Well observed. There is no humor in sexually molesting anyone, and there's no defending it--certainly not after it lines up with the accuser's claims.
George Takei accused of sexual assault.
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
- Status
Well observed. There is no humor in sexually molesting anyone, and there's no defending it--certainly not after it lines up with the accuser's claims.
The statute of limitations expired on the Takei allegations, so it looks like legal action wouldn't be possible any more.
Kor
Honestly, I'm pretty open to touchy humor that opens dialog about painful subjects. Dave Chapelle is the current champ of it IMHO, but when the joke is that it's funny for you're "character" to be engaging in it, then yeah, that's bad
I actually wouldn't be vocal about him, except that he's been vocal about others in similar circumstances, & that he indicted himself on Stern IMHO. Personally, this whole situation of default acceptance of any/all accusations has a real chance to trend to a very dark place, that we really don't want to be... Again. It's a loose cannon that can let loose on just about anyone. We're all happy when it destroys the right people, but it won't always be fortunate enough to be that righteous... To be sure
Last edited:
Did he joke about the alleged incident or has his jokes been about fictional encounters with fictional people? Not a Howard Stern fan so I am not sure how they did the bit's. The first one would be in bad taste. The other seems dependent on how risque you like your humor and how well they crafted the jokes.
Jason
No names were mentioned, and the jokes didn't actually fully match the description of the alleged incident, either.
I believe the reason he tried the apology/damage control move is that the "jokes" during the appearance were close enough. I doubt he would have said anything if the nature of the accuser's claim were not so similar to the Stern "jokes".
Just to clarify I'm not accusing Shatner of drugging anyone or any criminal activity.
I'm not going to discuss Shatner anymore in this thread as per T'Bonz's instructions.
Not sure how long it'll be up. Most of them I've found have gotten removed, but this is an excerpt from the interview containing the comments he's apologized for. I find them to be very relevant, & more than a little self-indicting
The apology
I really would like to be supportive, because I've liked him, but it's a bit hard to buy this
I tried to save this to the WayBack Machine but from my phone browser I can't tell if it's working.
Humor and what constitutes it changes with society's mores, which also evolve over time. That isn't to say there aren't subgroups -- minorities in this country have challenged their abuse for years, even if those in the majority largely ignore their objections -- but for the most part, the process takes time. What was possible to joke about 20 years ago, for instance, might be very different than today. What society allows transforms in time, as well.
For instance, young people are especially sensitive to gender and sexual orientation today. That wasn't so much the case decades ago. What was considered sexual harassment and assault has also changed. For instance, decades ago, the standard was that the victim of sexual harassment had to let the accused know he or she was harassing. It didn't have to be verbal -- a look of distress could be enough.
But the idea that someone could appear to be comfortable with the behavior and do or say nothing about it would not have been considered reasonable in a court of law to later claim harassment That standard has changed. Now, harassment does not have to be acknowledged at the time it occurs. A person could bring forward an accusation years later. The assumption is that the harasser should simply have known better.
The same thing goes with humor. Today, comedians can still use racial humor, but the difference is that they attack different groups. Or, they claim to be ironic and satirizing the racial humor, even if it sounds pretty much the same as before. Comedians can talk about sexual politics, but they have to be careful in how they position them. Jokes about LGBT individuals, for instance, no longer make fun of the orientation or treat an LGBT individual as a freak.
Humor will change again. Right now, it's still okay to make fun of people who aren't bright or who are socially awkward. The Big Bang Theory does it each week to high ratings. But in the future, people will see this as an assault on those with mental deficiencies or issues like autism. Right now, it's okay to laugh. But in the same way that young people today are appalled at how women and sexual harassment or assault were the fodder for humor in years past, future generations will wonder how the young people today could so easily make fun of people whose intelligence was below average or whose social skills were not strongly developed. Or it will be something else that young people today feel is perfectly acceptable. They themselves will become subject to criticism.
And these young people will be middle aged or older by then. They'll be used to their own generation's mores and surprised when a younger generation accuses them of bigotry or whatever when they think what they're doing is perfectly fine. They won't realize that the standards have changed. By then, we'll probably also deal more with how women might be harassers and assaulters, too. There will be surprising and distressing changes.
That's the way it works. Age sneaks up on you. Society's changes can happen in seemingly invisible ways. Takei is 80 or so. This does not excuse his behavior, but he clearly was raised in a different time. What could be joked about with what he might perceive as someone closer to being a peer would be different than what some 20-somethings might joke about with each other today, and what they will find themselves called out for when 60-, 70-, or 80-somethings.
You're only describing straight, white men here. Bigoted humor has always bothered the people it was intended to insult. Cultural relativism is a bull excuse for the humor of old. Someone WAS being hurt. Someone WAS taking offense. It's just that white people didn't care about them. Now some of them do.
Are we talking about humor that comes from someone like two bigots making jokes about black people when they are by themselves or worst when they are doing it with the intent of hurting someone's feelings or a stand up comic that is simply pushing the envelope? A person's intentions mean everything in humor. Also insults are kind of part of the package because that is kind of what humor is. You are making fun of things whether it is people,governments or everyday life. The idea being that everyone and everything is fair game and it means that whoever you are it means someone will come around and make fun of you as well and being okay with that. The best ones usually have a bigger point they are trying to get across. Others relay on people being familiar with all the sterotypes and enjoying the exageration and others just go for shock value and knows that people do have a "He didn't go there!" appreciation of someone saying something risque.
Jason
Dunno where I stand on cultural relativism, I find Chris Rock funny...does that count?
However, I dunno what race you are, but this comment is racist. And sexist. Because no, it’s not just White Men.
