The other one shifted to a discussion of the whistle-blowing feature, which has nothing to do with what I want to say.
Twice in the past week or so, I've received an e-mail with a "humorous" picture attachment. It's a statement on the recent law enabling illegal aliens in California to acquire driver's licenses. I don't know how many have seen it, but essentially it's a driver's license for "Mexifornia," and portrays a stereotype caricature of a Mexican man with comedic answers to various information questions on the license (e.g. Sex: 'Mucho', and the signature being a large 'X').
I personally found it horrendously offensive. Regardless of one's stance on the positive or negative aspects of the recent law, I don't think this is an appropriate response. I suppose it could be viewed as a sort of political cartoon, but I was unable to see it that way myself. Has anyone else seen this, and do you have any comments on it? I could upload it to foobonic and provide a link, but it's not something I really want to inflict on anyone who hasn't already seen it.
The thing is, movies like Blazing Saddles and The Three Amigos I've found funny, and they incorporate such stereotypical caricatures as well. So am I a hypocrite? When I think back to those movies, I can note that they also have characters who fall into the same demographic, yet aren't portrayed as quite so buffoonish, at least not in every aspect. So is it that the license provides no positive qualities, but merely shows all negative aspects of the character?
And even if that's the case, am I just justifying after the fact? I haven't seen the movies in a long time -- maybe if I watch them now I would be offended, simply because I'm not the same person I was. And is it ok to be offended, yet still recognize the humor in it? I didn't find the license at all funny, but could it be funny and offensive?
I asked myself that question, and I tried to find an analogy. So of course, the first thing my mind went to was pornography. Just because I may find myself unwittingly/unwillingly aroused by a picture of a naked woman doesn't mean I approve of porn, right? Is that a legitimate comparison?
Sorry, left the topic a little bit. So, is this hypocrisy? Am I being dishonest with myself? What's my way out of this mental conundrum? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
--Pop
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well, I've seen Blazing Saddles (best Mel Brooks movie ever ) and I think the big difference between this cartoon you describe (I haven't seen it) and Blazing Saddles is that the movie makes fun of the stereotypes and points out how stupid they are. Kind of showing people they're wrong by telling them they're right, if you know what I mean, which you probably don't... Basically Saddles gives a humorous representation of a stereotype, and through that representation shows how ludicrious the stereotype is, whereas this cartoon just plays off of the stereotype and re-enforces it. Or at least that's what I think...
Hobbes Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
POP- I have seen the "cartoon" you speak off. where as the co-worker laughed as he asked what I thought. I understand because me response was the same as yours.
I disagree greatly with the license policy of california and I will be fighting our governor her in Arizona, who wants to do the same thing. The picture is the opposite swing of that pendulam and niether are correct. The laws were done and trying to be done for pandering purposes. The joke was cruel because it paints a blanket picture that all people who apply for a drivers license who are illegal aliens are crooks and whoremongers.
To me that is the difference. In "Three Amigos" they had the "good" Mexicans who were well dressed and intelligent. This joke did not show any good.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Can something be offensive and funny at the same time? A difficult question due to the relative nature of what is offensive and what is funny.
I think it's fair to say that you didn't find it funny because you found it offensive. But could you also say that you found it offensive because you didn't find it funny? Perhaps if it was the first time you had been exposed to a joke which employed these stereotypes it may have been funny. I haven't seen the picture, but from the description it sounds as if this material has been done before.
As for Blazing Saddles, it succeeded because it satirized absolutely every social and ethinc class in the movie. In the Three Amigos, they had bad Mexicans and good Mexicans.
There is such a thing as a mean joke, but it is only funny (funny to you, not necessarily funny in an objective sense) if you hate whatever is the butt of the joke.
If there is no hate in your heart and you find a joke funny, it is probably okay.
They say that it's funny because it's true. But what is truth anyway?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I can remember pYx posting something that I recognized as funny, but that was also clearly mean spirited. I could see the well crafted humor--the timing, word choice, and all that were perfect--but I didn't approve of the joke, precisely because it was designed to be hurtful. So yeah, I'd say something can be both offensive and funny. I thought that the porn analogy was apt.
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
It is a bit distressing to find that drivers license "humor" has followed us into the 21st century. This same poor excuse for humor existed during the racially troubled years of the 1960's. At that time it was African Americans who were the subject of this prejudicial lack of taste.
The more things change,....
