Personality Cafe banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With the recent discussions on politicians running on the platform that they are not going to be politically correct, there was a meme out there that made me think. It said:

"There is an actual distinction between not being politically correct and intentionally being rude and hateful. Some people never seem to get that"

Anyway, it made me think about ENTP being know for being blunt and not particularly politically correct. I myself tend find politically incorrect things funny and am very far from being offended by things people say (and tend to get irritated by people who are so sensitive they find anything offensive). However, direct (I'll use that instead of blunt) I tend to say things, I do not like being rude or do things that are purposely hateful. I usually feel pretty bad if I unintentionally hurt someone with me saying something rude to them. I will laugh hysterically at things like Deadpool or Family Guy but I do not enjoy racist jokes. My issues ALWAYs lies with the intention or belief behind it. For example, if someone I know is not misogynist tells a sexist joke, I will find it funny. If someone who really believes the sexist joke tells it, I would not find it funny. It seems like based on discussions on here, ENTPs tend to not like to hate very much so, although we may not be particularly politically correct, we wouldn't intentionally say stuff to be rude or hateful.

Thoughts about this? Where do you fall on the politically incorrect vs. blunt vs. just an a-hole scale? Do you think politically incorrect is just about saying "Merry Christmas" or an off-color joke or being able to say black and white instead of African American and Caucasian? Do you believe politically incorrect is being able to call out racial slurs or state your opinion in a way that disparages another group?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,197 Posts
This turned into a larger point about humor I think than making clear distinctions but I'm not good at such clarity anyway, food for thought if theres any substance here to work with... now it's 4am.

My brief thought at 3am in the morning is that I would think of political correctness as being based as what exists within the overton window, which one have a real universality because there isn't such a concrete universality to underpin such similar beliefs. In one area, suggesting that the origins of problems affecting blacks in the US is something contingent within themselves as 'black' not considered within relations.
https://www.internationalmarxisthum...litionists-marx-slavery-race-class-salome-lee
Karl Marx understood that slave status was a condition branded from without rather than a predisposition existing within. In the period of anthropology and ethnology’s rise, Marx was far ahead of his time in asserting that slave status was not a natural phenomenon biologically proscribed by one’s race.
But there seems to be a sense that political correctness isn't necessarily about just ideas, it tends to censor particular words themselves and it seems their focus is purely to erase the language but not necessarily the conditions that give the word it's negative connotation.
To which using racial slurs can merge into a lot of things as being inherently politically incorrect for most people in most situations (it's been used for comedic nuance among black comedians).
This is seen where Larry David in explaining the racism of some guy overheard in the bathroom says ****** in front of black people.

So one could be like Larry David, to which he probably isn't characteristic of being an asshole in this situation.
And whether he's being blunt? It could be blunt perhaps in that he doesn't soften it by switching it to n-word or what ever.
Though here's an interesting case of how this guy plays on how the word is so charged, particularly because America's race relations be fucked and plays on it being politically correct for comedic effect.
So he's a guy that doesn't say it, even with a good reputation among many black americans. Because in a way, ain't no need for the term. Though worse, it can be a bit like how the word slut whilst used by some of the demographic it's aimed us as bonding, it don't necessarily help anything to be using it. Although one might not see one's use of language as the forefront of their means to do things better perhaps. But it's a bit like not making causal use of the word bitch or in the case of Australia, cunt. But I'm ambivalent, Lenny Bruce got shtick about how by making causal use of words they lose their potency, take ownership of it like the racial slur wog, which becomes a word of pride. Similar attempts made on the word slut in slut walks to challenge the connotations of it in rejection of the views that underpin it as an insult. But on the other hand, the struggle is in the real world and not of words between people. But thats perhaps not so clearly delinted with something like a slut walk, eh rambling


But being blunt seems to be based around not following social etiquette and speaking one's mind quite directly.
So in one case where something makes people uncomfortable, they might out of fear of social embarrassment and discomfort not saying anything whilst another person speaks their mind freely and speaks directly to the issue.
But being so forthright of course doesn't necessarily entail being politically incorrect nor hateful, it's just being straight up without softening the blow, not pulling one's punches communicatively.

And being an arsehole doesn't necessarily require an intention to hurt I don't think that it can include that, but can be reckless and unconcerned with hurting others. So the distinction between someone being a asshole or not could be that in one case a person says something mean and hurtful. Upon realizing they hurt someone, they might apologize because generally we don't intend to hurt someone or we might not apologize or show any concern for hurting the other. One might even stand by what they said, but still express sympathy for the other's pain. This doesn't seem the tightest but, meh, work in progress ;)

I think you're right about the intention, it seems often what makes the difference between something being taken literally or as ironically is based on background knowledge of the person in order to infer that they're not being sincere.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/96071/katiebro_1.pdf?sequence=1
(I've added some other parts that seem interesting in regards to considering intention in analyzing nuances of humor)
 
