Conan makes a whoopsie

[Darkness]

Umbran, this is probably a incredibly stupid question, but what is an OTTer?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?347920-Ask-an-OTTer&p=6213185&viewfull=1#post6213185

(Also, it's not a stupid question.)

 

[billd91]

While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is. The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl). The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world. That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.

There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race. Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform. By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.

I am unconvinced it was a racist joke. The same could pretty much have been applied if the character in question was publicized as a Mormon. Would that have made it racist too? Or would that have been waved off the racist label because the vast majority of Mormons are, understandably given the church's own racist history, Caucasian?

I do think that jokes aimed at Islam do run the risk of being viewed as racist more than jokes aimed at any other religion for one understandable reason - so many of the tenets of Islam, particularly the behavioral and legal aspects, are directly inherited from Arab culture. But I don't think that's an ideal approach since it runs the risk of immunizing Islam from criticism through playing the racism card. I'm not going to say that Conan O'Brien was engaging in any high falutin' criticism of Islam's views on women, but I do think there are issues for which a barbed joke like that could and should stick.

Edit: And it appears that I've been ninjaed. Darn you, ninjas!

 

[Bedrockgames]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?347920-Ask-an-OTTer&p=6213185&viewfull=1#post6213185

(Also, it's not a stupid question.)

Thanks Darkness, i don't think I ever would have figured that out on my own (google just brought up a bunch of pages on sea otters).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So now since some people are racist everyone has to be racist? Can't you see how that's unfair to that kid? I guess it doesn't matter, though. He's just some scumbag raised by scumbags ... that you never met.

No. What I'm saying is that TV companies have certain responsibilities to the viewing public. It's part of their licensing agreement form the government. And airing something that is arguably racist- even if done in total innocence- is contrary to their obligations.

It is also not cute: what's more unfair, that this could have been kept off the air, or that this kid may face backlash over his commentary?

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Sorry, I don't think I sufficiently connected the dots.

Could they, in theory, avoid the unfairness on you? Yes. But, as a practical matter, attempting to do so may not be in their best interests. If there are enough jerks, or the jerks are really bad, then taking the time to determine each and every case becomes a losing proposition. Then, it is not irrational or impractical to expect folks to have to demonstrate a certain level of goodwill before cutting them slack.

Basically, jerks in the world have taught people to be pretty wary. If, in practice, 90% (or some high percentage) of the time people who start out like jerks turn out to actually be jerks, they'll have learned to not bother with the 10%. They are unlikely to change just because you feel it is unfair.

And to be honest, we get new users all the time who have no problem quickly coming to terms with how EN World works. You guys are kind of an anomaly in that regard, and I suspect your unity of identity as OTTers actually worked against you in this.

Again, that's all well and good. It does have some issues as a practice, however - especially when civility is something that's constantly preached. I'm not arguing with the practicality of the solution, I'm simply saying the solution leads to issues all its own. Basically it's not civil to assume the worst of someone and treat them accordingly based on that assumption. It's easy as hell, sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Well, here we get to a pertinent point - how much do they care what you think? See above - yes, they may be branding a decent person as a jerk. But, if the odds are against that, then they won't be too worried about it.

And that's fine. Of course, that makes them a jerk - and not one unfairly branded. Actions have consequences no matter how practical they are.

At any rate, the point is that if you're truly after civil discourse it helps to behave in a civil manner (again, plenty here do). When you assume the worst and then ignore someone or say nasty things about them and then ignore them, well, you're not behaving civilly. So what is it I'm to assume, then? People keep telling me about how civility is the goal here and then some of them act quite differently with nary a peep from those preaching civil action to be heard.

If you really are all about fairness - If how you behave doesn't say what they think it does, it probably follows that how they behave doesn't necessarily say what you think it does, either. Two way street, and all that.

Sorry to parse so much here but I think each of these li'l 'graphs raises a point worth addressing individually.

Anyhoo, this is correct. However, what's being said here is civility and the actions don't mirror the words. That's my problem.

You tell us what it doesn't say, to you. You don't tell us what it does say, to you. That's leaving things open to interpretation, you know. Given the context, is that what you really want to do?

Unfortunately without directly addressing specific people and instances I cannot really say what I think it says. As we're supposed to be civil that's what I'm attempting by speaking in general and admittedly less than precise terms. I am actively seeking not to offend.

I posit that what it really says is that they've been burned too often and too badly before to make being open to such initial salvos seem reasonable, to them. That's not inconsistent with being about civility, it simply means they have a higher burden-of-proof threshold than you'd like.

And that's my fault how, exactly? What you're saying here is that it's ok for them to act less civilly to me because of what some other people have done - maybe not even here. That's not right.

If you're gonna behave civilly it means you need to be open minded. Making up your mind about someone because of, in no small part, what others have done is not in line with that. Again, practical, sensible - whatever. It don't make it right.

