“Ironic”

We're on slippery territory here. Without the resources of irony, we can be severely limited in our ability to criticize, comment, and make light of topics (and joking can be, strangely enough, an important tool for truth-telling and cultural dialogue).

We've already lost the distinction between use and mention on heated topics. For example, to even type the actual "N-word" - the one with a double "g" an "e" and an "r" is to have "used" it, so we may now only speak of it under veil of partial erasure (i.e., the convention of typing "N-word"). Papa John lost his Pizza Throne not because he called anyone the N-word, but because he mentioned that Colonel Sanders did. The headline from Forbes, however, was still "Papa Used N-word on Conference Call". To be clear, I don't think anyone needs an "N-pass" (because we have successfully made "N-word" the preferred substitution), but we should be able, on occasion, to note what another person actually said without the meaning being buried in euphemisms, partial erasures, the never ending treadmill of politically correct substitutions, and other circumlocutions.

Today, or so it seems, some things cannot be referenced without some dubious necessity kicking into gear by which that being references is also endorsed/asserted. A tyrannical "=" sign is on the rise, a puritanical literalism. This is bad. The resources of non-literality are needed to engage in rhetorical figuration, especially tropes (most notable of which is metaphor) and which allow for dexterity bend and stretch in ways that allows meaning to circulate.

I'd rather allow for some people to troll with cultural dog whistles than attempt to "purify" language with more newspeak. Is Manson a creep? Well, it wouldn't surprise me. Are varieties of alleged non-literality covers for sincere sentiments (e.g., it's just a joke, it was a prank bro, I was being satirical, that was an "ironic" Swastika, t'was a mere hyperbole)? Absolutely. Is irony frequently a cheap fig leaf for risky literal statements? Undoubtedly. Have you detected a real pattern? Certainly. Is it worth noting? Yes. Good catch.

Even so, presumption still must go to the ironist, lest our game of cultural whack-a-mole wind up crushing comedians, fictions writers, pundits, political cartoonists, etc. in our attempt to catch out the Mansons of the world. He can pretend to be an ironist and we can shrug and note our own suspicions (Sure, a**h*le, you're an "ironist"). However, we should still protect the ironist's cultural right to be "innocent until proven guilty."

wait.
just wait right there.

I read through this post and I have to say that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Centre?? Humour????

No.

I can't understand y'alls fer'ner mumble-dee-goop. Now, I understood isolation. But that whole casual switch-a-roo of Rs and Es and unnecessary Us are absolutely unacceptable!

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Honestly, I’m not surprised.

What can I say, French is even worse…

also, "lol" just in case that' wasn't reading as obvious as it did in my head. I was just playing with the english/american english.

I fully agree with the points you make. I just think it’s slightly different when we’re talking about someone in a sexual/intimate relationship with that person. Wood is Jewish, it’s understandable that his attitudes made her uncomfortable and inconceivable to me that under those circumstances , being his intimate partner, she didn’t decipher over all these years that he was “for real”.

I would never advocate generally taking every artist’s word at face value. This is where using rap lyrics in court comes in. Generally when it comes to art I’m all for aesthetics and not judging anything except how good a piece of art/content something is.

I do however agree that it’s a slippery slope either way.

I don't think you're wrong. My only caution is about the potential for over-correction.



I think Crumb is on the money in noting that characters like Manson are general going for shock value and not really saying anything in particular. Then again, if you're attention is to disturb a hornet's nest, you can't really complain when you get stung.

That’s a fair point.

Lol, people say that kinda stuff just for excitement as well, i guess i'm curious now as to whether MM had an issue with jews, he doesn't make it terribly easy to guess i suppose


oh and as far as the whole N-word thing is concerned, i agree that there should be no "n-pass", because that just makes social conventions really confusing and provokes people to actually "spell it out" even though it is an incredibly well known word. To me it's always about how a word is used, like if i were to lean out of my car and say to a black guy:


"go back to africa you n*gger!"


well then, i would deserve every charge that i was a racist even if i was just trying to shock the fellow or be "ironic". I always find it important to make things very clear if i am joking, i've gotten in a lot of trouble for making jokes that others weren't on board with before.

It seems like you're extrapolating an entire argument from Wood that misconstrues her point (she didn't think he seriously meant what he was saying/doing) and using that to try and enforce an incredibly rigid and myopic interpretation of the concepts of satire and irony across a broad spectrum of topics.

Again, statements and expressions cannot be taken in isolation of context. Whether something is meant in first degree, second degree or third degree is a matter of emitter and receiver, it's coded in their interaction, history, shared knowledge. Heck, sometimes it's even coded from themselves - for instance when they "overdo" their stances, to look self-aware, but actually just mock a more extreme version of beliefs they actually hold. "I was just joking" hides some "I wouldn't actually go that far, but still".

So, statements are often dishonestly de-contextualized. Someone can take a "racist joke" out of context either to claim "it was just a joke" (except it was told between proponents of racist laws with a history of racist propaganda) or, in the opposite, to claim "it was totally racist" (except it was told in-character by some comedian with a history of anti-racist political involvement). And when you add that racism can also be unconscious (from "it's not that I dislike them, it's just that they're usually criminals" to "it's not that I dislike them, it's just that they are inherently less apt at this"), it's very easy to play hide-and-seek with meanings and implications. Especially when in deliberate bad faith.

And then, death of the author and all that. Discourses (works of art, etc) circulate from public to public, and different publics make of it different things. See all the anti-gangster or anti-capitalist movies (Scarface, Wall Street, etc) which counter-models are praised as models by various people. The required "context" (the author's full corpus, general statements and stances, when even available) is too broad to be really useful. And when you correct one endorsement with "but did you know the author was actually a staunch racist/antiracist" you may end up pedantic, or be disbelieved, and... who knows, maybe it doesn't even matter, the message continues its life with its irony status reversed.

There was a french comedian I appreciated a lot. He used to joke a lot about pedophilia, making comically outrageous statements that an impossibly proud pedophile would do. Turns out, he did actually love turning out naked with the underage girls of his theater school. His humor wasn't actually denouncing pedophilia, it was concealing his own, normalizing it in his own eyes by contrasting it with exaggerated versions he could feel "at least not being that". Can you tell the difference from outside ? Not easily, not on one quote. Not superficially. Another french comedian seemed to mock antisemitism for ages before starting to get all political and genuinely antisemitic - there again, the "he's joking" defense faded very progressively, and I was among the last ones to keep giving him the benefit of doubt...

There are truths. The reality behind statements can be found. But don't expect people to truly care or take the time to find out. People run to the defense or to the attack of someone based on convenience, speed, and the delightful thrill of closing ranks on internet frontlines. The opposing sides of "everything is racist" and "nothing is racist" are just too eager to jump on their respective ready-made narratives. People who are more honest usually need more time to assess it. And I'm not surprised if people manage to fool their close ones, or even themselves, for a significant time.

__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !

Oh yeah, that always gets on my nerves when rappers and movie bros act as though Tony Montana was meant to be portrayed as some sort of alpha idol, as though the only parts they remember from Scarface are the "Push It To The Limit" montage and "Say 'ello to my little friend!"; I mean, that montage glosses over Tony at the peak of his power so the movie can skip forward to the beginning of his paranoid downfall, and the final shootout occurs shortly after . How much cherry-picking do you have to do to ignore the fact that Tony was always a scumbag, just one who got rich/powerful for a short amount of his life?