Although the above examples focus on race and gender, the concept of metadisparagement humor can apply to any group dimension with a history of discrimination or about whom stereotypes exist. This is because the jokes trade on stereotypes in the common vernacular so that the true target can be prejudice against these groups. Thus, a system of stereotypes and de facto prejudice must exist for this type of humor to operate. This can also be ingroup deprecation, as in Jordan’s joke above. Jordan is a black man make fun of blacks to make fun of racism. In fact, ingroup membership can be a key cue to audiences that the joke is ironic. Successful meta-disparagement humor therefore intends to be ironic and makes its ironic intention clear, allowing the antiprejudice meaning to emerge through the explicitly problematic invocation of stereotypes.
...
Hyperbole of prejudice thus encapsulates the core of meta-disparagement humor: stereotypes must be indulged in before they can be challenged. The textual analysis suggests that this type of humor varies by series type and targeted group. While metaracist and meta-sexist humor tend to be the most “successful,” as irony supersedes malice, they are, nonetheless, nuanced in their invocation of irony and intention. As noted above, success requires irony be intended and received.
...
In meta-disparagement humor, irony blurs these group lines. Metadisparagement humor includes the same actors and roles as direct disparagement humor but requires an additional target: the implicit bigot. Often, as in Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report or Archie Bunker of All in the Family, the joke-teller serves as the implicit butt of the joke. The audience unites with the joke-teller’s true intention, creating an alliance against the implicit bigot. But these roles change when an audience member is not in on a joke: when meta-message is not comprehended. Here, s/he falsely perceives that the comedian is sincerely ridiculing the explicit target group.
...
In another episode, Token, the aptly named lone black character, calls Cartman a fat ass. In retaliation, Cartman throws a rock at Token and is subsequently charged with a hate crime. Angry that this constitutes a hate crime, Token delivers a presentation to the mayor entitled, “Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocrisy.” In concluding his presentation, Token avers, “Mayor, all hate crime laws do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from nonhomos, that we aren’t the same.” We again see humor drawing attention to the failure of political correctness to live up to its egalitarian intentions, but presented in an ironic fashion. Yet the underlying message is an argument for the dismissal of the existence of racism and, thus, legal protection of minorities – a reactionary political stance.
...
In other words, regardless of comedian intentions, pre-existing audience attitudes may help determine meta-disparagement humor’s interpretation and impact. The comedian’s group membership may provide different cues about the message behind the humor and the norm it challenges or endorses. Meta-racist humor by a white comedian may be more difficult to identify as satire, and therefore more likely to be interpreted as direct disparagement. In-group meta-racist humor by a black comedian, on the other hand, may be easier to identify as ironic, as the joke teller’s race offers a visual counter to the explicit message.
And another seciton of the above I think is interesting, in that it points to us existing in the same social milieu.
The example I like to use is people calling a person slut, where it can be quite offensive. But in another context, when girls call one another sluts, it is a endearing ribbing, in the way that men might insult one another of I fucked your mother in either a friendly bonding way or one of intended offence based on their relationship.
But in the case of the term slut, it holds social significance because the issue of women's sexuality still figures prominently in society that it hasn't lost it's meaning. It's function as a playful insult for which a group of girls bond is based in the same context that it's used as an insult.
It's just a vehicle for comedy that it runs through well established and understood stereotypes, can't have them register if one doesn't speak to what's already in people's understanding implicitly. If you weren't brought up in connection to such social things then one doesn't register with the jokes.

I think what gets interesting though, is when irony gets blurry, that things can be said to be merely a joke and ironic but actually aren't so readily interpreted ironic humor. That it seems to be based on a false sense that sexism or what ever doesn't exist anymore, that we reach post-feminism or what ever and thus such jokes no longer have their original connotations or meaning. Irony can be a illusion to shield people who aren't so bold as to be more explicit with their actual beliefs and soften it by distancing themselves from what they express.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_sexism
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2449/1/Postfeminist_media_culture_(LSERO).pdf
 
Irony and knowingness

No discussion of the postfeminist sensibility in the media would be complete without considering irony and knowingness. Irony can serve many functions. It is used in advertising to address what Goldman (1992) called 'sign fatigue', by hailing audiences as knowing and sophisticated consumers, flattering them with their awareness of intertextual references and the notion that they can 'see through' attempts to manipulate them. Irony is also used as a way of establishing a safe distance between oneself and particular sentiments or beliefs, at a time when being passionate about anything or appearing to care too much seems to be 'uncool'. As Ian Parker has noted in relation to declarations of love, the postmodern and ironic version of 'I love you' might be 'as Barbara Cartland would say, "I love you madly"' (Parker, 1989). Here the quotation or reference sets up a protective distance between the speaker and the expression of love. Jackson et al. (2001) have argued that irony may also offer an internal defence against ambivalent feelings -- as well is outwardly rebutting charges of taking something -- or worse, oneself -- too seriously.