I bet you think we can’t dance either.
Sigh.
What is ‘acceptable’ always changes, and if we are lucky, it’s in a good way and something new grows in place of the old. I am glad a fair chunk of actual racist humour is dead. But acting like it’s all one group is wilfully ignorant,
All I know is that if I were a comedian, regardless of race, creed, gender or orientation, who wanted to poke fun at touchy social issues, (Which is actually GOOD for society) I'd rather have been working 30 years ago than today. Today? I'd probably be looking for a new line of work, like all the ones who've become talk or game show hosts, podcasters, tv/movie actors, or outright retired, & that my friends is a symptom
This straight white man might almost be a monster of mythical proportions when you read what evil and ill intend is ascribed to him.
So only white males have ever been insensitive? I'm delighted to hear that the Earth is mostly populated by saints.
I'm glad the racist humour is dead as well. When such jokes creep up in old shows, I cringe. How such jokes were deemed "funny"... especially in the late-1960s when some shows were progressive and not doing anti-black jokes but would put out either a lot of Polish or Irish jokes (nationality-based stereotype jokes) or anti-Asian jokes, making fun of their appearance. In other words, the writers, actors, an censors either weren't thinking... or using a bizarre form of ironic presentation in hopes the audience would see the incongruity; anti-Asian jokes did become less prevalent after the 1960s as well. Thankfully.
But, it needs to be asked:
What do you mean by "Because, no, it's not just white men."* You're aware that racism and what came with it or as part of it or what stemmed from it wasn't practiced solely by white males, though there were white male slaves as much as there were women and nonwhite slave owners**.
I do find it interesting when people, in general, act as if America is the only country in the world, for that matter. This is somewhat tangential, but it does help demonstrate a tie-in later. Do any other countries exist? Can people work to improve other countries or just their own? Perhaps it is possible to do both? Or neither? One example: Gwalior and Riyadh are far more polluted than Los Angeles, even more so when LA was a smogfest in 1968 and the butt of silly jokes in TV shows. Since pollution is a big problem, how would people propose to fix those cities' respective problems? By charter a big private jet to go there to hold up a giant Greenpeace sign that begs the leader of other countries to something***? Might be greener to send them an email.
The other question that needs to be asked is, "How?", since that one almost never gets brought up.
What is acceptable does get redefined from time to time, yes. Not always for detailed reasons. Not always for any reasons. Not always thinking through the past and present real concerns, or even future theoretical concerns.
* I know it is currently trendy to say "Because, (single or two word descriptor)". Though most people don't even use the proper inflection when saying it and sound stupid as a result and dozens of youtube videos quickly prove that. My fourth-ninth grade English teachers would be livid over how hackneyed the language has been devolved and become since the dark ages, and I'm not the most perspicacious of people... Only loquacious...
** Their smaller numbers don't trivialize the issue, but ignoring them does. Now I'm not exactly the biggest history buff, but considering people like Delphine LaLaurie, William Ellison, and Togbui Ndorkutsu, it's certain that people and regardless of which color they are all need to damn slavery entirely and completely, and in all of its forms, and stop trivializing it to just solely one group that committed it centuries ago while ignoring all the others as if they never were allowed to exist. (I am not aiming that at anybody in particular but on other forums a number of people do have their special glasses on so they only see things one way, "all whitey bad, nobody else ever bad" being what they amount to, is the flavor of Kool-Aid there "Farkleberry", or even "Sharkleberry Fin"?) It was never just white-male->black-male-or-female. Reality has shown it to be a lot more complex, a lot more diverse (ironic, isn't it?), and a lot more cruel. No wonder the pejorative term "regressive" has been coined, as an antithesis to "progressive".
*** That didn't help last time, and it also unintentionally gives the appearance of insulting the country everyone's putting up a big sign in - because surely that suggests said country is incapable of doing it on its own? Though it's, in reality, nowhere near as simplistic as that and nothing exists in a vacuum. But everyone will just blame America and all white people. Why not... It's so much easier... it's as if the only thing that changes is the whole group of people scapegoated. Not even "most", but "whole". Big difference on that in of itself...
I did not follow all of that...but it may please you to know that as I am not American, I do not think the earth begins at NY and ends at LA. In fact the US dominance of the Interenet and western culture in general tends to bring me annoyance on many occasions. (Blackpool Rock is more relevant to me and mine than Plymouth Rock and where it landed, and probably at the moment, Gibraltar is frankly a more useful rock-based symbol.)
But yeah, I am quite aware of the mor complex history of Slavery beyond the modern narrative, but although some racism has its history in that, it’s not really what I am talking about when we discuss comics and similar. If anything, I think comedy, even one that deals in stereotypes, actually has been a strong force in promoting equality (Desmond’s, Goodness Gracious Me, The Real McCoy, Harry Enfield...all dealt in stereotypes, often subverting them, and all let the mixed culture of Britain have a good laugh at bits of itself and bits that would have been seen as ‘the other’. Once you are laughing, you realise that the ‘other’ isn’t so other, and that helps. Not being allowed to laugh, doesn’t help at all. But those shows are in the past sadly, and the pendulum swings.) and one that may be needed in the modern world.
But we drift further from the topic really... someone may have behaved badly, someone who has been a part of something that is considered positive, someone who has campaigned for positivity, and is simply shrouding it in ‘ah well, in his day, that was like, normal’ really an excuse, if he has behaved as alleged. And the ‘humour’ in his alleged skit, is now coming back to bite him in the arse.... is the humour part of the problem? Or is it all about the behaviour.
Indeed....
- Status
Similar threads
