One of my favorite of the human beings, Krassner, who coined the term Yippie and "soft core pornography" and a few others I'm forgetting, first published his ethical quandary- can rape jokes be funny? - in Reason magazine, but updated the article a month later in Huffington Post to include what Louis C.K. said on The Daily Show...although I'm sure he's touched on it in one or more of his numerous books, but I can't find my notes if he did. (In a private email Paul showed me he'd further updated this article, recently, to include the idiotic comments by far-right-wing Republicans Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock.)
Paul Krassner
One of the titans of free speech in the second half of the roaring twentieth century, and up to today, Krassner (b.1932) has held that irreverence is his only sacred cow.
If you were too lazy to read Krassner's article I link to from HuffPo above: in 1970 he was doing stand-up and - Roe v.Wade was a few years off - Krassner has been candid about his own role in providing an abortion referral service before the Roe decision. His joke in 1970 was how we ought to hold a "rape-in" of lawmakers' wives, in order to impregnate them and so they'd lobby their husbands to legalize abortion.
Some of his friends objected to this joke. Krassner was in an ethical quandary: he thought his joke was an effective satirical jab at the hypocrisy of men who were legislators who had outlawed abortion. But then also, as a political satirist, he didn't want victims to be the target of his humor, even in a joke. It wouldn't be the congressmen's wives who were to blame for illegal, unsafe abortions. But he abhorred censorship, even of the self- variety. As he says, he stopped doing the joke by "rationalizing" that his consciousness had evolved.
Skip ahead 42 years and you have the Daniel Tosh incident, covered in Paul's article. Note that, on or about the same night Tosh joked about rape, Sarah Silverman also joked about it, but it didn't go viral on Twitter; she didn't receive the backlash Tosh did. Tosh, in holding with the True Comedian's Creed (which I just made up), said of course rape is horrible, but we should be able to joke about anything.
Rape Jokes Go Way Back
At a lawyer's convention in 1942, this joke was told:
A girl rushes into a lawyer's office. "I want him arrested! He threw me on the bed. He...oh it was awful!"
Lawyer: Now calm down. Let's get the story straight. What did he do first?
Girl: He locked the door.
Lawyer: Aha! Kidnapping! (He makes a note.) Ten years. Then what did he do?
Girl: He pulled up my dress.
Lawyer: Indecent exposure. Two more years. (Making a note.) Then what?
Girl: He put his hand on my...my...
Lawyer: It's all right. I understand. Attempted assault. Five years. And then what?
Girl: He threw me on the bed.
Lawyer: Ah hah! Mayhem and felonious constraint. Ten to fifteen years. And then?
Girl: Then...he did it to me.
Lawyer: That does it! Rape! Twenty years - maybe we can get him the chair! And meanwhile you were screaming and struggling...
Girl: Wellllll...not exactly. You see, it was kind of late, and I didn't want to disturb everybody, and...
Lawyer: (Tearing up his notes in disgust) Oh for Christ's sake, that's just a plain ordinary fuck!
-gleaned from Gershon Legman's Rationale of the Dirty Joke: An Analysis of Sexual Humor. Legman - one of the great compendious minds of the 20th century, by the way - says this is an updated version of a joke Rabelais told in his 1532 book Pantagruel.
16th c. French satirist Francois Rabelais, looking
rogue-ish. Trained as a doctor, his books are filled
with drinking jokes, fart jokes, shit jokes, even a rape
joke. Look for his stuff under "classics."
I wish Tosh - who probably did not graduate from a Great Books program - would've defended himself by referring to Rabelais, if only because Rabelais deserves to be in the cultural spotlight again. Plus it would've been a real mindfuck to switch the tone to Renaissance French literature. Or to just palm off the rape joke as a legacy from Francois Rabelais, who was trained as a physician. Maybe it's just me.
