[TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funnies

The main forum for discussing social justice and the "plus" part of Atheism Plus.

[TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funnies

Postby LeftSidePositive » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:46 am

[Trigger warning for ableism, bullying, repeated ignoring of people with disabilities, and hostility to accessibility]

So, Chris Rodda's apparently last Sunday Funnies included a photograph of Helen Keller holding a dog, with the caption "Helen Keller and her beloved cat, mittens." Several commenters took her to task for this being inappropriate, and Paul Loebe of Rock Beyond Belief took to bullying those who objected with this barrage of Helen Keller jokes, each as crass and asinine as you'd imagine. Chris also yelled "screw you!" at a visually-impaired reader who pointed out that Chris had not provided any alt-text for her images so she could access the funnies. This morning she deleted the entire post & comments and has since announced she will no longer do Sunday Funnies, but she has not told her readers why, and with the post down they have no way of figuring it out (some seem to assume, and at least one outright states, that she is under pressure from "wingnuts," not that she was criticized for marginalizing disabled readers). So, in the interest of full disclosure, and because this is basically a case study in privilege excusing itself and lashing out at the underprivileged, I'm posting the whole thread here so it will be available for the public record & for reference.

Please note, this was copied from a format that does not preserve blockquoting or other text styling.

Huge thanks to dysomniak and throwaway on Lousy Canuck and Pharyngula for coming through with the caches!!!

from Throwaway:
Mod edit: hidden for length [ Show ]
1

chigau (違う)

November 3, 2013 at 2:16 am (UTC -5)

“beloved cat, mittens”
that’s not funny
that’s not funny
that’s not funny
if I say it enough, it becomes true

2

PatrickG

November 3, 2013 at 2:17 am (UTC -5)

Sunday funnies aren’t so funny this Sunday.

3

Al Dente

November 3, 2013 at 6:51 am (UTC -5)

I agree with PatrickG. The Helen Keller picture is just mean. The video isn’t funny at all, it’s definitely scary.

4

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 10:10 am (UTC -5)

That Helen Keller picture is fucking hilarious! Keep rocking it Chris! You kick ass!

5

busterggi

November 3, 2013 at 10:10 am (UTC -5)

chigau & al dente are cat haters.

6

Reginald Selkirk

November 3, 2013 at 10:13 am (UTC -5)

I laughed out loud at the Helen Keller joke. Truly. Literally. That’s why I spelled it out rather than using LOL.

1) Being mean wouldn’t make it not funny.
2) Mean? How so? ‘Splain to us all how it is mean. Apparently HK is happy. Mittens appears well cared for.

7

Reginald Selkirk

November 3, 2013 at 10:21 am (UTC -5)

The Noah’s Ark joke falls in with the “Planet of the Apes” fallacy, in which various types of humans are represented by different species of animals. There’s only eight of “them,” meaning humans, but there are only two domestic cattle. They would have to team up with other species to get the job done. Cattle are going to conspire with cobras? I don’t think so.
And if they did conspire to knock off humans, who is the “we” that would rule the planet?
In the Planet of the Apes, various species of apes are living in a society together and all speaking the same language? Ha ha.

8

iknklast

November 3, 2013 at 10:24 am (UTC -5)

Reginald Selkirk, you take things too seriously.

9

Al Dente

November 3, 2013 at 10:27 am (UTC -5)

chigau & al dente are cat haters.

I like cats. I’ve had 12 cats in the past 30 years. I’m presently catless because the wife and I have medical problems which would preclude being able to take proper care of a cat.

Mean? How so? ‘Splain to us all how it is mean. Apparently HK is happy. Mittens appears well cared for.

The Helen Keller one is ableist. That’s what makes it mean. Making fun of a person’s disability is mean and demeaning to that person.

10

Stella

November 3, 2013 at 10:41 am (UTC -5)

Don’t you know blindness and deafness are funny? Using the word, “blind” in any derogatory capacity is funny, too. If ya can’t punch down, what’s the point of bullying?

Stella

11

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:30 am (UTC -5)

I don’t understand the Helen Keller joke. Do you have it in Braille?

If you don’t see the humor in that, you’re totally blind!

12

busterggi

November 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm (UTC -5)

Paul – could you please resubmit your comment in all caps? I couldn’t hear you.

13

noflag

November 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm (UTC -5)

Ableism? In my FTB? It’s more likely than you think!

14

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 12:14 pm (UTC -5)

Oh sorry. Yeah no problem.

15

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm (UTC -5)

Do you want me to sign it to you as well? I used to know sign language…where is that book at?

16

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm (UTC -5)

⠠⠊⠀⠙⠕⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠥⠝⠙⠑⠗⠎⠞⠁⠝⠙ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠠⠓⠑⠇⠑⠝ ⠠⠅⠑⠇⠇⠑⠗ ⠚⠕⠅⠑⠲ ⠠⠙⠕ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠓⠁⠧⠑ ⠊⠞ ⠊⠝ ⠠⠃⠗⠁⠊⠇⠇⠑⠦

⠠⠊⠋ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠙⠕⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠎⠑⠑ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠓⠥⠍⠕⠗ ⠊⠝ ⠞⠓⠁⠞⠂ ⠽⠕⠥⠠⠴⠗⠑ ⠞⠕⠞⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠃⠇⠊⠝⠙⠖

17

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm (UTC -5)

DID YOU HEAR THAT? MY VOICE IS HOARSE NOW!

18

moonglaive

November 3, 2013 at 12:31 pm (UTC -5)

I thought all of these were funny except for the Keller joke too. The reason it’s an ableist joke is because it assumes that blind (and deaf people like Keller) are incapable of telling the difference between a cat and a dog based on their disabilities. People who question why others find this amusing, why do you find it funny in the first place to think a blind person couldn’t tell the difference between a cat and dog? Which is all beside the point, since she was an avid lover of dogs.

That truck one is hilarious though, and something people who’ve ever had to drive down I-10 will identify with, terrifying experience or not.

19

Chris Rodda

November 3, 2013 at 12:51 pm (UTC -5)

How come nobody finds me making fun of the horrible torture of crucifixion to be inappropriate? I mean, all those people who were crucified suffered horribly, so I must be advocating torture, right?

20

Reginald Selkirk

November 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm (UTC -5)

I have driven on I-10, and it is a divided highway. Crossing into opposing traffic would not be possible (or at least, pretty difficult).

RE crucifixion humour: this came up just recently. Touchy Christians Get the Cruci-Flex Blocked

21

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm (UTC -5)

How come nobody finds me making fun of the horrible torture of crucifixion to be inappropriate? I mean, all those people who were crucified suffered horribly, so I must be advocating torture, right?

Because crucifixion isn’t exactly a pressing social issue right now. There’s also the point that the cartoon is more making fun of the glamorization of crucifixion in Christian/Western culture and the perseverance on it in Christian iconography, not the fact that people who endured it suffered.

On the other hand, people today really do think people with disabilities are objects of pity and derision, and attitudes like this have negative effects on people’s educational support and social services, and colors countless interactions with friends, family, and strangers who think that it’s okay to trivialize and marginalize those with disabilities.

And really, why the hell would you think it’s funny to deride Helen Keller? She faced obstacles that many of us will never have to deal with nor could even imagine, and she became an incredible advocate and educator. And you think it’s funny to look at a person like that and say, “Ha, ha! She can’t see or hear!!” That’s just disgusting on your part.

22

PatrickG

November 3, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC -5)

Actually I found the crucifixion joke hilarious. :D And I’m kind of with chigau re: Helen Keller, in that I feel terrible for chuckling.

My comment about the funnies not being funny was more directed at the truly terrifying spectacle of that traffic incident. Just scary!

23

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm (UTC -5)

How do you confuse Helen Keller?

Nail doorknobs to the walls.

24

Chris Rodda

November 3, 2013 at 5:06 pm (UTC -5)

That’s been pretty much the reaction to the Helen Keller one from the majority of people, PatrickG — you know you shouldn’t think it’s funny but you can’t help laughing. Everyone circulating it and commenting on it on Facebook all week has been saying things like they know they’re going to hell, but they couldn’t stop themselves from laughing. It doesn’t make any of them, or me, an “ableist.” Part of why it’s funny is that everybody feels so guilty for finding it funny!

25

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 6:05 pm (UTC -5)

Nice rationalization there, Chris. Really. This is not acceptable. The fact that you laugh is an ableist attitude. It’s the same principle as those who are convinced that everyone is secretly laughing along with them with their racist or sexist humor. Really, we’re not. Someone needs to have some serious ethical shortcomings to find that funny. And, no: knowing it’s bad and laughing anyway does not make it okay. Hipster racism is bullshit. Hipster sexism is bullshit. And hipster ableism is, similarly, bullshit.

Moreover, the “I know it’s bad but I’m doing it anyway” only serves as a self-justification for propagating these kind of attitudes, and reinforcing the still-mainstream attitude that deep down, everyone likes to laugh at people with disabilities…which is ableist, even if you put a few psychological defense mechanisms between you and your choice to not only laugh at a person’s disabilities, but to actively promote & further the exposure of this little turd of laughing at a person with disabilities.

26

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 8:43 pm (UTC -5)

Man, I’m sure glad Helen Keller’s cat-raising abilities were better than your piss poor sense of humor.

27

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 8:59 pm (UTC -5)

Oh, yeah…the dudebro always has the finest sense of what’s humorous! How could I fail to be convinced by your scintillating wit?!

At least no one has ever been accused of lacking a sense of humor for trying to challenge hurtful social norms…oh, wait.

28

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 9:08 pm (UTC -5)

lulz

Dworkin would be proud.

29

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 9:12 pm (UTC -5)

Nice try, but I’m not going to feel bad for standing up for basic human decency. You could learn a thing or two.