Most significantly, however, in postfeminist media culture irony has become a way of 'having it both ways', of expressing sexist or homophobic or otherwise unpalatable sentiments in an ironised form, while claiming this was not actually 'meant'.

It works in various ways. As Whelehan (2000) and Williamson (2003) have argued, the use of retro imagery and nostalgia is a key device in the construction of contemporary sexism. Referencing a previous era becomes an important way of suggesting that the sexism is safely sealed in the past, whilst constructing scenarios that would garner criticism if they were represented as contemporary. In the recent 'Happy Days' advert for Citroen C3 cars, for example, the first frame shows a young woman having her dress entirely ripped off her body to reveal her bright red underwear (which matches the car). She screams, but the action soon moves on, as the interest is in her body not her distress. The 1950s iconography and soundtrack from the Happy Days show works to protect the advert from potential criticism: it is as if the whole thing is in ironic and humourous quotation marks.

The return and rehabilitation of the word 'totty' in popular culture marks another example of this, allowing middle-class television presenters to refer to women in an entirely dehumanising and objectifying manner, while suggesting that the sexism is not meant seriously. The word has a nostalgic quality, redolent of 'naughty' seaside postcards.

Irony can also operate through 'silly' neologisms. This happens routinely in the lad magazines. FHM, for example, in evaluating photographs of readers' girlfriends' breasts makes such comments as 'if we're being fussy, right chesticle is a tad larger than the left' -- the sheer silliness of the term 'chesticle' raising a smile so that one might almost overlook the fact that this is a competition ('breast quest') to find the 'best pair of tits' in Britain (in 2005)!

Irony also functions through the very extremeness of the sexism expressed: as though the mere fact that women are compared to 'rusty old bangers' or posed against each other in the 'dumbest girlfriend' competition is (perversely) evidence that there is no sexism. (I.e. the extremeness of the sexism is evidence that there is no sexism!) Magazine editors routinely trot out the line that it is all 'harmless fun.' (when did ‘harmless’ and ‘fun’ become yoked together so powerfully?) And some academic commentators agree: David Gauntlett (2002) argues that the sexism in such magazines is 'knowingly ridiculous, based on the assumption that it's silly to be sexist (and therefore is funny in a silly way)' (168).

Yet if we suspend our disbelief in the notion that it's 'just a laugh', we are left with a fast-growing area of media content (itself profoundly influencing other media) that is chillingly misogynist, inviting men to evaluate women only as sexual objects. A recent issue of FHM asks men: 'how much are you paying for sex?'. Readers are invited to calculate their 'outgoings' on items such as drinks, cinema tickets and bunches of flowers, and then to divide the total by the number of 'shags' they've had that month in order to calculate their 'pay per lay'. Under a fiver per shag is 'too cheap -- she is about the same price as the Cambodian whore'; around £11 to £20 is 'about the going rate for a Cypriot tart' and each shag should now be compared with the value and pleasure to be obtained from purchasing a new CD. Any more expensive than this and you should expect a performance worthy of a highly trained, sexy showgirl (Turner, 2005).

It's hard to imagine any other group in society being so systematically objectified, attacked and vilified, with so little opposition -- and this tells us something about the power of irony. Any attempt to offer a critique of such articles is dismissed by references to the critic's presumed ugliness, stupidity or membership of the ‘feminist thought police’. Frequently, criticisms are preempted by comments which suggest that the article's writer is expecting blundering rants' from the 'council of women', etc. In this context, critique becomes much more difficult -- and this, it would seem, is precisely what is intended.
The question that comes to my mind, is at what point does a repeated parody in effect become real, the temporary character dissolve into being the actual person. This sentiment is discussed well in this paper about a concern for one's moral character is disturbed when we begin to doubt that the distinction between the person's character in a play is truly distinct from them as a person.
 
This leads us into a further problem with regard to ethics in virtual environments. Immersion in these environments makes the question concerning the identity of the moral agent, and thereby the one concerning responsbility, highly problematic: whose intentions are we talking about? At first sight, it seems very clear who is the subject corresponding to the 'as-if'-intentions: me. Things are, however, slightly more complicated. Immersed in a virtual image-world, we do not merely leave the actual world behind us, we also leave our actual ego. Husserl makes a helpful distinction between the 'actual I' on the one hand and 'the image-world-I' [Bildweltich] on the other.17 In Call of Duty 5, for example, I experience the downfall of Berlin through the eyes of Dimitri, who is my image-world-I. When playing the game I become Dimitri in a way. I respond, for example, to artificial teammates shouting "Dimitri, get over here!" by moving towards them. Whereas the actual I (me) is sitting in front of the screen in 2010 with his hands on the keyboard, the image-world-I (Dimitri) is in Berlin in 1945, with his hands on a rifle. Although one always identifies to a certain degree with the image-world-I, the actual I and the image-world-I are still separated by an abyss that makes it very hard to say who is accountable for possible virtual 'wrong-doing'.
...
Virtual worlds and stage plays have a lot in common: they are artificial environments crowded with image-world-I's, acting out 'as-if'-intentions that remain without real consequences. An actor is never really acting, i.e. never realizing actual practical intentions; he or she rather depicts the intentions and actions of the fictional character he or she is impersonating. The difference between the actor as an actual person and the character he or she depicts (his or her image-world-I) is mostly very clear. Consider an actor playing Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caeser: whereas the actor as an actual person stands in a theatre in Brussels somewhere in the twenty-first century, his image-world-I (Brutus) is in Rome somewhere in the first century. There are, in other words, obvious distinctions between the actors as actual persons and the fictional characters they portray. These distinctions also exist at the level of feelings and intentions. As an actual person, the actor can greatly enjoy playing the villain Brutus and actually intend to portray this character as convincingly as possible. He does not, however, entertain any feelings of hatred towards 'Caesar' and has no intention of murdering anyone. This dubious intention to murder someone is being entertained, rather, by his image-world-I, Marcus Brutus.

