I Will Not Censor.
Okay maybe I will a little. If you are crafty, you will note that I censored the title of this blog – I deliberately did not include an exclamation point. Oh, the irony that only exists in my head.
Anyway, I thought about this subject by way of (1) a friend emailing me to tell me to “be careful on this front with what you write into perm record” and (2) all of the hoopla over the recent cover of the New Yorker.
First, I appreciate my friend’s words. I understand that this is public record and in light of employers and friends and potential love-interests being google-happy, I understand that these words may come into question one day. I do watch what I write – a little – but feel that I keep it at a level such that anyone who has a problem with what I write and the way I write – employers included – is a little too conserve-o for my taste anyway, so perhaps this is a way to screen out misery and drama.
That said, I still censor; thus, I probably have a notion of what constitutes going too far. Now, did the New Yorker cover go too far? It took me a couple of days to form some words around this because I teetered back-and-forth on the issue. The question is whether the picture is offensive or hilarious, or both. (you know, three years of law school and I still don’t know whether to end this sentence with a period or question mark…) Can it be both? Are offense and hilarity mutually exclusive? I’m not 100 percent sure. I think I’m ready to express an opinion and go ahead and disagree with what many of my friends have noted and what my employer has written on the matter. I’ll admit that it is a little f’d up, but mostly hilarious. Sorry.
I mean, come on ----- it is f’d up (I think f’d up, btw, is a step down from offensive…but far enough down where it is allowed to be also hilarious). The artist had a field day with the photo. The questions I asked when I thought it was offensive (for like a day) were: why does Michelle have to be holding an AK-47? Why does she have to have a fro? Why are her and Barack doing the fist bump? Is there really a flag burning in the fireplace? Why is there a picture of Osama in the background? Why Barack’s ears are so big --- oh wait, they are!!! Anyway, all combined it is pretty damn funny.
The critics, oh the critics… The New Yorker went too far. The Editors must know that the masses will not understand the irony. The New Yorker should be above perpetuating stereotypes. Give me a break. I mean, yes, people are stupid, but not that stupid. I understand humor is in the eyes of the beholder. I know this well. The first time this idea hit HOME was once, a long time ago, when I was watching a Chris Rock stand-up with my cousin. My cousin is a smart guy, but unfortunately he dropped out and got his GED. I won’t elaborate on that because it is too touchy and beyond the point ---- the point is we were enjoying the stand-up – laughing, both of us… everything was funny, Chris was on a roll… until he touched on the subject of GEDs being “good enough diplomas” and went on a rant about that. My cousin was no longer laughing, he didn’t find it funny at all; in fact, he looked pissed. That’s all fine, but what isn’t is the fact that I couldn’t laugh. Further, his discomfort was so strong that I felt uncomfortable sitting there to merely watch the segment. I recall the environment strongly and carry the feeling with me.
I think if the Chris Rock wants to talk about GEDs, he should talk about GEDs; if the New Yorker wants to depict Barack as Barney the Purple Dinosaur, it should be able to. Also, I decided that my opinion isn’t based on the First Amendment or any other overly-intellectual basis, but it is based on my disgust for people who lack a sense of humor. Further, also watch for those who are blind followers. What if Barack issued a statement like “The picture is F’d up, but hilarious.”? What would have been written about the New Yorker cover then? Unfortunately, he didn’t – he said it was “tasteless and offensive.” So I guess that’s what we should go with, right? Perhaps, but if that is what YOU think. Think about it.
Anyway, I thought about this subject by way of (1) a friend emailing me to tell me to “be careful on this front with what you write into perm record” and (2) all of the hoopla over the recent cover of the New Yorker.
First, I appreciate my friend’s words. I understand that this is public record and in light of employers and friends and potential love-interests being google-happy, I understand that these words may come into question one day. I do watch what I write – a little – but feel that I keep it at a level such that anyone who has a problem with what I write and the way I write – employers included – is a little too conserve-o for my taste anyway, so perhaps this is a way to screen out misery and drama.
That said, I still censor; thus, I probably have a notion of what constitutes going too far. Now, did the New Yorker cover go too far? It took me a couple of days to form some words around this because I teetered back-and-forth on the issue. The question is whether the picture is offensive or hilarious, or both. (you know, three years of law school and I still don’t know whether to end this sentence with a period or question mark…) Can it be both? Are offense and hilarity mutually exclusive? I’m not 100 percent sure. I think I’m ready to express an opinion and go ahead and disagree with what many of my friends have noted and what my employer has written on the matter. I’ll admit that it is a little f’d up, but mostly hilarious. Sorry.
I mean, come on ----- it is f’d up (I think f’d up, btw, is a step down from offensive…but far enough down where it is allowed to be also hilarious). The artist had a field day with the photo. The questions I asked when I thought it was offensive (for like a day) were: why does Michelle have to be holding an AK-47? Why does she have to have a fro? Why are her and Barack doing the fist bump? Is there really a flag burning in the fireplace? Why is there a picture of Osama in the background? Why Barack’s ears are so big --- oh wait, they are!!! Anyway, all combined it is pretty damn funny.
The critics, oh the critics… The New Yorker went too far. The Editors must know that the masses will not understand the irony. The New Yorker should be above perpetuating stereotypes. Give me a break. I mean, yes, people are stupid, but not that stupid. I understand humor is in the eyes of the beholder. I know this well. The first time this idea hit HOME was once, a long time ago, when I was watching a Chris Rock stand-up with my cousin. My cousin is a smart guy, but unfortunately he dropped out and got his GED. I won’t elaborate on that because it is too touchy and beyond the point ---- the point is we were enjoying the stand-up – laughing, both of us… everything was funny, Chris was on a roll… until he touched on the subject of GEDs being “good enough diplomas” and went on a rant about that. My cousin was no longer laughing, he didn’t find it funny at all; in fact, he looked pissed. That’s all fine, but what isn’t is the fact that I couldn’t laugh. Further, his discomfort was so strong that I felt uncomfortable sitting there to merely watch the segment. I recall the environment strongly and carry the feeling with me.
I think if the Chris Rock wants to talk about GEDs, he should talk about GEDs; if the New Yorker wants to depict Barack as Barney the Purple Dinosaur, it should be able to. Also, I decided that my opinion isn’t based on the First Amendment or any other overly-intellectual basis, but it is based on my disgust for people who lack a sense of humor. Further, also watch for those who are blind followers. What if Barack issued a statement like “The picture is F’d up, but hilarious.”? What would have been written about the New Yorker cover then? Unfortunately, he didn’t – he said it was “tasteless and offensive.” So I guess that’s what we should go with, right? Perhaps, but if that is what YOU think. Think about it.
posted by cstyle at
8:41 AM
1 Comments:
The New Yorker can publish whatever type of cover they like (this is America, dammit) but I think it's appropriate to consider the likely consequences when doing so.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home