And yeah…whenever anyone challenges your thoughtless display of privilege and crassness, just say the magic word “Dworkin”…that will totally put them in their place, and it saves you the trouble of actually thinking about the impact your casual indifference has on others–since I gather from your participation in this thread that thinking isn’t exactly your strong suit.

30

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 9:16 pm (UTC -5)

It’s funny how your cognitive dissonance brews so that you can chastise others for making jokes out of someone’s infirmities over which they have no choice in while at the same time deriding the individuals you chastise by insulting them on something they have no control over whatsoever – in this case my possessing a penis.

I can see how you could fail to be convinced by my scintillating wit as you yourself have proven to have none whatsoever. But I don’t hold this against you. It’s okay to be stupid. It’s not your fault. I blame Helen Keller – again.

31

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 9:29 pm (UTC -5)

Uh, Dude…no one is deriding you for possessing a penis. I am deriding you for being an utterly insensitive, thoughtless, privilege-blind douchebag. I am also criticizing Chris Rodda (who does not, to my knowledge, have a penis) for posting & defending this terrible excuse for a joke, but you are being even more defensive, derisive, & willfully ignorant about it than she is, hence why you are getting stronger criticism. Moreover, I believe from the postings of some of these commenters elsewhere that several of those criticizing the Helen Keller joke also have penises. Your penis does not make you an insufferable pompous ass–it is your choices and your willful defense of harmful social norms that have made you an insufferable pompous ass, and you most definitely do have control over whether or not you choose to be a decent human being…you’re just failing miserably at it right now, and it has everything to do with the attitudes you choose to defend, and nothing to do with the anatomy with which you were born.

But great job trying to claim the mantle of oppression…I’m sure everyone who already agreed with you and also wanted to justify their desire to treat marginalized persons like shit found it very impressive.

32

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 9:40 pm (UTC -5)

Dudebro FTW!

I found you impressive. Impressively boring. *yawn*

Do you even philosophy, bro?

33

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 9:42 pm (UTC -5)



34

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm (UTC -5)

Wow, I didn’t know one could lose an argument as pathetically, crassly, and yet still pompously as you just have.

And, just to clarify in case you really are too dense to figure this out instead of being willfully ignorant, “dudebro” is not a criticism of your penis. “Dudebro” does not refer to the state of being male, but rather to a subset of men who take for granted the privileges society has given them, look down on others, and think themselves totally awesome while being thoughtless, self-indulgent, childish idiots. Yes, the state of being male in our society helps to foster such a toxic sense of entitlement, but it is a *choice* to exploit one’s unearned privileges and use that as license to act like a jackass.

And Chris: this is why it was wrong of you to post that meme. Yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that everyone knows it’s wrong and it doesn’t make you ableist…but just look at the social permission you’ve given Paul here to behave like a total douchebag and continue making a series of unfunny, incredibly sophomoric, and unbelievably shitty “jokes” at the expense of people with disabilities. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and this is not acceptable.

35

m lafontaine

November 3, 2013 at 10:00 pm (UTC -5)

Does it make me a rape apologist for finding it funny that Left Side Positive is walking around with a stick up their ass?

36

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 10:03 pm (UTC -5)

Wait! We were arguing? I guess my privilege clouded my awareness. Let me pull back the smoke screen and see what the world presents. Ah yes, douchebaggery! Here we go:



37

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 10:08 pm (UTC -5)

cis-privileged gender-splaining white-boy uppity up and away!

Buzz Lightyear!

I hope that made sense. I’m trying to learn your language. Here, I wonder if this works…

“Equality is dead,” says Solanas. However, the characteristic theme of Jen Z.
B. Trickledodu’s [1] entry on accomodationism is the role of the dudebro as
ally.

Caruthers [2] states that it leaves the observer to decide between ableist fake
jewelry and rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview. Spiderman uses the term
‘Dworkinism ‘ to denote a self-evident certainty.

Therefore, accomodationism inescapably suggests that culture is capable of
truth, given that rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview is valid.
Interestingly, the premise of predivisive sustained micro-aggression states
that trolling is a product of the collective unconscious. Watson describes the
phrase ‘Dworkinism ‘ as not trigger warnings as such, but neotrigger warnings.
Laden suggests the adoption of accomodationism to read consciousness.

2. Rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview and sensationalist premasculinist
theory

If one examines sensationalist premasculinist theory, one is faced with a
choice: either accept accomodationism or conclude that the task of the victim
is winning arguments online. It could be said that Coyne’s summary of
micro-aggressive Japanese rape culture implies that sexuality is capable of
social change, given that ethical language is equal to reality.

Spiderman promotes the use of accomodationism to dismantle violent threats. But
if subsister-punishing tokenism holds, we have to choose between rape-apologist
’micro-rapist’ worldview and rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview. The
within/without distinction prevalent in ’Why I Issue Threats of Violence’
emerges again in ’Testosterone-Damaged Chromosome’.

It could be said that Nectar [3] holds that it leaves the observer to decide
between sensationalist premasculinist theory and sensationalist premasculinist
theory.

In a sense, the subject is extrapolated into a Ladenism sexual harassment
policies that includes morality as a whole. Thus, a number of micro-rapes
concerning rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview exist.

3. Contexts of red herring

The main theme of the works of Laden is the bridge between gender and rape
culture. Sensationalist premasculinist theory suggests that truth is cited to
cis-splain nonwhites. But the premise of accomodationism inescapably states
that sexuality has intrinsic meaning.

“Society is a legal fiction,” says Popper. Therefore, in ’Why I Issue Threats
of Violence’, Laden affirms rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview; in
’Testosterone-Damaged Chromosome’, although, Laden denies rape-apologist
’micro-rapist’ worldview. If neoradicalized trans-folk holds, it leaves the
observer to decide between sensationalist premasculinist theory and
accomodationism.

Solanas uses the term ‘rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview’ to denote the
collapse, and some would say the meaninglessness, of posthypersexual social
justice. However, the characteristic theme of U. Stef Hoggle’s [4] critique of
sensationalist premasculinist theory is a condesplaining foregone conclusion.

Interestingly, cis-privileged subsensationalist theory implies that slymepit is
meaningless, given that culture is distinct from sexuality.

Thus, Dworkin suggests the adoption of accomodationism to analyze sexual
identity. Popper promotes the use of sensationalist premasculinist theory to
destroy satanic cult abuse.

38

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 10:35 pm (UTC -5)

Ooh, great job finding the SJW-Atheism-Plus Nonsense Generator… I guess if you can make a program that generates nonsense in a form that superficially resembles someone’s argument, it means you no longer have to try to understand what they’re saying, or consider the possibility that you could learn something from it.

Theoretical physics papers look pretty ridiculous to someone who doesn’t understand them very well…and PZ will regularly quote some incredible pseudoscientific bullshit pretending to be physics, but that doesn’t invalidate physics itself just because cranks abuse the form. But I would urge you to apply a little more brainpower than: this looks foreign to me–must mock!!

I guess because some feminists have used certain rhetorical excesses (excesses that, I might add, were quite common in their contemporary academic parlance), you can just totally ignore the real-world issues they’re talking about, and shut your brain off from anything that challenges your worldview.

It’s really sad that when your crassness is challenged, your first response is to lash out and heap on the disdain instead of, you know, empathizing with your fellow human beings. You could enjoy a much richer and more satisfying existence if you would stop trying to puff up your ego and defend your shitty behavior, but actually engage with and learn from others.

39

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 10:54 pm (UTC -5)

Challenge? We are challenging? Challenge Accepted!



40

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:04 pm (UTC -5)

3rd wave feminism looks ridiculous to anyone with a brain. Did you really just compare rad fem ideology, which this site was built on, to theoretical physics? That’s pretty ballsy – pardon the cis-phrasing…actually, don’t. I mean, really? lulz.

Here’s the problem – equality is equality is equality. There is no “I have to listen to people based upon their race, sex, or sexuality.” Either they make sense….or they fucking don’t. Rationality is quite simply that simple. I know it’s, again, hard for you to grasp but I’ll mansplain all I need to….or rather want to since neither one of us will capitulate. Me due to common sense and you due to Dworkinism.

I came here for jokes. You, sir, are a joke. And thus I continue to return.

/Users/paulloebe/Desktop/funny-helen-keller-twitter-quotes.jpg

41

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:05 pm (UTC -5)

That didn’t work. Here we go:
http://www.dumpaday.com/random-pictures ... er-quotes/

42

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:07 pm (UTC -5)

How did Helen Keller meet her husband?

On a blind date.

43

PatrickG

November 3, 2013 at 11:08 pm (UTC -5)

Did you really just compare rad fem ideology, which this site was built on

Speaking of irrationality and not making sense….

Idiot.

44

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:09 pm (UTC -5)

What was Helen Keller’s favorite color?

Velcro

45

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:09 pm (UTC -5)

Idiot received.