Dude, do note we have *thousands* of users. How many have actually done this? Are you sure you're not painting with too broad a brush.

I'm painting with a brush this size of this specific forum. I've not interacted anywhere else and I don't presume to label people I haven't talked to. I'm only speaking to what I've actually been seen or told by those that say they know. For example, I've been told that members here have chosen to just ignore anyone associated with OTTers in an effort to get the OTTers to either leave through loneliness or implode and be expelled. That happened and it happened here. Obviously I haven't interacted with those folks but, well, that's because they chose not to interact with me without giving me a chance. So I do speak about them as well as those that have directly behaved in the way I've spoken about.

In addition, while you may not like it, there's nothing uncivil about choosing who you want to talk to, based on your own reasons. If they find your style unpleasant, for whatever reason, they don't owe it to you to talk with you.

True, they don't owe me that. If the goal were actually civil discourse, though, they'd give me a chance. Hell, right here in this thread there's evidence of someone making an assumption about me, attacking my character publicly and then putting me on ignore without giving me a chance to respond. Now that's certainly within their right but it also certainly ain't civil. If you think it is, please explain why. I'd love to hear it.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

No. What I'm saying is that TV companies have certain responsibilities to the viewing public. It's part of their licensing agreement form the government. And airing something that is arguably racist- even if done in total innocence- is contrary to their obligations.

I suppose we'll see what the FCC has to say on the matter, then?

And you're again making an unfair assumption - just like all of those Kimmel-Hitler poster holders. Why's it gotta be racist? Why? The question was specifically about China. There's no evidence whatsoever that the kid targeted Chinese for his 'genocidal delusions'. Remember, he was led to the Chinese.

It is also not cute: what's more unfair, that this could have been kept off the air, or that this kid may face backlash over his commentary?

It's unfair that people would see fit to give a child any backlash about this at all. This was a child on TV hamming it up and led to talk about the Chinese. It's unfair that people don't bother to consider any of that when they decide to call someone a racist. It's unfair that people would put that on a kid at all. They don't know the kid but somehow they're gonna give him poo for being a racist? That's what's unfair.

Oh, and why'd you not bother to talk about the other stuff I wrote? Why nothing about how Kimmel is being compared to Hitler? Why nothing about the people trying to get him fired? The people assassinating his character over this? Why doesn't that merit discussion in your eyes?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why's it gotta be racist? Why? The question was specifically about China. There's no evidence whatsoever that the kid targeted Chinese for his 'genocidal delusions'. Remember, he was led to the Chinese.

A fair reading of any genocidal statement is probably going to conclude that it is racist. That's par for the course.

Did the kid mean it that way? Probably not. But that is no excuse for the broadcaster to air it.

It's unfair that people would see git to give a child any backlash about this at all

So, you think his classmates will let this slide? They're kids, too, with the same impulse control issues as any others his age. Odd are good there will be a schoolyard fight over this.

Had the adults in control actually acted with prudence & judgement, this wouldn't have even been an issue for him in all probability.

Why nothing about how Kimmel is being compared to Hitler? Why nothing about the people trying to get him fired? The people assassinating his character over this? Why doesn't that merit discussion in your eyes?

OK.

1) The "Hitler" thing is ridiculous, but it has become commonplace in discussions of outrage in the USA. So I usually ignore it and dismiss those making the comparison as being hyperbolic and rhetorically bankrupt.

2) clamoring for a firing is a standard tactic of attacking media/entertainment figures who misstep. As such, I don't see it as intrinsically unjust, it is case dependent. Personally, I think a sincere apology is sufficient, assuming there is no demonstrable pattern of racism or lazy broadcasting/editing practices.

3) the potential for character assassination is part of the curse of being a public figure. If you can't handle it, stay out of the limelight.

 

[billd91]

It made it onto the air because most people understood it was totally harmless. The reason it was let go was precicely because it was ludicrous. The kid was being a ham for the camera as kids are wont to do. It's kind of the bit, I imagine. I've never watched Kimmel myself (not since The Man Show anyway) but I can take a good guess as to why they used kids in a segment like that.

Or, it made it onto the air because they like it when kids say controversial things and miscalculated the intensity of the reaction. Given Kimmel's history in low-brow and manipulative/shock comedy, I think that's much more likely than thinking it was totally harmless. Swallowing a little pride and apologizing is the right thing to do in his case.

Do I really need to explain which Conan I'm talking about especially considering the fact that Conan O'Brien has been in the news of late while Conan the Barbarian (an admittedly superior subject) has not? Really?

Fantasy role playing site, duh. Of course people initially thought Conan the Barbarian. If I posted a thread titled "Iron Man video", are you expecting to see someone swimming, biking, or running in the video or are you expecting the superhero?