In general, nobody considers it a problem when actors set out to portray murders in a play, since it is clear that, as actual persons, they do not intend to murder anyone; no one will be harmed by their 'actions'. The actor playing Brutus is not really murdering Caeser and the actor playing Caeser is not relly a victim in need of medial treatment or a funeral. What the public sees when attending Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, is not a murder but rather a 'murder'. When one does not know that one is looking at a play, however the revelation of this distinction between murder and 'murder' can come as a relief. In the British comedy series Blackadder III, situated in the late eighteenth century, the Prince Regent - who is said to have 'a peanut for a brain' - attends a performance of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. The moment Brutus comes up behind Caesar with a knife, he shouts: "Look behind you mister Caesar!", and after Brutus has murdered Caesar the Prince calls in the guards to arrest the actor playing Brutus. When he is told by his butler that it was just a play, that the actor playing Caesar is standing upright on the stage waiting applause, he is utterly relieved. The relief of the Prince feels is, however, quite different from the relief one would feel when an actual attempt to murder someone had been made but failed. In this context of the theatre, the murder is still there, but it appears in a different light, in a new mode of presentation: the 'as-if'-modification. Whereas the Prince first thought that something terrible and utterly condemnable was happening right in front of his eyes, he now suspends his ethical judgement in order to enjoy the play from an aesthetic point of view, applauding the actors playing their parts so well as to make him believe someone actually had the intention to murder a fellow human being and succeeded in this plan. First, the prince was worried and not comfortable with what he saw, but now relieved is able to enjoy the show.

Another example of an experience of discomfort succeeded by a moment of relief involves rape, or rather 'rape'. Suppose I enter a room where a man is lying on top of a woman trying to rip off her clothes, while the woman is struggling and screaming for help. The man appears to be completely outraged, cursing at the top of his voice while pulling down his trousers. Of course, the behaviour of the man strikes me as ethically wrong and might want to interfere in order to save a woman from being raped.18 Just in time, however, I notice that the three of us are not the only people in the room: someone else is there, shouting directions at the woman and the man: 'Give me a little bit more anger' and 'Can you struggle a little harder?'. By now it has occurred to me that I am not witnessing a rape, but a 'rape', i.e. a re-enactment of rape. Whereas I first felt inclined to condemn the actions of the man lying on top of a the woman, I now suspend all ethical judgements in order to enjoy the scene. Again, my experience started with a feeling of discomfort only to end in relief: it was all just a play. And where I would probably feel most uncomfortable being around a man who is raping someone, I am not at all discomforted being around the actor who depicts an outraged rapist, because I presume that this actor is completely different from the image-world-I he is depicting in the play. I even admire the actor for portraying a despicable person so convincingly, When depicting a 'rape', the actor entertains mental states that differ from the ones entertained by the rapist who is performing a rape - the actor is not really sexually aroused and has no intention to humiliate a real person - but he can still make it seem as if he is enraged and this is something we admire in the actor.

These examples of 'murder' and 'rape' seem to support the idea that action-as-if, like virtual actions and theatrical actions, can never be labelled right or wrong. Although something ethically condenmable seems to happen on stage - 'someone is being murdered/raped!' - our discomfort fades away to make place for relief once we are aware that it was 'only a play'. We should, however, dwell a little longer on the example of the theatre, for I have left a possibility unexplored: a movement not from discomfort to relief, but the other way around: from relief to discomfort. The exploration of this other possibility might help us understand why we are so uncomfortable with the excessive violence or sexual perversity in virtual environments.