46

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:12 pm (UTC -5)

⠠⠕⠕⠓⠂⠀⠛⠗⠑⠁⠞ ⠚⠕⠃ ⠋⠊⠝⠙⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠠⠠⠎⠚⠺⠤⠁⠞⠓⠑⠊⠎⠍⠤⠏⠇⠥⠎ ⠠⠝⠕⠝⠎⠑⠝⠎⠑ ⠠⠛⠑⠝⠑⠗⠁⠞⠕⠗… ⠠⠊ ⠛⠥⠑⠎⠎ ⠊⠋ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠁⠝ ⠍⠁⠅⠑ ⠁ ⠏⠗⠕⠛⠗⠁⠍ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠛⠑⠝⠑⠗⠁⠞⠑⠎ ⠝⠕⠝⠎⠑⠝⠎⠑ ⠊⠝ ⠁ ⠋⠕⠗⠍ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠎⠥⠏⠑⠗⠋⠊⠉⠊⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠗⠑⠎⠑⠍⠃⠇⠑⠎ ⠎⠕⠍⠑⠕⠝⠑⠠⠴⠎ ⠁⠗⠛⠥⠍⠑⠝⠞⠂ ⠊⠞ ⠍⠑⠁⠝⠎ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠝⠕ ⠇⠕⠝⠛⠑⠗ ⠓⠁⠧⠑ ⠞⠕ ⠞⠗⠽ ⠞⠕ ⠥⠝⠙⠑⠗⠎⠞⠁⠝⠙ ⠺⠓⠁⠞ ⠞⠓⠑⠽⠠⠴⠗⠑ ⠎⠁⠽⠊⠝⠛⠂ ⠕⠗ ⠉⠕⠝⠎⠊⠙⠑⠗ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠏⠕⠎⠎⠊⠃⠊⠇⠊⠞⠽ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠇⠑⠁⠗⠝ ⠎⠕⠍⠑⠞⠓⠊⠝⠛ ⠋⠗⠕⠍ ⠊⠞⠲

⠠⠞⠓⠑⠕⠗⠑⠞⠊⠉⠁⠇ ⠏⠓⠽⠎⠊⠉⠎ ⠏⠁⠏⠑⠗⠎ ⠇⠕⠕⠅ ⠏⠗⠑⠞⠞⠽ ⠗⠊⠙⠊⠉⠥⠇⠕⠥⠎ ⠞⠕ ⠎⠕⠍⠑⠕⠝⠑ ⠺⠓⠕ ⠙⠕⠑⠎⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠥⠝⠙⠑⠗⠎⠞⠁⠝⠙ ⠞⠓⠑⠍ ⠧⠑⠗⠽ ⠺⠑⠇⠇…⠁⠝⠙ ⠠⠠⠏⠵ ⠺⠊⠇⠇ ⠗⠑⠛⠥⠇⠁⠗⠇⠽ ⠟⠥⠕⠞⠑ ⠎⠕⠍⠑ ⠊⠝⠉⠗⠑⠙⠊⠃⠇⠑ ⠏⠎⠑⠥⠙⠕⠎⠉⠊⠑⠝⠞⠊⠋⠊⠉ ⠃⠥⠇⠇⠎⠓⠊⠞ ⠏⠗⠑⠞⠑⠝⠙⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠕ ⠃⠑ ⠏⠓⠽⠎⠊⠉⠎⠂ ⠃⠥⠞ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠙⠕⠑⠎⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠊⠝⠧⠁⠇⠊⠙⠁⠞⠑ ⠏⠓⠽⠎⠊⠉⠎ ⠊⠞⠎⠑⠇⠋ ⠚⠥⠎⠞ ⠃⠑⠉⠁⠥⠎⠑ ⠉⠗⠁⠝⠅⠎ ⠁⠃⠥⠎⠑ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠋⠕⠗⠍⠲ ⠠⠃⠥⠞ ⠠⠊ ⠺⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠥⠗⠛⠑ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠞⠕ ⠁⠏⠏⠇⠽ ⠁ ⠇⠊⠞⠞⠇⠑ ⠍⠕⠗⠑ ⠃⠗⠁⠊⠝⠏⠕⠺⠑⠗ ⠞⠓⠁⠝⠒ ⠞⠓⠊⠎ ⠇⠕⠕⠅⠎ ⠋⠕⠗⠑⠊⠛⠝ ⠞⠕ ⠍⠑–⠍⠥⠎⠞ ⠍⠕⠉⠅⠖⠖

⠠⠊ ⠛⠥⠑⠎⠎ ⠃⠑⠉⠁⠥⠎⠑ ⠎⠕⠍⠑ ⠋⠑⠍⠊⠝⠊⠎⠞⠎ ⠓⠁⠧⠑ ⠥⠎⠑⠙ ⠉⠑⠗⠞⠁⠊⠝ ⠗⠓⠑⠞⠕⠗⠊⠉⠁⠇ ⠑⠭⠉⠑⠎⠎⠑⠎ ⠐⠣⠑⠭⠉⠑⠎⠎⠑⠎ ⠞⠓⠁⠞⠂ ⠠⠊ ⠍⠊⠛⠓⠞ ⠁⠙⠙⠂ ⠺⠑⠗⠑ ⠟⠥⠊⠞⠑ ⠉⠕⠍⠍⠕⠝ ⠊⠝ ⠞⠓⠑⠊⠗ ⠉⠕⠝⠞⠑⠍⠏⠕⠗⠁⠗⠽ ⠁⠉⠁⠙⠑⠍⠊⠉ ⠏⠁⠗⠇⠁⠝⠉⠑⠐⠜⠂ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠁⠝ ⠚⠥⠎⠞ ⠞⠕⠞⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠊⠛⠝⠕⠗⠑ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠗⠑⠁⠇⠤⠺⠕⠗⠇⠙ ⠊⠎⠎⠥⠑⠎ ⠞⠓⠑⠽⠠⠴⠗⠑ ⠞⠁⠇⠅⠊⠝⠛ ⠁⠃⠕⠥⠞⠂ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠎⠓⠥⠞ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠃⠗⠁⠊⠝ ⠕⠋⠋ ⠋⠗⠕⠍ ⠁⠝⠽⠞⠓⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠉⠓⠁⠇⠇⠑⠝⠛⠑⠎ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠺⠕⠗⠇⠙⠧⠊⠑⠺⠲

⠠⠊⠞⠠⠴⠎ ⠗⠑⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠎⠁⠙ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠺⠓⠑⠝ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠉⠗⠁⠎⠎⠝⠑⠎⠎ ⠊⠎ ⠉⠓⠁⠇⠇⠑⠝⠛⠑⠙⠂ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠋⠊⠗⠎⠞ ⠗⠑⠎⠏⠕⠝⠎⠑ ⠊⠎ ⠞⠕ ⠇⠁⠎⠓ ⠕⠥⠞ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠓⠑⠁⠏ ⠕⠝ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠙⠊⠎⠙⠁⠊⠝ ⠊⠝⠎⠞⠑⠁⠙ ⠕⠋⠂ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠅⠝⠕⠺⠂ ⠑⠍⠏⠁⠞⠓⠊⠵⠊⠝⠛ ⠺⠊⠞⠓ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠋⠑⠇⠇⠕⠺ ⠓⠥⠍⠁⠝ ⠃⠑⠊⠝⠛⠎⠲ ⠠⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠑⠝⠚⠕⠽ ⠁ ⠍⠥⠉⠓ ⠗⠊⠉⠓⠑⠗ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠍⠕⠗⠑ ⠎⠁⠞⠊⠎⠋⠽⠊⠝⠛ ⠑⠭⠊⠎⠞⠑⠝⠉⠑ ⠊⠋ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠺⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠎⠞⠕⠏ ⠞⠗⠽⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠕ ⠏⠥⠋⠋ ⠥⠏ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠑⠛⠕ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠙⠑⠋⠑⠝⠙ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠎⠓⠊⠞⠞⠽ ⠃⠑⠓⠁⠧⠊⠕⠗⠂ ⠃⠥⠞ ⠁⠉⠞⠥⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠑⠝⠛⠁⠛⠑ ⠺⠊⠞⠓ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠇⠑⠁⠗⠝ ⠋⠗⠕⠍ ⠕⠞⠓⠑⠗⠎⠲

47

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:14 pm (UTC -5)

Why did Helen Keller’s dog run away?

You would too if you’re name were “arrurragaahferrrfufagrrrrarurgahur”

48

Paul Loebe

November 3, 2013 at 11:22 pm (UTC -5)

⠠⠓⠑⠇⠑⠝⠀⠠⠅⠑⠇⠇⠑⠗ ⠉⠁⠝ ⠗⠑⠁⠙ ⠁ ⠃⠁⠎⠅⠑⠞⠃⠁⠇⠇⠲ ⠠⠝⠕ ⠎⠑⠗⠊⠕⠥⠎⠇⠽⠖ ⠠⠊⠄⠍ ⠝⠕⠞ ⠚⠕⠅⠊⠝⠛⠲

49

LeftSidePositive

November 3, 2013 at 11:25 pm (UTC -5)

Firstly, I would ask you to define what exactly you mean by “radfem”…since I’ve seen far to much abuse of it (from everyone from the slymepit to the Catholic Church) to mean “any aspect of feminism that makes me personally uncomfortable.”

Secondly, most mainstream modern feminist theory (which is what is actually informing this site, btw), has been very well-established by social science research–indicating that sexist language affects thinking and choices, stereotype threat exists, gender norms affect how people are evaluated and compensated, and that people rationalize their biases and in-group/out-group thinking. So, yeah, it’s an actual academic discipline, and I’m sorry that gives you a sad.

Thirdly, “equality is equality is equality” is just a profoundly ignorant opinion in 2013. After all the sociological understanding we have about implicit/unconscious biases (I would direct you to the hidden musician auditions or some shoot-the-suspect simulations), not to mention the way systemic inequality entrenches racism/sexism/ableism even in the absence of conscious discrimination, you should really know by now that just thinking we’re all equal doesn’t actually make it so.

Fourthly, your interpretation of whether or not someone makes sense is hugely biased by your own motivated reasoning (as it is for everyone), in-group/out-group biases, differences in estimations of prior probabilities for situations based in different life experiences, etc., etc. Just saying someone will make sense no matter what is to ignore the fact that humans are not purely rational animals, and our assessments of reality are filtered and distorted by our imperfect cognitive processes. Look at it this way: we’re saying that if someone belongs to a marginalized group, they are more likely in our society to be dismissed, misinterpreted, and doubted on their experience. It means you need to make an extra effort to listen to overcome your established cognitive biases, not that any person from group X is inherently worth listening to due to their membership in group X.

Finally, I don’t know whether you’re using “sir” to be ironic, or if you just embarrassingly fell into the everyone-on-the-internet-is-male cognitive trap, but I’m a woman and I would appreciate you not misgendering me. It’s rude.

50

Chris Rodda

November 3, 2013 at 11:45 pm (UTC -5)

@ LeftSidePositive … Paul isn’t making all these stupid jokes because of what I posted. He’s making them because of your sanctimonious comments about what I posted.