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I agree that things can be funny and offensive at exactly the same time. But ethnic jokes or the stereotype on sitcoms of the Hispanic maid tend to annoy me so much. There seems to be no value to that than to make white people on television look good and civilized all the time... I guess there are different degrees.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Actually, Pop, I had a similar reaction to Whoopie the other day. Is there a character on that show that isn't a tired old stereotype?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Bleah. I get so tired of stereotypes. It's why I can't stand sitcoms and most movies in the first place. Doesn't anyone know how to make good, solid complicated realistic characters any more? Must everything be some sort of ethnic joke?
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
You're just saying that because you're Greek.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Greek? Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Here's a strange case. I am horrified when anyone, even black people, use the N word. But in that scene in Rush Hour where the Jackie Chan character imitates the Chris Rock character saying it, and they try to beat him up, I found that funny.
I guess it points to the absurdity of folks who call their best friends that but will try to kill an outsider for saying it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know, pooka - I don't mind when a Mormon tells Mormon jokes, but it's quite irritating when a non-Mormon, especially someone who's been vaguely anti before, does it.
In other words, it may be nonsense, but it's universal, human nonsense. *twinkles* I'll bet even you do it.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote: (E)ssentially it's a driver's license for "Mexifornia," and portrays a stereotype caricature of a Mexican man with comedic answers to various information questions on the license (e.g. Sex: 'Mucho', and the signature being a large 'X').
I personally find the implication that Mexican men have a lot more sex than American men horrendously offensive. If it's true I find that even more offensive.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
What about the link about those Hungarians!
Man. That some dedication - at least three times a week.
(j/k )
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Kat, is it tasteless for converts to talk about what Mormons are like? Do I count as in or out for this purpose? Like the uberwhitebread Mormon thing y'all have going on? Is it okay for me to tease about that, knowing full well that I partake in the same quality? Or should I wait a few decades first? Or is it like when a yankee moves south that it actually takes several generations before they don't count as an outsider? I've never been quite sure.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think its the same rule for chastising someone - you could only tease and chastise in proportion to your love.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have another confession. I haven't even seen Pirates of the Carribean. I apparently don't even know how to spell it. Some of you will probably say this is a good thing given my sensitivity to "Salty" language.
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
I think it's an example of the age-old contrast of Impulse vs. Action.
I may impulsively laugh at something offensive, or come up with some offensive joke, but I would not let that affect my actions toward a person who may be the butt of that joke, for example.
I may have my interest drawn to a pretty girl, but I would not let my impulse turn into a disrespectful leer or turn my attention away from my girlfriend.
It's not the deep-seated emotional reaction that is bad, but what we do with it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Pooka - as far as I can recall from my multiple viewings, there isn't any salty language in Pirates of the Caribbean. There's violence, but no gore and possibly no visible blood at all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There's visible blood. But I think "poppet" is about as risque as the language got.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Correction: "hell" and "damned" are both used, but they're meant literally, not as cursing. No, wait, as cursing, in that they describe a curse, but not as swearing. Does that make a difference?
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Papa~
I think it may also depend on your sense of humor. For instance, I feel like people take race and/or racial jokes too seriously. Perhaps that means that I will find them funnier than a person who takes offense easily when it feels like someone is joking about what they take pride in. Some people may find me offensive, because I don't have any per se 'pride' in my 'race'.
Why? I don't believe I have one.
My fiancee, who is Mexican, often finds that people are edgy around him when it comes to that subject. He'll often make jokes about persons of hispanic origin, or refer to himself as a 'wet-back', to kind of lighten things up a bit. He believes that you have to be able to laugh at yourself.
I think what you are feeling is perhaps edginess about something that you, as a parent, believe that your child should be taught? Maybe the reason why you found the movies to be humorous and farce-like was because you were able to be the light-hearted guy we know around here. Have you been a parent before Mini-Moose? If not, maybe this is just a bit of the parent coming out in you, a sign that perhaps you are taking life more seriously.
Hope I'm not horribly over-analyzing things, although I probably am.
Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
See, what would be funny is if this thread had nothing at all to do with hypocrisy.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) and I think the big difference between this cartoon you describe (I haven't seen it) and Blazing Saddles is that the movie makes fun of the stereotypes and points out how stupid they are. Kind of showing people they're wrong by telling them they're right, if you know what I mean, which you probably don't... Basically Saddles gives a humorous representation of a stereotype, and through that representation shows how ludicrious the stereotype is, whereas this cartoon just plays off of the stereotype and re-enforces it. Or at least that's what I think... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)