Now a quick divergence:
The Intellectual Class and Its CCD
Often referred to as "Careful and Critical Discourse," I'm more influenced by Alvin Gouldner, who calls it the "Culture of Critical Discourse." Gouldner makes a series of arguments about the speech idioms of the humanistic intellectuals and the newer technical intelligentsia - together they form the "New Class," and they are slowly winning a war against the older, monied bourgeoisie. The CCD is marked by three things: You must be very concerned to justify your assertions. Secondly, you can appeal to authority, but that's not impressive enough: you must still ground your argument using a rhetoric that does not appeal to authority. Finally, you must try to win the voluntary consent of those appealed to, based solely on the logic of your assertions. In other words, you can't say "My dad's rich and my uncle's a judge, so I'm right, and if you say I'm not I'll have my guards throw you in the moat."
Also, the CCD is situation-free: if you're holding a meeting and some heavily tattooed guy with dreadlocks and sandals has something to say, and it's a good idea, it must be taken seriously; it doesn't matter who is talking: if they are able to speak in the CCD-idiom, it doesn't matter their dress, their accent, their skin color, their gender.
But Gouldner also says the New Class's CCD: "In its virtuous aspect, self-editing implies a commendable circumspection, carefulness, self-discipline, and 'seriousness.' In its negative modality, however, self-editing also disposes toward an unhealthy self-consciousness, toward stilted convoluted speech, an inhibition of play, imagination, and passion, and continual pressure for expressive discipline. The new rationality thus becomes the source of a new alienation." - p.84, The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class
Thus, I would argue, the quality of speech we get from intellectual comedians - and I would consider Louis C.K, Patton Oswalt, David Cross, Sarah Silverman, Marc Maron and about 15 others here - is either a variant of this CCD (all of these stand-ups are writers with fine minds, well-read, maybe not steeped in the CCD that becomes habitual after four years in a good university), or they represent an outsider's challenge to the intellectual class in their daring, open speech. Who among us has not sat and listened to the Learned Professor, who, gosh, sure has a lot to say and he says it so well, but it's kinda boring, and who ever thought a talk on (rock and roll/masturbation/James Bond films/the history of beer) could be so dull? I say: the academics need to figure out a way to inject some "play, imagination, and passion" every now and then. What? You think if you do that we won't think your PhD was serious?
Whatever you think, there's a reason why I consider George Carlin a linguistic philosopher of some sort, and the best intellectual comedian who ever lived. Here he is on our topic.
George Carlin on "The Humorous Side of Rape"
From Napalm and Silly Putty, pp.175-176:
Many people in this country want to tell you what can and can't talk about. Or sometimes they'll tell you you can talk about something, but you can't joke about it. Like rape. People say you can't joke about rape. They say rape's not funny. And I say, Fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that? I can prove rape is funny: Picture Porky Pig raping Daisy Duck. See? Hey, why do you think they call him Porky?
And I know what men are gonna say. Daisy was askin' for it; she was comin' on to Porky, she had on tight feathers. Porky got horny, and he lost control. A lot of men talk like that. They blame it on the woman. They say, "She had it comin'. She was wearing a short skirt."
Doesn't seem fair to me; doesn't seem right. But I believe you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything. It just depends on how you construct the joke, what the exaggeration is. Every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.
I'll give you an example. Have you ever seen a news story like this? Some burglar breaks into a house, steals some things, and while he's in there, he rapes an eighty-one-year-old woman. And you think to yourself, "Why? What the fuck kind of social life does this guy have?" I want to ask him, "Why did you do that?" But I know what I'd hear: "Hey, she was comin' on to me. She had on a tight bathrobe." And I'm thinkin', "Next time, be a little more selective, will you?"
Now, speaking of rape, but changing the subject slightly, you know what I wonder? Is there more rape at the Equator or the North Pole? I mean, per capita; I know the populations are different. I think it's the North Pole.