Again, the theatre can provide us with good examples. Suppose the actor playing the rapist in a play is a friend of mine. I greatly enjoy his very convincing impersonation of the fictional character performing the rape. Afterwards I go backstage to congratulate him with this remarkable achievement. My friend, however, confesses something that does not strike me as comforting at all. He says that he was able to portray the rapist so well, because during rehearsal he found out that enacting a rape really got him aroused. Even though my friend has not harmed anyone when enacting a rape, and does not have any intentions to rape actual people in the future, it is very unlikely that I will be able to watch him perform further rape scenes while admiring his qualities as an actor. Why not? probably because he and his immoral image-world-I (the rapist_ have become to close. My friend is not only vividly depicts the actions and feelings of a rapist, he also entertains mental states similar to a sex offender: actual sexual arousal (maybe even accompanied by the bodily states that are an expression of this, like an erection). The strict distinction between actual I and the 'immoral' image-world-I he depicts - a distinction we assumed to be present - has been blurred. It is the collapse of this clear distinction between the actual person and the fictional character with immoral intentions that is responsible for the uneasiness I feel when watching my friend portraying a rape.19 What started without any discomfort )'my friend is portraying someone with different feelings and desires') ended in uneasiness ('my friend is actually aroused by something that would be condemned as wrong in the actual world').
This is in part tied to the perceived intention based on a person's background and your understanding of their beliefs. Because you perceive your friends as not sexist, when they make a joke that on the face of it seems to appeal to sexist stereotypes, the awareness that they don't believe it informs you that it's ironic.
A stranger who witnesses the same joke might not perceive the irony for a lack of knowing that they believe and do certain things that are equated with an opposition to being sincerely sexist or what ever.

I guess I'm distant from the US in that I didn't initially realize that when I refered to African Americans as blacks that it was in a tension of political correctness. I tend to find political correctness in some degree, a middle class thing in that it seems to be focused on censoring the appearance of prejudice but not actually concerned with understanding the message. In my perspective, this is why middle class people are so abhorrent to working class people because they get themselves in a twist because someone used a word they didn't like and effectively alienate one another.
I like to think of my father as an example of someone who makes offensive jokes based on stereotypes, but in the content of his actions and beliefs clearly doesn't hold a blanket prejudice against certain groups of people, but sounds as general when he's frustrated with someone in particular which he associates with the group.
And having gone to university and being immersed in what I think is culturally more attuned to middle class mentalities, I can sometimes have a knee jerk reaction to somethings although I know the content of my father's beliefs and how in his actions he stands up for such people when he thinks they're in the right.
The policing of language seems to be a sanitizing of the world so as to forget racism exists I think.
And I think it is anti-social in that it is characterized by a broad sense of being harassed by another's real world existence.
Around 2:53
Ultimately, the dangerous guy is the other, the neighbor itself. Which is why the central notion of todays ideology I claim is harassment. What is harassment? Harassment can be, if you're in politically correctly developed country like you know united states, almost everything, you can imagine I with my primitive bulkan european attitude I'm often accused of harassing people. Because you used dirty words, they claim it's verbal rape. You look the woman directly, it's visual rape and so on. But what makes me very sad is the division of intersubjective relations which is implied here. It's that when you come to close to me with your fantasies, desires you intrude my space. So, this is our everyday ideology.
Now I don't believe that Zizek here is imaginging that harassment of women is okay, but pointing out that it can be taken to such a strong degree that it pretty much bars real human intimacy in that it wishes to keep everything at a distance. To which I think of it as a extreme degeneration of liberal values which is basically standards in the form of freedom from.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#2.1
Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference.
I think one can play it on the safe side by not really saying the words that have emotional connotations in general. It's simply not wise for example to identify as a nazi in some countries where nazis killed a lot of people and be surprised that you get the shit kicked out of you. Similarly, being openly communist can be problematic in some contexts as well. It's sensitive to the audience and their values, but also within the context of a broader society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
For example, if someone I know is not misogynist tells a sexist joke, I will find it funny. If someone who really believes the sexist joke tells it, I would not find it funny. It seems like based on discussions on here, ENTPs tend to not like to hate very much so, although we may not be particularly politically correct, we wouldn't intentionally say stuff to be rude or hateful.

Thoughts about this? Where do you fall on the politically incorrect vs. blunt vs. just an a-hole scale? Do you think politically incorrect is just about saying "Merry Christmas" or an off-color joke or being able to say black and white instead of African American and Caucasian? Do you believe politically incorrect is being able to call out racial slurs or state your opinion in a way that disparages another group?
I can't help with the ENTP point of view (although I was raised by one), but I can give perspective on how this comes across to those with strong Fe. I'll fire off my first reactions to the quote above, but take them with a grain of salt as our perspectives are bound to be different and that's fine.

My initial reaction is: Would someone who is not at least somewhat misogynist tell a misogynist joke? (If so, I've never met one.) By laughing, I'm condoning, and that's not cool. (Again, just from my Fe perspective.) That action in and of itself hurts someone, and I can't intentionally hurt someone, even if it's only an unintentional side effect.

Also, I believe that impact always matters more than intention. Having intentions not to hurt others is all fine and dandy, but if what you're saying actually DOES hurt someone, that's what matters. I think the level of concern you feel about your impact determines a person's level of a-holery.