51

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 12:00 am (UTC -5)

1. rad fem: replacement of patriarchy with matriarchy. subservience to women and underprivileged peoples by the privileged as reparations. Disagreement is immediate mansplaining and cis-bullshit rape-apologist accusations.

2. mainstream feminist theory that doesn’t follow 3rd wave = good

3. equality is equality. We’ll never achieve it because interpretation is a bitch.

4. Reasoning: I don’t give credit to someone because of something they can’t control: being woman, trans, a minority, whatever. Just like I won’t give ground cuz I’m a straight white guy. If you can’t control that it’s not a factor in my book. I want rationality and reasoning. If it is illogical to connect the dots from points A to E then the argument should be discarded and disregarded.

Finally, sischick, I don’t give a fuck who you are. You’re probably some nitwit UC Berkley white person ashamed of being white.

Thanks for the lecture. Now back to your regularly scheduled funnies:


52

PatrickG

November 4, 2013 at 12:06 am (UTC -5)

@ Chris Rodda, #50:

Fairly sure the accusation that FTB is a borg-like entity based on radical feminism wasn’t a joke. On the other hand, this is the internet, so perhaps he’s experimenting with Poe’s Law.

Assumes deep voice: Have you, Chris Rodda, ever been, considered being, or associated with the Radical Feminists at freethoughtblogs.com?

But more importantly, what’s up with the knock against UC Berkeley? Has Paul even been there? I got two degrees there and somehow never felt bad about being white. This isn’t the 60s anymore, Paul.

Anyway, I’ll stand by my assessment of “idiot”. :)

53

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 12:09 am (UTC -5)

Please do. I’m really not concerned with your opinion of me. Despite the whinesplainers on this site I actually make a difference. As does Chris. It’s funny how Helen Keller has accomplished more as a blind deaf woman, a socialist activist, and a women’s rights activist….than almost all of FTB combined.

54

PatrickG

November 4, 2013 at 12:17 am (UTC -5)

Must point out the non sequitur. Chris Rodda does amazing work. So did Helen Keller.

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous assertion that FTB is attempting to establish a matriarchy (seriously: ahahahahahaha! Can I have some of whatever you’re smoking?).

55

LeftSidePositive

November 4, 2013 at 12:19 am (UTC -5)

So, Chris, you think that when somebody stands up to one instance of callous behavior, they deserve an avalanche of callous behavior? You initially defended the posting of that joke by claiming everyone knows it’s wrong so what’s the harm? THIS is the harm. Your friend has felt entitled to post tons of really hostile, hateful, marginalizing crap towards people with disabilities. Yes, the proximate cause is that someone stood up to you (and to him), but the underlying cause is the fact that our society and people like you tell him that this is okay. Is this really what you want your blog to be? Do you want someone who has a disability or cares for someone who does to know that you’ll tolerate this kind of cheap mockery of people with disabilities? Do you want FTB readers to feel that they will be derided in your digital house for absolutely no good reason? Paul is mad at me, so he’ll take it out by mocking people who are visually- and hearing-impaired? How is that a rational reaction? What does that say about him? What does that say about you that you tolerate it? Would you tolerate anyone piling on crude anti-atheist stereotypes and slurs when someone wouldn’t back down from saying that “there are no atheists in foxholes” is marginalizing to atheists? Then why will you tolerate such an obvious parallel?

Moreover, the original meme wasn’t even funny. It was just stupid and mean-spirited. If you could recognize the ableism it would have freed up space for something actually funny.

Paul, you’re off the deep end, man. I’m so glad I don’t have to put up with any more half-assed, anti-intellectual, smug, hipster sexist, 4chan-lulzing, evo-psych-worshipping bullshit from you or Justin cluttering up the main page ’round here.

And I especially love the “don’t criticize my ethics! I do good works!” Are you taking lessons from the Catholic Church or something?!

56

congaboy

November 4, 2013 at 12:25 am (UTC -5)

Most humor is based on the pain, suffering, embarrassment, or misfortune of others. It seems that humans tend to find these things humorous, maybe because we’re just glad it’s not happening to us; or maybe because we are truly mean, vicious, and rotten animals. Each of the comics above were based on someone else’s misfortune, pain, or embarrassment. Just because panels 1, 2, and 4 happen to be about things that didn’t really happen doesn’t make them any less mean or any more or less OK than the other two. It is just as mean and insensitive to laugh at anyone’s pain, suffering, embarrassment, or misfortune as it is to laugh at the Hellen Keller comic. But, then again life is pain and so, sometimes, we need some “gallows humor” to keep ourselves from breaking down and giving up. The Hellen Keller joke is absurdest and that’s why it could be found to be humorous; a person as intelligent and capable as Hellen Keller really wouldn’t think that a dog was a cat. The absurdity of it, combined with the horrendous obstacles she overcame and the relief many feel that their wretched lives aren’t as hard as her’s was, allows people to express some form of relief in the form of laughing, instead of sobbing and breaking down. If you don’t think it’s OK to make Hellen Keller jokes, then you should feel that it’s not OK to make jokes about anyone else–it just seems hypocritical otherwise.

57

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 12:30 am (UTC -5)

Hmmm….who’s angry? I’m not. Helen Keller jokes are funny. This devolved into me bashing you. Not over the jokes, but because you’re an idiot. Don’t put the two together. They are separate subjects.

Oh…criticize me all you want – because you will anyways. I never said don’t. You are thoroughly entertaining. Keep at it. It doesn’t really bother me. I’m just telling you that it holds no weight….here or in the real world.

Your humor still sucks. It was funny as fuck. Keep rocking it Chris! The characters on this site need to open asshole – remove stick.

58

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 12:31 am (UTC -5)

PattyG – sup, bro.

59

PatrickG

November 4, 2013 at 12:34 am (UTC -5)

Heh. Diminutive nicknames now? Are you 12?

When the matriarchy comes, you’ll be the first to watch endless reruns of Steel Magnolias!

60

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 12:38 am (UTC -5)

Ahhhhhh! Well, I am pretty metro. I guess what comes around goes around.

61

PatrickG

November 4, 2013 at 12:42 am (UTC -5)

Whatever floats your boat. I’m headed out for the night, but I’m sure you’ll entertain yourself.

VIVA THE RAD FEM MATRIARCHY!

62

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 12:48 am (UTC -5)

VIVA LA RAD FEM MATRIARCHY!

G’night Patrick

63

huntstoddard

November 4, 2013 at 4:14 am (UTC -5)

I really think LSP is working pretty hard at being offended by the Keller joke. Make that type of funny verboten, you might as well forbid all irreverent humor outright. First off, it’s only using blindness obliquely as an instrument to evoke hilarity. It’s like the scene in Dumb and Dumber when Jeff Daniels’s character nails the dead bird to a perch and sells it to a blind disabled boy (and then its head falls off). As others have mentioned, this type of hilarity is delivered by breaking the taboo of doing such an outlandish thing. If, as LSP seems to think, the Keller joke actually constitutes deliberate and serious affront to the blind, she would be right. After all, there are certainly “jokes” that are used by in-groups that are cruel and only “funny” to the people delivering the abuse. They are essentially attacks on a person or group. There are “jokes” that are about things of such enormous horror, like “jokes” about the Holocaust, that are inherently unfunny. But way beneath that level, there are all manner of shades of gray where irreverence, even when it starts to border on offensive, can be hilarious when delivered in the right way or by a skillful enough comedian. This type of comedy is not meant to be cruel or to offend, not seriously anyway. It may sting a few people a little, but that is actually the point and what adds spice to it. I’m thinking of some of Louis C.K.’s stuff, for instance. You can’t really devote a segment of your routine to bad things that can happen to babies and then mention Chinese babies without having this effect. Is this being offensive or cathartic? Sometimes it’s hard to tell, and sometimes it backfires. Irreverent comedy is inherently risky. If you don’t add enough spice, it fizzles, too much and you blow people’s heads off.

64

huntstoddard

November 4, 2013 at 4:36 am (UTC -5)

Let me just add that I’m not dismissing LSP’s argument outright. It is indeed the case that you can’t really use your own sense of humor as an absolute benchmark to either give things a pass or not. If it gives you a ache in the belly from laughter that doesn’t constitute a litmus test of virtue. It may instead be telling you something about yourself. (The Nazi’s probably thought concentration camp jokes were a riot.) At the same time you have to keep a real perspective and ask “is this thing really that offensive?”

65

Amphiox

November 4, 2013 at 10:09 am (UTC -5)

The last one is actually kind of terrifying. If you look at the end, you see there’s a jolt, and the windshield cracks. In other words, there was an actual impact there. Who knows what happened after the clip stops running.

66

Chris Rodda

November 4, 2013 at 12:03 pm (UTC -5)

After reading all these comments, I was trying to think of when the last time I talked to a blind person was, and remembered that it was a few months ago when a blind guy walking down my street needed directions.

People are always stopping to ask me for directions when I’m outside with my dog. The reason so many people get lost near my house is that some of the streets around here turn slightly, so if you’re not familiar with the neighborhood you can easily find yourself going in a different direction than you thought you were going in. So, a couple of months ago, a blind guy was out there, and I walked up to him — not because he was blind or appeared to need help, but because my dog pulled me over because he wanted to meet the guy’s service dog. It turned out that the guy actually was lost. He was visiting somebody and went out for a walk and wasn’t sure if he was going in the right direction to get back to where he started. He asked the same thing that everybody else does — he wanted to know how to get back to the main street so he could get his bearings. The thought didn’t even cross my mind that the reason he got lost was because he was blind. I assumed it was for the same reason that lots of other people lose their bearings around here — he didn’t realize that one of the streets he had walked down was turning a bit. The only difference in our conversation was that instead of pointing down the street and telling him to head for the traffic light that you can see in the distance, I told him how many blocks it was to the traffic light. We then let our dogs sniff each other a bit and talked about dogs for a few minutes (my dog was getting comically frustrated that he couldn’t get the guy’s service dog to get up and play, not understanding that the guy had told the dog to lie down and that this well-trained dog wasn’t going to get up until she was told she could, no matter how hard my dog tried to make her get up and play), and the guy was on his way.

