Duffman100 wrote:xAIRNESSx wrote:Duffman100 wrote:
That counter to the sensitive language movement (which I do agree exists) is a movement of "I can joke about anything and if people are offended they're sensitive". That any trauma is up for grabs for joke, even if it wasn't experienced by the one making the joke.
Thus my Family Guy reference and how they're often adept ability at comedy about serious and traumatic events sometimes just devolves into 'offensive for the sake of being offensive comedy' which is actually rather stupid.
So for instance, if this commentator was making a joke about the shooting involving his father (I don't think he was, I buy his apology). That it was too far and not a joke for that commentator to make.
I'm about using laughter to get through tough times and the trauma in my life. But I'm allowed and my close friends are allowed to make those jokes. Daniel Sloss has a good bit on it. I'd expect my friends to joke about my trauma to help me through it.
Not just any random dickwad that thinks the trauma is now joke material.
I meant your second response about more people complaining about cancel culture than being cancelled. You seemed to want to downplay cancel culture, which is fine, but I didn't get why you were confused by my response that it still exists and people do worry about it, especially in the centre and left.
Because at no point did I say it didn't exist.
Just that at this point, I hear more about people complaining about people being cancelled than people being cancelled. It's become the rallying cry of the 'I don't like that I can't say what I want, whenever I want and not have to worry about consequences" camp.
But your reply was to downplay it. And nowhere did I say that people don't exaggerate claims of it at times either.
My point was that people, especially in the mainstream, are probably more cognizant of their word choice than they used to be. And I don't even think this is necessarily a bad thing. People should take more consideration in their word choice.