That said, I know ENTP's are big fans of letting the words land where they may just to see what will happen, and that's part of their charm as long as they are reasonably aware of their audience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
There's two sides to every coin...sometimes more. How we interpet things is a matter of perspective. Yeah one can think someone being politically incorrect is an attack at the target group but has anyone considered that maybe making fun of politically incorrect things is actually maybe attacking people with some very erroneous beliefs? It mocks them? Nobody likes to be mocked. How can you tell that they arent making fun of the racist or myogynist?
Does anyone even check anymore are are we as a societal just eager to jump on board the angry train? Content says a lot about a situation. How can you tell that they arent thinking, "this is the most ridiculous, illogical thing ive heard. Who actually believes this crap?" Context. But automatically assuming everyone does things for the same reason is insane. We are all different.

Humor, tho sometimes dark, can shed some serious light onto some deep societal problems. It opens things up for a discussion. Othertimes making fun of things is a way society shames someone into behaving a certain way. I remember that the kid in elementary school that used to pick his nose and fling it at people was mercilessly mocked, shamed, and made fun of. All done through humor. Its not nice but life isn't nice and there are reprocussions to actions. So yeah. You csn be an asshole with good intentions. Other times not talking life seriously is a coping mechanism. Gotta ask why someone brought it up. Could they be a racist/mysogynist punk? Yeah sure they can. But could they be responding to a situation they saw earlier? Thats possible too.

Its just a very cold dark world if one assumes eveything someone else does is meant to harm someone else or even be personal. Sometimes it is meant to be, but i just think its better to be sure before getting all fiesty about it. Anyways i think it comes as no surprise that i am not always politically correct because i dont want to walk on egg shells and tiptoe around the issues. If someone takes issue with what i said they should talk to me about it...respectfully. Ill explain myself. I never mean to be disrespectful so the answer might be surprising. Or ill correct it. But im not reading and following some rulebook on how to interact with people. I have no interest in being censored. Also in a free society people are allowed to have dumb erroneous beliefs. Hate to tell everyone but we all have them burried deep down inside somewhere. Take an IAT if you want to have an idea what yours might be. The brain likes to shortcut things and it sometimes makes us 'bad ' people. Those things cant be fixed if its always lurking in the dark. They just dont have a right to act on those things. But again...if it stays in ones subconscious how do they correct it? Can't fix a problem you dont know you have. And screaming, "Asshole!" Doesnt help them becsuse they have 9 yards worth of a hole to jump over called cognitive dissonance to get past and you just rammed them into the hole. I seriously doubt thats ever done for a good reason. My experience is that its to feel morally superior to someone else or just projecting other emotions onto that person ...which btw makes you an asshole too and continues the hate cycle.

TLDR: everyones an asshole and if you think you are not, then you are an unaware asshole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Also, I believe that impact always matters more than intention. Having intentions not to hurt others is all fine and dandy, but if what you're saying actually DOES hurt someone, that's what matters. I think the level of concern you feel about your impact determines a person's level of a-holery.
I definitely disagree with this statement. I think intention means way more, especially because people are so different, you often don't know the impact. For example, 10 people could go and see Stephen Colbert's show when Jon Stewart is on and 8 will find what he is saying funny and 2 will be highly offended by the same thing. (BTW, according to those stupid websites that try to guess celebrity MBTI, they say Jon's an ENTP). Should he not do his rant because 2 will be offended? I am not talking just politically, because the political climate right now is so divided, but often people are offended by a swear word or because they cannot process satire.

It's interesting that this topic of intent came up. I'm Catholic (sort of practicing but my husband is very practicing so in turn makes me more practicing) and I was helping my daughter with her RF reading. In it, the book was talking about sin and was explaining the difference between sin and a mistake. The distinction was intent. It basically said that when you get the internal feeling that what you are going to say or do might not be a good life choice and you do it anyway, that is considered sinning. If you didn't get that feeling and something you do accidentally hurts someone, that is a mistake. It's not that I particularly believe in "sin" but the idea that intentionally doing something to hurt or upset another person is wrong while unintentionally hurting someone is a mistake I do believe.

Now if I have offended someone before for something and I continue to do it around them, then I'm an a-hole, mainly because at that point it moves to "intent" not "mistake".

BTW, our ENTP Fe says that if what we are doing is better for or is enjoyable to the majority of the people, it is ok to do it regardless of the minority that would be offended or not in a better situation. We often will do things that actually is less advantageous for us if it helps the greater good or will advance things forward.

