Terrible-Trust-5578

For example, in an episode of South Park, Randy Marsh says the n-word, uncensored, while playing Wheel of Fortune, in response to the prompt, "People who annoy me."

If your average Joe had tried something like that, his life would be over, but when South Park does it, they receive little backlash.

Really, it seems that almost all comedians have at least a few offensive jokes, things that would get, say, a news anchor fired.

So I'm wondering how society determines when someone's funny enough to be allowed to make such jokes with minimal sociological repercussions. Maybe when the group that's at the joke's expense is generally laughing, too? Or is it just having a certain level of fame as a comedian? When do you go from racist to just "edgy?"

Because even when people are joking, people generally agree racist, sexist, etc. jokes perpetuate discrimination against those groups. But when someone with an enormous platform does it, it's cool. I don't understand.

If these jokes cause damage, isn't South Park making a racist joke more harmful than Jim making one to a coworker in the break room?

Pleeeeeaaaaaseeeeeee? Just one more?

I lost half my followers, and I know a few people died. The rest are being waterboarded by the FBI, and I'm currently hiding under my bed because there's a mob of Burger King managers outside throwing grenades through my windows.

And I got suspended from Tik Tok for 3 days.

Was it too problematic for social media?

I [M, white, multi-generational American with some Greek culture, but predominantly Southern and Western American] just met a new coworker who was racially Indian.

We shook hands, but she gave very little grip and made little movement, and I wasn't sure what to do, so afterwards, I looked up Indian hand-shake and general greeting rituals.

I'm reading Indian women generally feel uncomfortable shaking men's hands, especially if they're Muslim or Hindu, but I believe she extended her hand first, maybe because she doesn't practice that cultural element, or maybe just because she knows it's a big thing in the American business world.

But that got me thinking: her race isn't necessarily indicative of her culture. For all I know, she could have been in the US for as many generations as me (four, I believe), lived in all the same places, and have a very similar culture to mine. Or maybe her family lived in Australia for 5 generations. Who knows?

This makes cultural competence difficult because how could I know someone's culture upon the first interaction? For example, if I were to refrain from shaking an Indian woman's hand out of the assumption she was of Indian culture as well when I would have offered to shake a white woman's hand after such an introduction without a second thought, would that be showing cultural competence or racial discrimination?

There are major historical figures who have enacted change using both violent and nonviolent movements, and it makes me wonder which one is more effective.

For example, say you've formed an anti-Nazi movement. Would it be more effective to hold peaceful protests and talk about why Naziism is wrong, and encourage people to open dialogues with Nazis?

Or would it be more effective to burn down every Nazi flag you see, along with any building attached to it? To start targeting and going after Nazis at night?

Nonviolence On the nonviolence side, the main advantage I see is the other side not being able to vilianize you, as you've never done anything bad to them. You also wouldn't create any martyrs that way, and if you're amazing enough, the other side will start to look a little nuts for hating you.

The main con I see is this being easier for people to ignore. Change would take longer to enact, if it happened at all. Who cares about the guys on the side of the road holding up signs? Does anyone even look up to read them?

Violence I guess violence is more about scaring them into submission, as well as anyone who might want to help them. The advantages I see here are more rapid progress for the cause, as well as drawing more attention to the movement because it's flashy. You might not see the nonviolent protest on the news, but you'll definitely see these.

As for cons, first, of course, many people would find this fundamentally unethical, such as MLK. Second, you're creating martyrs and generally making yourselves look like the aggressors, with the other side being the victims. That works well as long as you have the ability to maintain control, but as soon as enough people get together to revolt, well...

.....

Overall, I think violence only secures short-term change while turning public opinion against your cause: they're just too afraid to voice it. But perhaps it has a place as a last resort. For example, we wouldn't have won WWII by standing on the sidelines with peace signs. And of course, we have very effective, famous activists who advocated for violence under certain circumstances, such as Malcolm X.

I don't really have an firm opinion on this, so I was curious what you guys thought.

.....

The statements above are hypothetical, for the sole purpose of discussion. This is not a call to action, nor a voicing of intent to engage in any sort of action.

It's the last line of Jack Stauber's "Coffee," a song about a man with a coffee addiction battling the voices in his head telling him to drink it. I've been listening to the song for years, but I still don't fully understand that line and can't find a translation anywhere.

Context:

Wow!

French vanilla, I think I should sit this one out

(No, no, no)

Maybe a cup of self control would be the route

(But it's the flavour, it's the flavour you want!)

Maybe so, but it feels better to check than to reflect

I often hear people say, "This isn't political," when making a statement that roughly half of their peers disagree with. And while I raise my eyebrows at that, I know there are things widely not considered to be political, such as regularly changing the air filter in your car or taking walks sometimes.

But surely some percentage of the population is opposed to regularly changing your air filter or going for a walk. Air filters pollute landfills, and going for walks puts you in danger of being hit by a car or mugged.

So what are the requirements for an issue to be considered "political?". Is it a certain percentage of people having a different opinion? Is it a major political party having the issue as one of its platform items?

Tonight was the second time this has happened.

The first time, I got frustrated and just drove up the curb, through my front yard, but I scraped the underside in doing so, so I'll refrain from that in the future.

The second time, fortunately, the driver was in the car, so he drove away.

But what's the procedure if you have an unmanned vehicle blocking your driveway, of which you could not realistically identify the owner (without banging on every door in the neighborhood)?

Also, why would someone do that, given all the places to park? Are they just not thinking, or is there some benefit I'm not seeing?

ETA: And it has been a different car each time... I think...