It's not a big deal either way, but a little more than just a link in the initial post + cryptic commentary is helpful, particularly if you check the tooltip before entering the thread. Right now, so many of the threads in the media forum have just a link in the initial post that a quick review of the tooltips is relatively useless. If the link text had the headline or title of the page linked to, even that would be of more use than "Linky-dinky".

 

[Umbran]

Of course, that makes them a jerk - and not one unfairly branded.

You, of course, are allowed your opinions.

And that's my fault how, exactly?

Where did I imply it was your fault? I am not trying to find fault or place blame. I'm merely noting some realities that may not be obvious to you, so you can make informed choices.

If you're gonna behave civilly it means you need to be open minded.

No, it doesn't, at least not as we mean it here. We have moderators, not thought police. Behaving civilly is a lot easier if you have an open mind, but they can be close-minded pre-judging boneheads, so long as they keep what they say polite.

If the goal were actually civil discourse, though, they'd give me a chance.

There is a point where being exclusive isn't civil. But an individual choosing to not engage with you doesn't cross that line. Nor does reporting what they personally feel is inappropriate behavior.

And some rhetorical questions for you to ponder: How many people have actually done this? A handful? With the hundreds and thousands of other visitors to the boards each day, do these few really matter?

Hell, right here in this thread there's evidence of someone making an assumption about me, attacking my character publicly and then putting me on ignore without giving me a chance to respond. Now that's certainly within their right but it also certainly ain't civil.

If you feel it is outside the bounds, you can report the post - click the icon that is an exclamation point in a yellow triangle at the bottom of the post - and moderators will review it. If you don't report it, we'll generally take that to mean that you didn't feel it was particularly problematic.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

A fair reading of any genocidal statement is probably going to conclude that it is racist. That's par for the course.

Did the kid mean it that way? Probably not. But that is no excuse for the broadcaster to air it.

It was a child. This wasn't a head of state or even a drunken frat boy - it was a child. Anyone thinking it was a genuine genocidal statement is a [redacted]. That or they're looking to be offended.

So, you think his classmates will let this slide? They're kids, too, with the same impulse control issues as any others his age. Odd are good there will be a schoolyard fight over this.

Irrelevant. I said it wouldn't be fair to judge this child and this is an example of unfair judgement.

Had the adults in control actually acted with prudence & judgement, this wouldn't have even been an issue for him in all probability.

Yeah, that's true. Oh wait, you meant Kimmel. See, I thought you meant all of the people protesting this. Whoops.

1) The "Hitler" thing is ridiculous, but it has become commonplace in discussions of outrage in the USA. So I usually ignore it and dismiss those making the comparison as being hyperbolic and rhetorically bankrupt.

Fair.

2) clamoring for a firing is a standard tactic of attacking media/entertainment figures who misstep. As such, I don't see it as intrinsically unjust, it is case dependent. Personally, I think a sincere apology is sufficient, assuming there is no demonstrable pattern of racism or lazy broadcasting/editing practices.

Meh, I do see it as unjust in this case. There wasn't any hate here and that's the disconnect. Overall we're on the same page about this, though.

3) the potential for character assassination is part of the curse of being a public figure. If you can't handle it, stay out of the limelight.

This is a situation where it wasn't warranted. Again, they're calling him Hitler.

Or, it made it onto the air because they like it when kids say controversial things and miscalculated the intensity of the reaction. Given Kimmel's history in low-brow and manipulative/shock comedy, I think that's much more likely than thinking it was totally harmless. Swallowing a little pride and apologizing is the right thing to do in his case.

Thing is, it was harmless. I don't see even an apology as warranted here and, unfortunately, that'll hardly be enough for the people protesting.

Fantasy role playing site, duh. Of course people initially thought Conan the Barbarian. If I posted a thread titled "Iron Man video", are you expecting to see someone swimming, biking, or running in the video or are you expecting the superhero?

I suppose my 'duh' in response is that even RPG players are aware of news outside of the genre.

In fairness I would assume an Iron Man video would be something about Iron Man. To be fair to me, though, I would do so because, in part, Thor is in the news lately and they're mentioning The Avengers. That said, once I saw that the video was about an Iron Man competition I wouldn't be bothered enough to ask that the OP clarify what he meant when he said Iron Man. Cuz both things? Yeah, 'Iron Man' is an accurate description. Kinda like Conan.

It's not a big deal either way, but a little more than just a link in the initial post + cryptic commentary is helpful, particularly if you check the tooltip before entering the thread. Right now, so many of the threads in the media forum have just a link in the initial post that a quick review of the tooltips is relatively useless. If the link text had the headline or title of the page linked to, even that would be of more use than "Linky-dinky".

I try not to get too specific with the initial post because I don't want to steer the discussion. I know what I think, I want to know what you think.