I live in the Chicago area and our city is known for being pretty calm about satire. Improv really started here and most of the SNL greats came out of Second City or IO (formerly Improv Olympics) here. The Second City shows (which, speaking of Colbert, I saw a show in the 1990s that had Colbert and Steve Carell before they were stars which was cool) are very satirical and if you are sensitive, could be offended. One of the funniest skits I saw there was one that was a spelling bee when Rachal Dratch was with SC. I remember Rachel because she played a little Jewish girl and when she would be given a word, like for example "bucket", and she asked for it to be used in a sentence, the announcer would say things like "Bucket. Your people killed Jesus, bucket. Bucket". These types "use it in a sentence" went on for various ethnic or physical disability "kids". It was satire showing the ridiculousness of racism and that kind of behavior. Was the intent to hurt Jewish people? Not at all. Were there people that were offending by this or did not find it funny? Probably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
I'm on almost the same page as you @Geonerd. Maybe I'm too subjective about it but a joke, whether it would offend someone else or not, to me is either funny or it isn't. Sometimes humor is at someone else's expense. If someone is busting my stones about something, it's at my expense and still I find it funny if it is clever. To me, it doesn't matter so much what the "intent" of the joke is. Some jokes are insulting. It doesn't mean they aren't funny.* Comedy, is an artistic outlet like music, painting, etc. And whenever we limit or censor someone's ability to express themselves artistically, it's to our determent. That's just my way of thinking and I know it isn't popular.

But among people I know, I am pretty thick-skinned and emotionally tough. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it isn't. I think any ENTP knows the struggle when someone close to you is sharing something they're struggling with we have a really hard time comforting them. Our first instinct is to help them solve the problem and sometimes all they want is reassurance and affirmations. It's hard for us. But there are definitely times when I am sought out just because I'm the type that won't coddle.

They say, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." And I do! I am honest and straight-forward with everyone because that's how I want to be treated. Unfortunately we all don't want to be treated the same way. I hate to be coddled, I detest political correctness and social justice crusaders. I think we live in the world we live in and attempting to sugar coat everything just makes us all weaker, ignorant, naive, fearful, paranoid, agitated... on and on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,561 Posts
@Geonerd, I would say that I'm somewhere around not caring about people that are easily butthurt and not caring if I make them clutch their pearls.

See what I did there?

By the way, tldr:

Use some paragraphs to break up your thoughts everyone involved in this thread.

Is that offensive now?

Edit: This is an ENTP safe space, right? Ah, shit, I don't believe in that either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
@Geonerd, I would say that I'm somewhere around not caring about people that are easily butthurt and not caring if I make them clutch their pearls.

See what I did there?

By the way, tldr:

Use some paragraphs to break up your thoughts everyone involved in this thread.

Is that offensive now?

Edit: This is an ENTP safe space, right? Ah, shit, I don't believe in that either.
Yes, yes, a line between each sentence looks much better. Each sentence is so profound, it serves as it's own paragraph. :kitteh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geonerd and Haldir

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Yes, yes, a line between each sentence looks much better. Each sentence is so profound, it serves as it's own paragraph. :kitteh:
See.

Now that I find funny.

I write in paragraphs per thought.

All I can hear in my head while writing is my high school English teacher freaking out over once sentence paragraphs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,780 Posts
Be as distasteful as you like, but be prepared to suffer any consequences.

I find the sensitive anti-PC crowd more annoying than the sensitive pay attention to my feelings crowd. The anti-PC brigade are nervy, wanting folks to laugh at their jokes and be mindful of their feelings and opinions while disregarding the opinions of others.

It's simple: if you can dish it, then you should take it in kind. It's easy for me to be mindful. I see no point in irking others for the sake of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geonerd

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
I find as with most things it is not about the words
or actions it is about the intention..(intent?). The problem is intentions
are to be gleaned or extrapolated by people. That
leaves far too much guess work for people who are not thinking like
the person who initiates the action/words.
Never-mind how people feel about it...that just gets messy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I definitely disagree with this statement. I think intention means way more, especially because people are so different, you often don't know the impact. For example, 10 people could go and see Stephen Colbert's show when Jon Stewart is on and 8 will find what he is saying funny and 2 will be highly offended by the same thing. (BTW, according to those stupid websites that try to guess celebrity MBTI, they say Jon's an ENTP). Should he not do his rant because 2 will be offended? I am not talking just politically, because the political climate right now is so divided, but often people are offended by a swear word or because they cannot process satire.

It's interesting that this topic of intent came up. I'm Catholic (sort of practicing but my husband is very practicing so in turn makes me more practicing) and I was helping my daughter with her RF reading. In it, the book was talking about sin and was explaining the difference between sin and a mistake. The distinction was intent. It basically said that when you get the internal feeling that what you are going to say or do might not be a good life choice and you do it anyway, that is considered sinning. If you didn't get that feeling and something you do accidentally hurts someone, that is a mistake. It's not that I particularly believe in "sin" but the idea that intentionally doing something to hurt or upset another person is wrong while unintentionally hurting someone is a mistake I do believe.
No problems with your disagreement here. I can see that perspective. :) I always find it fascinating how much our strongest functions are not only those we rely on most but become those we value the most. It makes sense that in this discussion I would focus on the value of the interior experiences of others (these are the things I readily see with Ni/Fe.) What do you think the ENTP tends to value? I would guess the external world of ideas, but I would like to hear from an ENTP.