Most people think it's the Equator. Because it's hot down there, people don't wear a lot of clothing, guys can see a woman's tits, they get horny, and there's a lot of rape and a lot of fucking in general. But that's exactly why there's less rape at the Equator; because there's a lot of fucking in general. You can tell the Equator has a lot of fucking: look at the population figures. Billions of people live near the Equator. How many Eskimos we got? Thirty? Thirty-five?
No one's gettin' laid at the North Pole; it's too cold. An Eskimo says to his wife, "Hey honey, how about some pussy?" She says, "Wally, are you crazy? The windchill is 150 below!" Eskimo guys are deprived, they're horny, they get pent up, and every now and then they gotta rape somebody.
Now, the biggest problem an Eskimo rapist has is trying to get wet leather leggings off a woman who doesn't want to take them off. Have you ever tried to pull the leather pants off someone who's trying to kick you in the nuts? It takes a lot of effort. And, in the process, you would lose your hard-on. In fact, at the North Pole your dick would shrivel up like a sack of dimes.
That's another thing I wonder. Does a rapist have a hard-on when he leaves the house in the morning? Or does it develop during the day while he's walking around checkin' out the gals? Just wondering.
Prof. George Carlin
So: whattya think? Can rape jokes be funny? Why?
The Overweening Generalist is largely about people who like to read fat, weighty "difficult" books - or thin, profound ones - and how I/They/We stand in relation to the hyper-acceleration of digital social-media-tized culture. It is not a neo-Luddite attack on digital media; it is an attempt to negotiate with it, and to subtly make claims for the role of generalist intellectual types in the scheme of things.
Overweening Generalist
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Friday, November 4, 2011
Speech That Sends Chills, and Chilling Speech
First off, something from the "writing of harlots," which is the Greek etymology for our word "pornography," and don't tell me this ain't porn, 'cuz I'm at least as Bad an American as former Supreme Court prude Potter Stewart, who couldn't define porn, but famously said "I know it when I see it.":
I have taken off my robe--
must I put it back on again?
I have washed my feet--
must I soil them again?
My lover thrust his hand through
the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.
I arose to open for my lover,
and my hands dripped with
myrrh...
-As they say in the American South, "Lawdamercy!" Is it getting hot in here? I took this passage from a putatively "religious" (HA!) book commonly known as Song of Songs. I found this in a larger anthology-like book called...pardon me for a moment while I check the title, the OG tries to be precise in these things...Ahh. Here it is: Something called The Old Testament? Sounds a tad grandiose, but the author probably thought it would increase sales. Anyway, I copped the passage above from section 5, lines 3-5.
Presumably I will now be threatened by Google's AdSense people. Why?
This past Tuesday I woke to an email in my inbox from adsense-google@noreply.com and here was the subject heading:
I sought redress. It's not easy trying to figure out who to write to (forget calling!) when dealing with the "Don't Be Evil" Google Leviathan. I found an address I thought seemed close enough, and pleaded my case in a few sentences.
Here's what I got back:>gddsmith has posted an answer to the question "I don't think my two blogs or sex-related issues violate the Adsense terms, but they gave me three days":
I have taken off my robe--
must I put it back on again?
I have washed my feet--
must I soil them again?
My lover thrust his hand through
the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.
I arose to open for my lover,
and my hands dripped with
myrrh...
-As they say in the American South, "Lawdamercy!" Is it getting hot in here? I took this passage from a putatively "religious" (HA!) book commonly known as Song of Songs. I found this in a larger anthology-like book called...pardon me for a moment while I check the title, the OG tries to be precise in these things...Ahh. Here it is: Something called The Old Testament? Sounds a tad grandiose, but the author probably thought it would increase sales. Anyway, I copped the passage above from section 5, lines 3-5.
Presumably I will now be threatened by Google's AdSense people. Why?
