be racist, misogynist, antisemitic or homophobic just because they think its funny and they think the other side is being too "politically correct".

How we draw the line might be difficult sometimes but I think we need to try to find that line that respects everybody because racism, misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia etc are wrong and should not be tolerated. It's not as simple as just saying people need to "lighten up" or "It was just a joke". Some things can be genuinely hurtful to people.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

He did seem to genuinely hurt (retroactively) the showrunner and his cast mates which is a no go so I don't know if there's another answer in this situation. It didn't seem to be purely to cater to the twitter mob.

 

[Jayson1]

Of course, people have free speech up to a point of course. Even free speech has some limits as the Supreme Court has said. I am not advocating that we ban all humor or all satire shows because it might offend one person. That's absurd. Yes, we should allow satire and political humor and even shock humor. Sure.

But that is totally different from what Sawyer did. He did not make those comments as part of a SNL skit or satire show. He tweeted them.



Well, yeah, obviously. People can only react after the fact. That's why Roseanne got in trouble after she made her comments, not before. And Hartley Sawyer got fired after the tweets happened, not before.



In many cases, it is done on a individual basis. For example, if I tell a joke in the office, they don't poll all women to see if all women are offended by my joke, they just ask the female co-workers who heard the joke or complained to HR about it. And no, they don't have to be a monolithic group. They don't all have to agree. But generally, we can reach a general consensus. Just like with the current protests. I am sure not everybody agrees. But the protests are big enough and loud enough that, society has rightly taken notice of a serious problem that needs to be fixed.



I was just trying to be consistent in my position. It would not be right for me to say that you can't make fun of women or minorities but it's ok to make fun of rednecks and Trump voters.

And I am fine with political satire. But again, we are getting off topic. There is a big difference between someone tweeting things that are racist or homophobic and a TV show that is designed to provide satire and humorous commentary. Plus, people have the freedom to change the channel if a TV show offends them.



Sure. That's why it is a good idea to think before speaking. Because not everything we think, is worth saying out loud.


I am against a minority censoring any little thing they don't like. But I am also against people being allowed to be racist, misogynist, antisemitic or homophobic just because they think its funny and they think the other side is being too "politically correct".

How we draw the line might be difficult sometimes but I think we need to try to find that line that respects everybody because racism, misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia etc are wrong and should not be tolerated. It's not as simple as just saying people need to "lighten up" or "It was just a joke". Some things can be genuinely hurtful to people.

I think the issue is that even if the jokes are bad then firing someone is a extreme overreaction to people being offended. It's like that military expression. proportional response. Firing someone because people don't like jokes doesn't really fit the crime especially in case like this when it didn't even happen in the workplace. This is when it's most important to embrace free speech as a principle because if everyone is fired because of people's feelings then you literally can get to place were people can be fired over anything because people can be offended over many different things. Then people start to get afraid of wondering if they say the wrong thing will they be fired and then you basically end up creating some oppressive Big Brother environment were people are scared to say anything because they don't know who is listening. The effects on society tend to be more dangerous than rather or not someone liked some jokes which can simply be solved by someone telling him. "Hey those jokes "weren't funny.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

He did seem to genuinely hurt (retroactively) the showrunner and his cast mates which is a no go so I don't know if there's another answer in this situation. It didn't seem to be purely to cater to the twitter mob.

Where they? It's kind of hard to tell these days because their response like his response is also going to be dictated by how Twitter will react. If they aren't offended enough then people will get mad at them. It's another negative impact on society when free speech is ignored. You get to a point where you don't know if people are being honest or are they trying to save their own butt. I think we have seen more than enough factory made sounding apologies by now to know that many people are not really being genuine in their responses. Usually if they have the same sounding buzzwords you know they aren't really talking from the heart but more likely some statement written for them to say.


Jason