I had to chuckle (a little) about your sin/mistake distinction in Catholic doctrine. Don't sinners and mistake-makers all end up in the same boat unless ... Jesus? :) I do think intent matters in a lot of situations. Just not all.

My ENTP dad used to make a nuisance of himself all the time because of his low ability to read his audience (inferior Fe) coupled with his low ability to future cast the outcomes of his word "vomits" based on how things went over the last time (inferior Si). He often doesn't have bad intent, but he still comes across looking like an a-hole because he forgets how bad he is at pre-judging the outcome of his words. If a person is terrible at both those things (and let me be clear that not all ENTP's are), should they really trust their intentions? All the good intent in the world can still lead to unintentional harm.

Political correctness implies feigning empathy and concern for the sake of earning undeserved accolades, while real kindness promotes the actual value of others because they are truly valuable. A person can be politically correct without being kind just like they can be an unintentional a-hole. (Not good either way.) And I think that very often differences in the balance of power render things that could be funny on a more equal playing field very un-funny (say surrounding race or gender.) This is where we have to be particularly careful to be kind and not just PC.

Doesn't mean we can't still have a good laugh or poke fun even in pointed ways. Sometimes I like a shocking joke as much as the next guy :) Thanks for the fun discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I find as with most things it is not about the words
or actions it is about the intention..(intent?). The problem is intentions
are to be gleaned or extrapolated by people. That
leaves far too much guess work for people who are not thinking like
the person who initiates the action/words.
Never-mind how people feel about it...that just gets messy.
Some people are way better at gleaning or extrapolating how things will come across than others. Strong Fe users are REALLY good at it. My ENFJ peeps can basically mind read how their words will go over without a second thought, and it's not a mystery to them. My ENTP friends, it's all a mystery and seems like weird voodoo. I have to admit that the ENTP's in my life are WAY funnier though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Some people are way better at gleaning or extrapolating how things will come across than others. Strong Fe users are REALLY good at it. My ENFJ peeps can basically mind read how their words will go over without a second thought, and it's not a mystery to them. My ENTP friends, it's all a mystery and seems like weird voodoo. I have to admit that the ENTP's in my life are WAY funnier though.
Truth. Been with my ESFJ SO for 19 years now and my eldest son
is ESFJ. They essentially know my intentions before I have said a damn word.

I mean it helps that they know my mannerisms and what not but yeah ... I agree with ya 100%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
No problems with your disagreement here. I can see that perspective. :) I always find it fascinating how much our strongest functions are not only those we rely on most but become those we value the most. It makes sense that in this discussion I would focus on the value of the interior experiences of others (these are the things I readily see with Ni/Fe.) What do you think the ENTP tends to value? I would guess the external world of ideas, but I would like to hear from an ENTP.
There was a thread a year ago by another MBTI type asking "What is your most important value?". There was a lot of discussion on what is a value, the meaning of the word "sapience" and the most common answer was "the ability to change your values" if we did manage to actually answer the question. Our code for living tends to be "To each their own, as long as "their own" does not hurt another person".

It isn't that ENTPs don't value things or have values, it's just we cannot hold strong to a value when our experience or learning makes us see that the value needs to be changed or tweaked. We see values as something that changes as you mature and experience more things. Holding tight to a value can keep you from seeing that you need to move on from that value or not see it for what it really is. I am surrounded by Js in my life and I have seen all of them have a hard time processing when they realize something they value is not what it seems or is not what they should really value. It's not that we don't go through that, but our processing time is significantly quicker because we are always seeking new experience that may change what we know.

I think our issue with values has a lot to do with the fact that what one person values another person may not or that value may hurt another person. For example, I have known plenty of people growing up who only wanted their kids to date someone of the same ethnicity or religion as their family. It was extremely important to them. In the process, they vilified people or made it impossible to date a person who was different. I know this is extreme but they really valued keeping the family "pure".

I will say that to me, values do not include the basic universal human society code to try not to kill people, steal, etc. A value to me is what kind of makes you tick or tends to drive you. Anyway, I found the thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/entp-for...-what-your-most-important-personal-value.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
i'm not offended by anything besides body odour, but i'm becoming increasingly intolerant of people who think i need to be told how offensive i am

i once hand coffee with some friends and one of them is in a wheelchair (enfp). he has zero problem making fun of me because he knows i don't get offended (i get hurt though, so guess where this story is going xD) and after a few hours of him making fun of everything from the way i walked and talked and expressed myself and comparing me to everything from an alien to a hyperactive puppy, i made a cripple joke. then. silence.

the fact that everyone could sit through hours of someone being picked on without reacting, but just mentioning the word cripple infront of a cripple was enough to shock shock horror the room was fucking epic

i care about peoples' feelings just like i care about my own, but i don't care about their opinions...just like my own ^_^
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top