As he was walking away, another neighbor who was also outside with her dog started saying things like “oh, the poor guy” and “it must be awful to get lost like that.” I don’t think that neighbor would ever in a million years tell a Helen Keller joke, but she was the one who assumed that the guy had gotten lost because he was blind, and then talked about him behind his back as he was walking away. I assumed he had gotten lost because he did the same thing that lots of people who can see do, but I will tell a Helen Keller joke. So, which one of us would you say is the “ableist”?

67

cswella

November 4, 2013 at 1:43 pm (UTC -5)

@66. Chris Rodda:

Neither will the majority of racists actively go out and assault minorities, but they’re still racist for telling a racist joke.

Being a deaf person, I’m still unsure of the helen keller jokes being good or bad. I would guess that for something like the above joke more bad than good, based on how uncomfortable I feel about it. Also, learning a good rule of thumb on this site (Punching up vs Punching down) I would stay away from that joke because I would consider it a “Punching Down” joke.

68

LeftSidePositive

November 4, 2013 at 1:46 pm (UTC -5)

Chris, I suggest you read everything that Crommunist has ever written about why it is pointless/misinformed/nonsensical to use the term “a racist” and replace it with the word “ableist” to see how profoundly ridiculous your little story is.

For one thing, whether or not your neighbor would tell a Helen Keller joke is a matter of temperament and her sense of propriety and has nothing to do with the content of the attitudes she holds. Moreover, the meme you posted expresses exactly the same infantilizing attitudes towards people with disabilities that your neighbor has bought into. By posting it, you are normalizing those attitudes and propagating them, the same way someone who tells a hipster “make me a sammich” joke is still doing harm. Really, this is not that hard to grasp.

For another, systemic marginalization is not at all about whether a person is or is not, in a binary way, any particular type of -ist. We all are affected by our environments to a greater or lesser degree, and despite our intentions or conscious values we can act in marginalizing ways. Again, read up on Crommunist. Really, to say–in 2013, no less!–that one is not “the -ist” on any issue just because you’re not always overtly hostile or you can trot out someone who is more cartoonishly offensive or that you don’t mean to be, is profoundly sociologically ignorant.

And honestly, I seriously doubt you have trouble grasping this particular concept when it’s in your own wheelhouse: even though Oprah is not Bill Donahue, Tony Perkins, or whomever in overt fire-and-brimstone condemnation of atheists, I’m pretty sure you can grasp why all that “but don’t you experience awe?!” and “but you must be spiritual!” is marginalizing and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Microaggressions are a well-established sociological concept.

69

LeftSidePositive

November 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm (UTC -5)

Huntstoddard: while I think gallows humor is a genuine function of lots of humor, it is not the only way humor (or attempted humor) can operate. For instance, gallows humor is told *by the condemned* in a “we’re all in this together” sort of way. Other types of humor establish social norms by identifying an undesirable outgroup or behavior. This meme is clearly pointing to a disabled person as an outgroup and a reason to laugh at, rather than with.

Also, what cswella said about punching down.

70

Chris Rodda

November 4, 2013 at 2:31 pm (UTC -5)

I think that people who go out of their way not to tell jokes about a certain group of people are actually more likely to be the ones who are secretly prejudiced than people who aren’t worried about telling a joke that people might think is inappropriate. I know that I’m not an “ableist” because I know that I never have to consciously think about how I’m acting around a disabled person any more than I do around anybody else. So, I really don’t give a rat’s ass if any of you feel that you need to label me because I think a joke is funny. I’m not going to go out of my way to try to be politically correct. To me that would be putting on a completely unnecessary show to prove something to other people that I feel no need to prove to myself.

71

LeftSidePositive

November 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm (UTC -5)

I think that people who go out of their way not to tell jokes about a certain group of people are actually more likely to be the ones who are secretly prejudiced

Ah, I see we’ve thrown over rationalization and gone to projection in our litany of feeble defense mechanisms!

By the way, as we’ve already described to you, people who don’t hold stereotype-laden views of other people don’t “go out of their way not to tell jokes about a certain group of people.” It just doesn’t seem funny in the first place, because we don’t hold the values on which those jokes are based.

I know that I’m not an “ableist”

Did you actually read the bit I already said about how as soon as you say “I’m not AN -ist” you look like an ignorant sod who can’t parse the criticism leveled at them?! Would you care to actually address the sociological argument that is actually being made?

because I know that I never have to consciously think about how I’m acting around a disabled person any more than I do around anybody else.

Oh, holy shit–did you just do the equivalent of “I don’t see race”?! SERIOUSLY??? Look, Chris, there are mountains of social science research about how we as humans are not conscious of our motivations all the time. This is EXTREMELY 101 level stuff and the fact that it would even occur to you to say something this asinine (and, apparently, expect the result to be anything other than people laughing in your face), you seriously need to do some remedial reading.

if any of you feel that you need to label me

Reading comprehension FAIL. This is not about “labeling you.” No one gives a shit about what your true soul is like. An instance of your behavior was inappropriate, and it was criticized. No one is giving you a label (apart from “ignorant,” which you’ve demonstrated beyond all possible doubt in your last couple of posts!), we’re saying “that thing you did wasn’t cool, please be more considerate next time.”

because I think a joke is funny.

Introspection is a good thing, you know.

I’m not going to go out of my way to try to be politically correct.

Ah, yes–whining about “political correctness” when someone asks you to please behave with some human decency. Damn, where did I leave my bingo card?

To me that would be putting on a completely unnecessary show

Being mindful of the consequences of your actions and the social norms you promote is “a completely unnecessary show”?! That’s, um…concerning.

to prove something to other people that I feel no need to prove to myself.

Why is it about “proving something”? Why isn’t it simply about being a decent human being? Why isn’t it about not making readers like cswella feel uncomfortable, as ze said ze did?

72

Stella

November 4, 2013 at 3:02 pm (UTC -5)

The other day I went to get a flu shot. I was yelled at repeatedly, treated as if I were a child and physically dragged around instead of simply being told where to go. I was made to wait for forty minutes; there was no one ahead of me.

Tomorrow I will try to vote. I will be grabbed and dragged and forced to wait for and use whatever spiffy, unfamiliar, assistive tech they bought this time.

I have been forced to walk farther to use the handicapped entrance. .

This is the attitude you are contributing to. Blind=stupid–> someone else has to take charge of me.

Luckily most blind and deaf blind people won’t even know about your joke. You didn’t bother to include alt text for the images.

Yes, you are punching down.

Stella

73

Paul Loebe

November 4, 2013 at 3:08 pm (UTC -5)

I suppose Amish people should be angry about the rock band The Electric Amish.

74

Reginald Selkirk

November 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm (UTC -5)

I recall a phenomenon from a place i used to live. It was a frequent occurence to read letters to the editor in the newspaper which were of the form, “I’m not a member of group X, but if I were, I would be offended by your article…”

75

cswella

November 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm (UTC -5)

@Paul Loebe:

“I suppose Amish people should be angry about the rock band The Electric Amish.”

If being Amish wasn’t a choice, sure i guess. Same as native americans being angry about the Washington R*****ns.

76

cswella

November 4, 2013 at 5:56 pm (UTC -5)

@Chris Rodda:

I think that people who go out of their way not to tell jokes about a certain group of people are actually more likely to be the ones who are secretly prejudiced than people who aren’t worried about telling a joke that people might think is inappropriate.

You know, when your ‘apologetics’ start sounding like something David Barton would pull out of his ass, we’ve got a problem…

I’ve been the butt of many deaf jokes, and so I know quite alot of them, and many times I’ll see something that reminds me of a specific joke. So by your standards, whenever I think of a joke as a result of remembering it, I’m more prejudiced if I don’t say it out loud than if I withhold it? Or am I going to be an exception to the rule?

How about this? I grew up in a racist town, so I have seen many racist jokes/slurs. If I see a word similar to the slur, or a phrase that brings up the joke, is it racist to not say it? Or more racist to say it?

because I know that I never have to consciously think about how I’m acting around a disabled person any more than I do around anybody else.

What leftside said.

77

chigau (違う)

November 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm (UTC -5)

This has been very educational.

78

Stacy

November 4, 2013 at 7:17 pm (UTC -5)

The Helen Keller one is ableist. That’s what makes it mean. Making fun of a person’s disability is mean and demeaning to that person

I can’t articulate why exactly, but I don’t read this joke as mean or demeaning to Keller or to any other blind person. I think it’s sweet and absurdist–predicated on empathy as much as anything. It’s hard for me to imagine she wouldn’t have laughed at it herself.

Seriously, nobody thinks Helen Keller would mistake a dog for a cat.

@Paul Loebe:

rad fem: replacement of patriarchy with matriarchy. subservience to women and underprivileged peoples by the privileged as reparations. Disagreement is immediate mansplaining and cis-bullshit rape-apologist accusations

Yup, that’s contemporary feminism and FtB in a nutshell: we want matriarchy! Reparations! All disagreement is mansplaining!

You can stop stroking yourself for your own “rationality”–making strawmen of your opponents’ positions like that is not “rational” behavior.


fortunately, as near as I can tell from my own subscription notifications, I think we have a perfect splice!

Pt II in next post
Last edited by SubMor on Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: put the quotes behind a hiddentext tag
LeftSidePositive
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:00 am

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby LeftSidePositive » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:47 am

from dysomniak:

[ Show ]
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12073
Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
ROFL ... Did cswella really just resort to comparing me to David Barton? That's almost as funny as a good Helen Keller joke!
Permalink: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... unnies-83/

This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

6:05 PM (12 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12074
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
<blockquote>Seriously, nobody thinks Helen Keller would mistake a dog for a cat.</blockquote>

We've been over this already. It's called "hipster *ism." Everyone basically pretends that we're just so over the issue in question and then it becomes okay to make the jokes we wouldn't even want to make if we were over it.