This past Tuesday I woke to an email in my inbox from adsense-google@noreply.com and here was the subject heading:
Google AdSense: You have 3 working days to make changes to your site
Date: November 1, 2011 5:25:27 AM PDT
Turns out a bot (let's hope it wasn't a human) took offense to my non-porn porn-writing in this post, which was supposedly in violation of the terms of my AdSense agreement. Here's the part of the agreement I apparently offended:
Adult content
The AdSense network is considered family-safe, which means that publishers aren't permitted to place Google ads on sites which contain adult content. In addition to photos and videos which contain nudity or sexual activities, here are some other examples of unacceptable content:
- Lewd or provocative images
- Crude or indecent language, including adult stories
- Sexual tips or advice
- Sexual fetish sites (e.g. foot fetish content)
- Adult toys or products
- Ads or links to external sites containing adult content
If your site has content which you wouldn't be comfortable viewing at work or with family members around, then it probably isn't an appropriate site to place Google ads upon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay: I don't see how I violated any of these terms. Do you? Was I being called out because I used the word "porn" in my post's title? (If so, you bloggers on food: watch out when using the now-fashionable term "food porn" or you run the risk of Daddy Google making you stand in the corner. Or worse.)I sought redress. It's not easy trying to figure out who to write to (forget calling!) when dealing with the "Don't Be Evil" Google Leviathan. I found an address I thought seemed close enough, and pleaded my case in a few sentences.
Here's what I got back:
>Well you might think it's ridiculous but that post & probably the sex post would not comply w/ their family friendly policy. So it's your choice, you can comply w/ the policy or find your site or the whole Adsense account disabled. There are many publishers that don't get a warning & simply find the ads already disabled so they are willing to give you a chance to fix the issue but it needs to be done within the three day span.
>Regardless of how intellectual & humorous that you think your post are there are a number of advertisers that would be outraged if they knew their ads were showing on a site/post on that subject. They cater to those that actually pay the bills & what business wouldn't if they actually want to stay in business.
>Also if there are any other violations of their policies they may still disable ad serving even though they didn't state those in the warning. When they review it it needs to be 100% compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh, I knew they were just delightful folks over at AdSense, but did "gddsmith" have to lay the charm on so thick? "[...] or find your site or the whole Adsense account disabled." Whew! It's gettin' hot in here, I do declare! (But why didn't he/she/it sign off with a "sincerely and best of luck, gddsmith"? I feel hurt...) I'm so PRIVILEGED just to have a site and be allowed to display ads, that if I talk about Oprah talking about her vagina they might squash ALL MY WRITING here? Don't tell me: this "gddsmith" has a degree in Public Relations, right?
[The Overweening Generalist would like to remind his readers that the Electronic Freedom Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have been doing a crackerjack job, and if you want or need to donate to a charitable source - you might get a tax write-off! - the end of the year is approaching fast! These are two eminently worthy defenders of Free Speech. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.]
It's now been more than 72 hours since I received my warning, and I spent a lot of time in the interim asking friends and fellow-writers to review my blog, and say what they thought. A self-described conservative writer-friend in Texas said my post made her "blush" but she didn't think I had violated anything. Everyone else came back with the verdict that can best be summed up with the word "Bullshit!"
[The Overweening Generalist would like to remind his readers that the Electronic Freedom Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have been doing a crackerjack job, and if you want or need to donate to a charitable source - you might get a tax write-off! - the end of the year is approaching fast! These are two eminently worthy defenders of Free Speech. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.]
It's now been more than 72 hours since I received my warning, and I spent a lot of time in the interim asking friends and fellow-writers to review my blog, and say what they thought. A self-described conservative writer-friend in Texas said my post made her "blush" but she didn't think I had violated anything. Everyone else came back with the verdict that can best be summed up with the word "Bullshit!"