Here is how hipster racism is described:

<blockquote><i>Hipster racism, a term coined around 2006 in an article by Carmen Van Kerckhove, is described as the use of irony and satire to mask racism. It is the use of blatantly racist comments in an attempt to be controversial and edgy. Its irony is established in <b>a somewhat post-racial belief</b> that blatant expressions of genuine racism <b>are no longer taken seriously</b> and are an outdated way of thinking, thereby making the use of such overt expressions satiric.</i> --Wikipedia [emphasis mine]</blockquote>

And here's Natalie Reed, on the endless iterations of that whole "seriously, nobody thinks ..." bullshit:

<blockquote><i>Hipster Misogyny is connected strongly to Hipster Racism. What is hipster racism? I can’t believe you don’t know! You’re dumb as an overheated negro! LOLZ! That was ironic. See, like, I’m so obviously not racist (I mean, how can I be? I have a ODB tattoo and totally love James Brown, Brenda Holloway and Mos Def! And I, like, totally have read Langston Hughes, bell hooks and Angela Davis ), and so obviously I didn’t really mean it. See I’m not making fun of black people, I’m making fun of racism. Who even says “negro” anymore? It’s old-timey, so it’s funny. I mean, c’mon, you must be really retarded to not realize all that! What? Retarded isn’t able-ist, yeesh! God, I’m totally not against retards. I’m just making fun of the fact that making fun of retards is funny. Wow, you’re lame. I’m going to go listen to Bad Brains to show how non-racist I am. What, you’re mad that they’re violent homophobes?! Yeah, but I enjoy their raging hatred of gay men ironically. Obviously I’m cool with gay people. I mean, I totally love The Scissor Sisters and I read Savage Love every week. And I kissed a dude once at a party when I was drunk, and I even go to gay bars like, all the time. And remember how much I love Langston Hughes? And yeah, I’m down with trannies, too. I’ve seen two whole seasons of Ru Paul’s Drag Race, and I own that album by Antony &amp; The Johnsons! And I love Joy Division’s cover of “Sister Ray”. Wait, you’re mad that I said “trannies”? But I’m reclaiming it, just like Ru Paul does. *eyeroll*</i> --Sincerely, Natalie Reed. "Hipster Misogyny"</blockquote>

Actually, just go read that whole piece. It's fantastic, and it really deconstructs just what's wrong with this in-group-I'm-above-this thinking. When you're done with that, here's another:

<blockquote><i>Another key problem with hipster sexism is that it suggests true misogyny is dead. Hipsterism is, after all, the practice of dredging up the past, the deeply non-ironic, and repurposing it for novel fun.

But sexism never went anywhere in the first place, and there's nothing novel or subversive in using naked women to decorate music videos. If anything, it's subversive not to. As Naomi Wolf once said: "to live in a culture in which women are routinely naked where men aren't is to learn inequality in little ways all day long."</i> --Rebecca Kamm. "The Problem with Hipster Sexism"</blockquote>

And hipster ableism is also a known entity:

<blockquote><i>For starters, it’s primarily used in safe spaces, among other hipsters, which would seem to suggest that it’s actually a form of in-group humour. In fact, it’s a way for people to continue internalizing and believing in -isms, using their humour as a defensive wall. “Oh, I don’t really believe it, that’s why it’s funny,” they say, but if that’s the case, then why don’t they use this humour outside hipster circles? If it’s funny to make jokes about people with disabilities, for example, why don’t hipsters make those jokes around people with disabilities?</i> --s. e. smith. "Hipster Ableism"</blockquote>

So, nice try, Stacy, but next time try not to use a justification that has been dissected to death and has a whole lexicon developed around how intellectually immature it is. It won't get you very far.

And Chris, your sloppy thinking, pathetic excuses, and absurd projection about this issue actually is resembling David Barton in kind if not in degree. It's kind of funny that you can recognize such poor reasoning in others but fall into exactly that trap when you don't want to examine your behavior too closely.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

6:07 PM (12 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12075
Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
This boils down to: Your Sense Of Humor Sucks!

As Emperor Palpatine once said (he didn't really)

"Good! Good! Let the butthurt flow through you."
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

6:13 PM (12 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12076
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
Paul, we've already been over how "you just don't have a sense of humor" is so commonly used to try to silence people challenging harmful social norms, that it is becoming seriously ineffective as a silencing strategy. We're all well-versed in these kind of defenses, and you're just looking like a pathetic amateur who's in WAAAAY over his head when you think that "Your Sense Of Humor Sucks!" is going to give anyone pause with this crowd.

Try to keep up.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

6:55 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12077
Author: Stacy
Comment:
<blockquote>but next time try not to use a justification that has been dissected to death</blockquote>

Nice try, LSP, but <i>you</i> ignored the first part of my comment.

I was not defending "hipster" humor. I would in fact share this joke with a blind person in a nanosecond. What "harmful social norm" is it perpetuating, exactly? The one where we all think blind people mistake dogs for cats, or the one where we all think blindness is hilarious?

(For the record, I'm disabled, myself. Admittedly, mine is one of those "invisible" disabilities. But I have no problem with jokes about mental illness when I know that the joke isn't coming from a place of cruelty.)

I think this particular joke is funny and harmless. Looks like we disagree, but you don't have to be condescending about it.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:03 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12078
Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
Well, I guess it's OK with you guys that Helen Keller was a racist, right? She even named one of her dogs "Darkie," but that was a term of endearment for black people back then, of course. I'm sure that's all she meant by it. And her descriptions of those little negro children she played with and her little black servant boy certainly weren't meant in a negative way at all. Why, the way she liked to rub the little black servant boy's wooly little head was just adorable! Now, I'm sure she would have said she wasn't a racist and all. Of course, some of the commenters here wouldn't have believed her because, you know, if you say you're not something it just proves that you really are.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:11 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12079
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
Yes, you were defending hipster humor. The "no one really thinks that so it's okay to joke" is the sine qua non of hipster *ism, as I've shown.

And, yes, people really do think persons with disabilities are hopelessly enfeebled and can't navigate their lives or manage basic levels of independence, and someone has already shared their experiences with you to that effect. Moreover, people regularly think of those with disabilities are less-than, and this can be expressed in pity, disgust, hilarity, or all three depending on the circumstance.

And the fact that you tolerate jokes about a group to which you belong does not mean that they do not in fact reinforce harmful social norms, entrench cognitive biases that disadvantage the disabled, and alienate others. Lots of women have internalized the values behind sexist jokes and have no problems with it. Lots of marginalized persons in many different groups find that getting along with and being "chill" with those who will only let them in the club conditionally is a useful survival strategy, whether they do it consciously or unconsciously.

See, we've been talking about how microaggressions have measurable effects on society at large--in terms of policy, educational attainment, lived experiences, etc. We've discussed systemic discrimination, stereotype threat, cognitive biases in evaluating and shortchanging members of out-groups, and the documented effect of prejudiced jokes and language on how people respond to issues affecting those who are the butt of such jokes. For you to just swan in and declare you just think it's harmless, we'll that meager level of thinking is going to get you a hell of a lot of condescension, because your beliefs about sociology are not backed up by data, and you don't even seem to be aware of that fact.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:27 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12080
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
Chris, why the fuck are you saying "<b>A racist</b>"?!?!?! Did you seriously not get BOTH the times I've already told you that this phrase is a massive marker of ignorance?! Did you actually read the Crommunist sources I recommended? You might as well put a great big bright pink 42-point flashing Comic Sans header on your post that says

"I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT AND I CAN'T BE ARSED TO LEARN THE FIRST THING ABOUT IT NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU POINT ME TO THE CLUE RENTAL STORE."

And Helen Keller lived from 1880-1968. I would be DUMBFOUNDED if she did *not* espouse any racist attitudes (notice how I didn't say "a racist," because for the vast majority of people short of David Duke, that's not really a useful term), even if she was a perfectly nice, well-meaning person. Intent is not magic, after all. Really overt racist attitudes were the NORM back then (and less overtly racist attitudes are still normative now), so it would be downright implausible to presume a white lady of that era would not behave in ways that today we can clearly identify as informed by racist beliefs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton said some incredibly racist shit. Martin Luther King could be remarkably sexist. Margaret Sanger had her fair share of ableism and classism. People aren't gods, they aren't "pure," and it's not useful to try to divide into "-ist" vs. "not -ist." We all exist within a prejudiced culture and oppressive systems. That affects our thinking and we're responsible for it, even if we are trying to be good people. The obvious corollary to that is that good people we admire were still often affected by the prejudices of their day. Again, it's 2013, Chris. I can't BELIEVE you are making such a facile and ignorant argument, especially when you share a blog network with brilliant people who have shredded this nonsense hundreds of times over.

Fuckin' sociology and history man, how does it work?!?!?

You are doing the equivalent of "then why are there still monkeys?" and I'm literally cringing at your willful ignorance.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:28 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12081
Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
Has the term "hipster" taken on some new meaning that I don't know about? I can't figure out what on earth hipsters have to do with any of this, but maybe it means something else now that I don't know about since I really don't keep up with these things, not being a hipster and all.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:31 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12082
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
I suppose actually googling and reading the fucking articles I cited is just too much work for you?!
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:33 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12083
Author: Stacy
Comment:
LSP, see this is what I meant. I haven't declared my "beliefs about sociology." I understand "systemic discrimination, stereotype threat, cognitive biases in evaluating and shortchanging members of out-groups," and problems of prejudiced jokes and language.

I declared my opinion about One.Particular.Joke.