Which was what I thought, too. I think there's more eroticism in the Bible passage than anything I wrote; my intent was NEVER to titillate or inflame or be prurient in any way. If you read "Frank Talk About Porn, Jokey Talk About Sex" and DID feel titillated, please seek professional help. (If you work for Google, you can probably also afford remedial writing classes; no one working at Google should still be writing at an 8th grade level. Horrid epistolary prose is something I find, personally speaking, indecent.) I was trying to talk about issues surrounding the world of sex and porn that I had first taken notice of on commercial TV or mainstream news. Notice the links? I tried to put a humorous spin on the topics. (Humor is hard, folks. You try it.) I was trying to appeal to intellectual adults. And I grew up in a family that wouldn't have had a second thought about these topics. Must I assume Reverend Mathers Stickoopass and his family are reading and tailor everything to their emotionally-plagued minds? (Notice I never explained what a "money shot" was.)
For what I did, Google was ready to pull all ads from my site - which is all the ads I have - and I guess I'd have to relinquish the $30-odd I'd built up from ad clicks. But the issue of pulling the ads did not bother me, really. What bothered me was this bloodless notice threatening me for something I'd written. "Families" and "children" or "people at work" were going to see my blog and it was going to SCARE them or RUIN their day? They were going to feel embarrassed? And relate the content to the ads for some college a few inches away? REALLY? From this same guy who writes ad nauseum on Noam Chomsky? Who has a "thing" for Modernist Hungarians? Who at times can't help but choose to write on the topics of Aldous Huxley, or his favorite chemists, or epigenetics, or relatively free-floating unattached intellectuals in history? This dude who has a crush on 16th century essayist Montaigne?
REALLY? This is a significant threat to the people behind the ads I've allowed about institutions of learning, books, and political ideas? Hooo-kay!
REALLY? This is a significant threat to the people behind the ads I've allowed about institutions of learning, books, and political ideas? Hooo-kay!
So yea: more than 72 hours since the threat from the Don't Be Evil people. I still have ads up as I write this. If you're reading this and there are no ads, they came down on me. If you're not reading this because the blog has been banished by Der Googlemeister's little Fuhrers to the Land of Thud, well, I can't deal with your problem.
No notices. Nothing. Am I to assume some thoughtful person actually read my blog and said, "Why are we threatening this guy? Let him be." I don't know. Frankly, I do wonder about "gddsmith," though...
No notices. Nothing. Am I to assume some thoughtful person actually read my blog and said, "Why are we threatening this guy? Let him be." I don't know. Frankly, I do wonder about "gddsmith," though...
"When we compare stoic with Christian ejaculations we see much..." - from William James's classic The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 42 of the Modern Library version. Gosh, I hope my quoting of James doesn't ruin those businesses "that actually want to stay in business," as "gddsmith"put it to me, with such civility.
Note that a woman with the PhD in Molecular Microbiology was one of those who commented at the end of my post. She has taught 11 year olds sex education and found that kids are endlessly fascinated about this stuff. Note that she found the erotically-charged STATISTICS I cited to dovetail with her own experiences as a teacher.
To the people who get all wadded-up over the stuff I wrote, or the way I wrote it: What PRETEND world do you think you live in? What FAKE utopia do you pine after? What gutless, boring, moronic Valhalla is being preserved by trying to scare someone like me?
To the people who get all wadded-up over the stuff I wrote, or the way I wrote it: What PRETEND world do you think you live in? What FAKE utopia do you pine after? What gutless, boring, moronic Valhalla is being preserved by trying to scare someone like me?
To me, this was an attempt at a chilling effect. And maybe this particular blog post will get me kicked off Google's Blogger/Adsense/and well, half of the Internet. But if I do get kicked off, at least have a Human Being tell me why I was threatened in the first place. Charles Keating this! Don't hire some Palin to respond to my query about why I was threatened, 'cuz that was a load of Santorum.
May we all gather 'round the Great Turducken some day. That is all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
post scriptum: I see my journalist friend Tom Jackson, on November 4th, has linked my non-family-oriented post with something that Robert Anton Wilson said in an interview, and for that I'm honored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