In the realm of humor, there really is room for differences of opinion. There's a continuum: "jokes" that are clearly othering and derisive of marginalized people, jokes that everyone can agree are harmless, and, in the middle, jokes like this one, where how we respond to the joke is going to depend on context.

And that's the last thing I'm going to say about it.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:36 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12084
Author: Stella
Comment:
Chris,

Why are you so proud of yourself for making my life more difficult?

Where are the alt text descriptions of the images you post?

Stella
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:42 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12085
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
<blockquote>In the realm of humor, there really is room for differences of opinion.</blockquote>

About a "joke" whose ONLY purpose is to say, "Haha, that lady's blind and deaf!"?! Seriously?? Please, elucidate for us, in somewhat more detail than "I think it's funny and harmless" how this is not a classic case of demeaning people through prejudiced jokes? You're also failing to account for the role of normalization in people's responses to what's harmless (LOTS of people thing spanking children is harmless, despite the near-unanimous consensus of child development researchers--just the fact that something is so common and unquestioned doesn't validate the opinion that it's harmless).

And saying you think the joke is harmless is expressing a belief about sociology. And it is at odds with the vast majority of research in this topic.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:43 PM (11 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12086
Author: Stella
Comment:
LeftSidePositive,

Thank you for your attempts to educate.

Stella
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:54 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12087
Author: PatrickG
Comment:
On a random note, can we perhaps leave the deep philosophical questions about humor aside and address the actually blind and/or deaf people in this thread who have expressed that this particular joke hurt them?

Specifically, I refer to Stella and cswella. You can scroll up to read their comments. All this blather about not conforming to "PC-standards" and such... I mean, really, you've got people here -- people with a very relevant point of view -- pointing out how jokes like these impact them. <b>Completely ignored</b>.

@ Chris Rodda: As someone who <i>does</i> find the joke funny (albeit in a guilty way), I'm not sure why you're focusing on only portions of comments. Do the actually blind and deaf not merit consideration here, in the context of this joke? If someone engages in polemic rhetoric, does that invalidate responding to the rest of their comment when it's directly on topic?

Additionally, are you really arguing that because Helen Keller held racist beliefs, it's therefore ok to make fun of her on the basis of her disabilities? It's hard to read you otherwise. If she hadn't been racist, would making fun of her be ok? Or do you seriously think that people here condone racism as long as it comes from disabled people?

I'll continue to enjoy your work, particularly your deft demolition work on Barton, but I'm really startled that you'd advance that argument.

@ Paul: I get that you find Helen Keller funny. However, I don't understand why you claim to celebrate her as an activist while taking such joy in making fun of her. Seems contradictory to me, and if it had been solely in the context of this thread, I might just wave it off as internet crap.

But taking this thread to DJ Groethe's Facebook page on another subject was slightly eyebrow-raising. Carry a grudge much? That's the most facile interpretation I can put on your behavior; I don't need to know your history with people here to recognize the size of the chip on your shoulder.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

7:58 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12088
Author: Stacy
Comment:
<blockquote>About a “joke” whose ONLY purpose is to say, “Haha, that lady’s blind and deaf!”?</blockquote>

Hmm. I saw a joke whose subject was a lovely woman, universally admired (as long as the fact that she was a socialist doesn't get mentioned,) embracing a beloved pet (underlined by use of the word, "beloved,") with the punchline that Ms. Keller--being blind--has mistaken the dog for a cat.

As I said earlier, my response was mixed up with empathy. I identified with Helen Keller in the picture. I thought the mistaken identity was funny. I simply didn't read it as derisive.

I can see it being taken that way, but I don't think that's the only way to take it.

I'm going to think about it some more.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

8:03 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12089
Author: Stacy
Comment:
PatrickG, you're right, I overlooked Stella and scwella's comments. Thanks for pointing that out.

<blockquote>But taking this thread to DJ Groethe’s Facebook page on another subject was slightly eyebrow-raising.</blockquote>

Oh jebus. What an ass.

LeftSidePositive, I'm sorry you've been dismissed so much in this thread, and I'm sorry that I contributed to that. I'm not sure I agree with you about everything, but I appreciate what you're trying to do.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

8:09 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12090
Author: Stella
Comment:
<blockquote>I’m going to think about it some more.</blockquote>

You go right ahead and ponder at your leisure. I'll be out here living the real-world results of your degrading humor.

Stella
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

8:24 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12091
Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
Really, Stella? You think I'm trying to make your life more difficult by not putting alt text descriptions of my Sunday Funnies? You don't know anything about the things I do. You don't know about all the time I spent typing text transcriptions of a video series I did because someone told me that deaf people would appreciate that. And you don't know that I made sure that text-to-speech was enabled on the Kindle versions of my books so that blind or visually impaired people can listen to them. So, screw you!
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

8:42 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12092
Author: LeftSidePositive
Comment:
Hasn't alt-text for images been a pretty standard part of web accessibility for, like, EVER?

I've always been fascinated by the mindset that doing the right thing in a few instances apparently buys you off from actually having to do the right thing consistently... silly me, I didn't think decent people just shrugged off after they'd filled their (self-assessed and inherently subjective) "decent person point bank."

And lashing out at people for expecting accessibility is pretty much text book ableism, so while clearly you are convinced that the part of your brain that laughs at disability-related humor is totally separate from the real you and your actions and values...the evidence is indicating otherwise.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

8:45 PM (10 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12093
Author: Stella
Comment:
Thank you for doing those things. Shame on me for mentioning that what you neglect is basic web accessibility.

Screw me for objecting to your making my life more difficult by contributing to the stereotypes of blind people that I have to deal with in real life. I should be ashamed of myself.

Nope, there's nothing ableist here.

Stella
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

8:58 PM (9 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12094
Author: Stella
Comment:
LeftSidePositive,

You read and post a kot faster than I can

I could just repost your entire post.

That is the attitude of most of the people I have to deal with all the time. Equal access, especially to information, suddenly becomes "special treatment". I should be properly humble and eternally grateful.

Thanks for having my back.
This Week in Christian Nationalism <liarsforjesus@aol.com>

9:01 PM (9 hours ago)

to me
There is a new comment to Sunday Funnies.
Comment Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... ment-12095
Author: Stella
Comment:
And yes, alt text was part of WWW standards from very early on, if not from the beginning. At least since the early 90s when I designed sites.

Stella
Permalink: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/ ... unnies-83/
Last edited by SubMor on Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: put quotes behind hiddentext
LeftSidePositive
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:00 am

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Stella » Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:26 am

Thank you for collecting, assembling and posting this.

Stella
User avatar
Stella
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:01 pm
Location: Virginia, US

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Lovely » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:38 am

Really, Stella? You think I'm trying to make your life more difficult by not putting alt text descriptions of my Sunday Funnies? You don't know anything about the things I do. You don't know about all the time I spent typing text transcriptions of a video series I did because someone told me that deaf people would appreciate that. And you don't know that I made sure that text-to-speech was enabled on the Kindle versions of my books so that blind or visually impaired people can listen to them. So, screw you!


Wow. Wow. Woooooooow.

That happened.
I look fresh to death.
User avatar
Lovely
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:15 am

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby SubMor » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:08 am

TW: Snarky rationalization for why that totally ableist thing couldn't have been ableist [ Show ]
Stupid disabled girl's too blind deaf and dumb to know the difference between a dog and a cat. LOL ISN'T THAT FUCKING HILARIOUS, EVERYONE? Of course this joke doesn't make her disabilities the butt of the punchline! El oh el! And the fact that she was actually a brilliant intellectual can just be completely disregarded because lolhelenkeller helenkeLOLer!
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4786
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby ischemgeek » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:19 am

It's not the first time she's been taken to task for ableist humor. I quit reading her blog over a similar Sunday Funnies debacle. Same shit, different day.
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Tinjoe » Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:42 pm

Lovely wrote:
Really, Stella? You think I'm trying to make your life more difficult by not putting alt text descriptions of my Sunday Funnies? You don't know anything about the things I do. You don't know about all the time I spent typing text transcriptions of a video series I did because someone told me that deaf people would appreciate that. And you don't know that I made sure that text-to-speech was enabled on the Kindle versions of my books so that blind or visually impaired people can listen to them. So, screw you!


Wow. Wow. Woooooooow.

That happened.


The attitude that you do all these helpful/accessible things such as providing transcripts, or text-to-speech doesn't protect you when you do screw up has got to go. How have people who aren't those complete assholes on twitter/youtube not gotten that yet?

Do good things, you get commended for it. Do shitty things and people will call you on it. It's that simple. The whole community should be like that but it seems the louder, shitbaggier side of it has a little too much hero worship going on, and people who think they deserve cookies feel they should be excused for transgressions.

I know, I would want to know when I screw up.
Tinjoe
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:32 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Kate from Iowa » Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:42 pm

This entire sequence of bullshit and fuck-ups should be copied to the "you're not an ally just because you say you are" thread.

(Can't remember the actual thread title.)
I have "spinning, twirling jackass dysxexia." Assume that everything I type has or will be edited for spelling, even if it's still spelled wrong or has a 9 where a q should be.
User avatar
Kate from Iowa
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:56 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby ischemgeek » Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:23 pm

Moderator notice

I concur, Kate from Iowa. Wish shall be granted shortly, and I'll edit this post with a link as soon as it is.

wish granted
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Sun Countess » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:16 pm

I was a bit surprised to see that comic amongst the others (which generally poke fun at religious superstitions) this past Sunday, but I was extremely surprised by how vehemently Chris Rodda defended its inclusion. That she didn't have that moment of, "Yes, I thought it was funny when I saw it, but I can see that the humor is punching down, which makes it mean-spirited and ableist. Sorry, still learning, taking it down now."

How hard is it, really, to see when humor is punching down and when it's punching up? And yes, we've all been raised in a culture that tells us that we're supposed to think it's funny and okay to pick on people weaker (meaning they have a lack of power, not necessarily some sort of physical weakness) than we are. But as secularists, aren't we supposed to want to make things better for everybody, and not to try to maintain our own relative positions by continually stepping on the people below us, while we only try to claw past the people positioned above us? For crap sakes, how hard is it to see that if we grab the hands of the people below us, and offer our shoulders/support to them, that we may collectively have enough power to knock the firmly-entrenched top rungs of the ladder onto a level playing field with the rest of us?

I'm just getting so tired of people who appear to be decent doubling and tripling down when they're called out for hurtful behavior. If someone does something with no ill intent, why do so many find it so hard to apologize and rectify the damage that they've done?
User avatar
Sun Countess
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:11 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Bruno64 » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:33 pm

Sun Countess wrote:
I'm just getting so tired of people who appear to be decent doubling and tripling down when they're called out for hurtful behavior. If someone does something with no ill intent, why do so many find it so hard to apologize and rectify the damage that they've done?


This is what I don't understand as well, and it seems to be more prevalent as of late or maybe I'm just noticing it more?

I wonder if it's just human nature to not want to concede a point, or admit that we've made mistakes or is it something deeper? Because lately I can barely listen to some of what were my favorite local radio stations because of this exact thing, or even with some of my co-workers in the office.I find now that probably 4 out of 5 days I eat lunch at my desk rather than join my co-workers in our break area.
“Let them think what they like, but I didn't mean to drown myself. I meant to swim till I sank -- but that's not the same thing. Joseph Conrad
User avatar
Bruno64
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:58 pm
Location: Dearborn, MI

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Kate from Iowa » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:34 pm

ischemgeek wrote:
Moderator notice

I concur, Kate from Iowa. Wish shall be granted shortly, and I'll edit this post with a link as soon as it is.

wish granted


Thanks, Chem. I think that anyone 101ing in the "am I an ally or not/why am I not an ally" direction can get a lot of good out of that, if they're not completely into head-up-ass trolldom.


Bruno64 wrote:
Sun Countess wrote:
I'm just getting so tired of people who appear to be decent doubling and tripling down when they're called out for hurtful behavior. If someone does something with no ill intent, why do so many find it so hard to apologize and rectify the damage that they've done?


This is what I don't understand as well, and it seems to be more prevalent as of late or maybe I'm just noticing it more?

I wonder if it's just human nature to not want to concede a point, or admit that we've made mistakes or is it something deeper? Because lately I can barely listen to some of what were my favorite local radio stations because of this exact thing, or even with some of my co-workers in the office.I find now that probably 4 out of 5 days I eat lunch at my desk rather than join my co-workers in our break area.


I think that it is getting more prevalent, and a lot of it is for the reasons stated in the hiddentexted thread. There's this idea that these things are "over" so it's okay to "ironically" poke fun at them. The real problem is it's not really poking fun. I have heard some astonishingly racist and sexist views expressed unapologetically and unironically (it's doubtful if many of the people so certain they're being ironic have a good grasp on the concept of irony in the first place) and it's been not only very recent, it's been getting more common. And it seems to be getting more common faster among self-described liberals or liberal advocates. The attitude is that same "mission accomplished" attitude that I grew up seeing in many of my parents' friends just because the 60s were over and everyone got to vote regardless of how dark their skin was and we could all move into whatever neighborhood or school district we wanted. That feeling of "the fight's over, we don't have to think about it now" is a dangerously lazy way of thinking when it comes to social justice, and it unfortunately seems to be the most common aftereffect of having completed a phase of a struggle.

As for lunch, I was just about to grab something and come back to my desk and hide. Wanna join me?
I have "spinning, twirling jackass dysxexia." Assume that everything I type has or will be edited for spelling, even if it's still spelled wrong or has a 9 where a q should be.
User avatar
Kate from Iowa
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:56 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Onamission5 » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:49 pm

Bruno64 wrote:
Sun Countess wrote:
I'm just getting so tired of people who appear to be decent doubling and tripling down when they're called out for hurtful behavior. If someone does something with no ill intent, why do so many find it so hard to apologize and rectify the damage that they've done?


This is what I don't understand as well, and it seems to be more prevalent as of late or maybe I'm just noticing it more?

I wonder if it's just human nature to not want to concede a point, or admit that we've made mistakes or is it something deeper? Because lately I can barely listen to some of what were my favorite local radio stations because of this exact thing, or even with some of my co-workers in the office.I find now that probably 4 out of 5 days I eat lunch at my desk rather than join my co-workers in our break area.


I don't understand either. I mean, I understand unwittingly doing harm, that's something any of us could do and probably have done because we're inculcated with all measure of hurtful, exclusionary messages just by nature of growing up in society at large, but what I don't understand is knowing this, knowing that one could have internalized bias about one thing, and doubling down when called on it about another thing. I don't think Chris is someone who'd have doubled down on a racist or sexist joke. I think she'd have gotten the FUCK NO of that immediately, but if she somehow missed it and it was pointed out to her, would have yanked it down and apologized forthwith. So why the difficulty with accepting that one is capable of ableism, and accepting that that's not a defensible position?
We must use time wisely and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.
--Nelson Mandela
User avatar
Onamission5
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:23 pm
Location: a long way from where I was, but not quite where I want to be

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Kassiane » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:34 pm

Welp there's like not a single redeeming value left at FTB is there?

Also, "well I did one nice thing for disabled people" is fucked up for so many reasons. Allowing us equal access isn't a fucking FAVOR so she needs to stop acting like we should be GRATEFUL.
I hate silence when it is a time for speaking-the original Kassiane, 9C
User avatar
Kassiane
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:16 am
Location: PDX

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby ischemgeek » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:56 pm

It occurs to me that I should perhaps follow up the post in the ally thread with what Rodda should have done. How's this sound?

Here's how you should respond when an accessibility fail is brought to your attention, assuming accessibility is in fact a thing you care about and assuming that you accept the fact that disabled people have a right to equal access.

Person: [content] isn't accessible to me because [reason]. Can you [provide accommodation]?
You: [apology]. I'll do that ASAP/I'll ask someone with the know-how to teach me how and provide it ASAP. I'll let you know as soon as I have it. *goes and does so*
You: It's fixed now. Is that better?
Person: Yes, thanks/No, it needs [modification].
You: You're welcome / *does modification* as appropriate.

We don't expect people to be perfectly anticipate disability access needs 100% of the time. However, we can - and do - expect a good-faith effort *ETA* to anticipate access needs before they're an issue and */ETA* to rectify an access fail as soon as it's brought to your attention.
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Onamission5 » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:57 pm

And she's posted to the newest comment thread that she is now moderating comments, nothing linking to caches of her deleted thread or criticizing her attitude or actions is being allowed through. Is there a word in any language for disappointment and fury combined? I need that word.

FWIW, there's a discussion taking place about this in the thunderdome, and no one has yet decided to engage in apologetics.
We must use time wisely and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.
--Nelson Mandela
User avatar
Onamission5
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:23 pm
Location: a long way from where I was, but not quite where I want to be

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Surgoshan » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:25 pm

Onamission5 wrote:Is there a word in any language for disappointment and fury combined? I need that word.


Liberal American.

Sorry, couldn't get it down to one word.
Religious dogma is all potato.

Has tratado de no estar gringo?

Thank you for taking the time to share your religion with me. My face was suffering a palm deficiency. It's better now.
User avatar
Surgoshan
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby ischemgeek » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:00 pm

... huh. If English doesn't have a word for it, we should make one.
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby Supertooth » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:18 pm

Mash some Latin and Greek words together and see what comes out the other end. Or, alternatively, you could start looking here:

http://www.kokogiak.com/logolepsy/ow_a.html
The Conservatives voted against the National Health Act, not only on the second but on the third reading. I do not see why we should forget this -- Aneurin Bevan

Blog. I also tumblelog my photography, if you're into that sort of thing.
User avatar
Supertooth
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 3:25 pm
Location: Lancashire.

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby quietmarc » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:44 am

I'm partway through the first bit, but Chris' initial post is....confusing to me. It reads like a story: Rover chewed up the carpet on Tuesday, but Rover -didn't- dig up the neighbour's garden on Monday, Misty did therefore Rover has done nothing wrong.

Whatever else is said after that, the initial objection wasn't even addressed. I fear for reading the rest. Especially since I would have closed the thread down as soon as the "jokes" started.
My blogs:

Drymarc - where I talk about being sober
Zombunist - where I talk about zombies and other things

PMs are ok.
quietmarc
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:29 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby emptyell » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:51 am

Surgoshan wrote:
Onamission5 wrote:Is there a word in any language for disappointment and fury combined? I need that word.


Liberal American.

Sorry, couldn't get it down to one word.


German or Yiddish must have something. But I'm verklempt.
User avatar
emptyell
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:46 am

Re: [TW: ableism] Here is why there are no more Sunday Funni

Postby rickymooston » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:57 pm

Cartoon is annoying.

Hellen Keller was an awesome woman whose ability to adapt
was a great inspiration to me as a child. My guess,
she very likely could tell a cat from a dog by feel for example
but if she couldn't i would still admire her as a great role model
and innovator rather than laughing at her blindness. (Forget
if she was deaf too.)

My mentor was blind. Amazing guy who taught me not to make
assumptions about what he could or could not do. If i ever lose my sight,
i hope he will help me adapt. I dont laugh at him.

Had anotger friend who lost his sight, suffered much hardship and even
became an alcoholic. His girl friend dumped him when she heard he was
going blind. I dont laugh at him eitger. Very sad he is enduring hard times.
I am straight but was bullied for being "gay" in middle school. I have ADHD-PI. Mostly i ampriviliged but sometimes adhd has been a struggle. i am in the closet about it because
employers will discriminate if they can.
rickymooston
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:11 pm


Return to Atheism Plus

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests