logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 391

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Anybody here think there’s a problem with this Weekend Update segment? Apparently people on the Internet do:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/tina-feys-eat-cake-strategy-after-charlottesville-is-bad-advice?via=twitter_page

There are many “good” responses to this tragedy, especially for white people. We can follow Heyer’s lead and show up at counter-protests and rallies. We can provide financial support for victims and organizers and pay activists’ legal fees. We can make calls, sign petitions, and out Nazis and white supremacists in our communities. We can educate ourselves and attempt to dismantle white supremacy in our daily lives. In spite of all of these possible avenues for action, Tina Fey went on Weekend Update on Thursday to trademark her own approach: staying home and binging on baked goods with a side of biting political commentary. Quite literally, let them eat cake.

While Fey appeared to be tapping into a long history of tone-deaf white women, she was also adding to her own “problematic white feminist” portfolio. The beloved comedian has been criticized for repeatedly employing racist stereotypes, like when she crafts Asian caricatures for laughs. She’s come under fire for jokes that appear to have crossed the line—rape jokes, using sex workers as punchlines, and blackface gags, to name just a few examples. She also starred in Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, a war correspondent comedy (?) that, among other questionable decisions, cast two white actors in major Afghan roles.

Fey’s response to all this criticism has been to publicly “opt out” of internet scrutiny. In a 2015 interview, the SNL alum explained, “We did an Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episode and the internet was in a whirlwind, calling it ‘racist’, but my new goal is not to explain jokes…I feel like we put so much effort into writing and crafting everything, they need to speak for themselves. There’s a real culture of demanding apologies, and I’m opting out of that.” Of course, you can’t please everyone, but choosing to ignore the haters when said haters are trying to point out and correct your racial blind spots will probably just lead to more fuck-ups in the future.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/let-us-eat-cake/537294/

The bit is, in many ways, classic Fey: It’s self-deprecating, and uses food in particular as a tool of deprecation; it’s at once slapstick and cerebral; it folds a sweeping message about the emotional state of the country into a joke about baked goods; it refers to white supremacists as “chinless turds.” But the bit is classic Fey in another way, too: Its humor is also punctuated with moments of cringe-worthiness—about race, in particular.

At one point Fey makes a joke about a drag queen being “a 6-foot-4 black man.” She yuks to Michael Che about her placement on the set: She’s sitting next to Colin Jost rather than Che, she explains, because the angle highlights “the better half of my face” (“This week, I think it’s important to be clear about that”). She ends the whole bit with an apparently off-handed joke about Thomas Jefferson and … Sally Hemings, “that hot light-skinned girl over by the butter churn.” (This was an echo of a line in her memoir Bossypants: “To get some play in Charlottesville,” Fey wrote of her time at UVA, “you had to be either a Martha Jefferson or a Sally Hemings.”) All that came in the context of a segment that is in one way channeling a sense of national despair but that is in another toying with complacency as a response to evil’s banality: Let us eat cake.

https://bossip.com/1579674/tina-feys-white-privilege-response-to-nazis-is-the-whitest-white-thing-to-ever-white/

Before we begin: 53 percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. Just saying.

Anyway, Tina Fey went on Weekend Update and tried to deliver some ether to the president. She laid some zingers about Paul Ryan and the pres. But she also had a gag about encouraging people to stay at home and eat cake instead of resisting. The jokes were meant to entertain but it really reminded us of the privilege white people have to not engage in oppression because it doesn’t concern them.

I mostly agreed with this assessment:

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/08/19/tina-fey

Tina Fey’s segment on SNL’s Weekend Update this week was so good I’ve watched it three times already. It’s just amazing.

Yet, remarkably, it has drawn criticism from people on the left. Exhibits A, B, and C. If you’re claiming to be offended by Tina Fey’s segment this week, you’re either utterly humorless or willfully obtuse, and either way, you are part of the problem. The only people to be offended by this week are fucking Nazis, and Tina Fey just skewered them.

I remember being a kid learning that Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal was controversial in its time, because some sanctimonious shitheads thought Swift literally wanted people to eat Irish children. I just couldn’t believe there were people who were incapable of understanding satire. But here we are today, with people thinking Tina Fey literally wants us to stay home and eat cake. If that’s what you think, let me break it to you: your heart might be in the right place, but you’re an idiot.

but I do know that the it’s just a joke response is very problematic.

Author
Time

I would like to do more in depth research before concluding that the all the Confederacy was about, was slavery and racism. My gut is telling me it is a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. But, I could be wrong.

Btw, there is a Confederate monument in NJ. It marks the place where a lot of Confederate Pows died and were buried. They died of diseases and such, probably because the North didn’t take all that good care of them. It is monument the the men that died and there and I guess acts as their grave marker. Their identities are unknown. I don’t think it was put there show black people that the whites were still in control. Does it need to be removed?

What about confederate flags and stuff at cemeteries where confederate soldiers are buried?

What about all the markers at Gettysburg that mark were all the various soldiers of both sides were? Do the Confederate ones need to come down?

Author
Time

yhwx said:

I mostly agreed with this assessment:

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/08/19/tina-fey

Tina Fey’s segment on SNL’s Weekend Update this week was so good I’ve watched it three times already. It’s just amazing.

Yet, remarkably, it has drawn criticism from people on the left. Exhibits A, B, and C. If you’re claiming to be offended by Tina Fey’s segment this week, you’re either utterly humorless or willfully obtuse, and either way, you are part of the problem. The only people to be offended by this week are fucking Nazis, and Tina Fey just skewered them.

I remember being a kid learning that Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal was controversial in its time, because some sanctimonious shitheads thought Swift literally wanted people to eat Irish children. I just couldn’t believe there were people who were incapable of understanding satire. But here we are today, with people thinking Tina Fey literally wants us to stay home and eat cake. If that’s what you think, let me break it to you: your heart might be in the right place, but you’re an idiot.

but I do know that the it’s just a joke response is very problematic.

How dare you lecture black people that they shouldn’t be offended by Tina Fey’s skit. You’re white and privileged. Don’t police black people’s opinions about Tina Fey’s skit.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it’s suicide politically.

Sometimes, yes. But is political suicide the right thing to do, if it means 4 more years of Trump?

Author
Time

Regarding where to draw the line on statues: generally speaking a very easy line to draw is “Was the statue erected during a period of domestic terror as a means of further intimidating the citizens targeted by that terrorism?” That could apply to more than just Confederate statues, but it should take care of most of them. I’m sure there are other tests for harder cases.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Regarding where to draw the line on statues: generally speaking a very easy line to draw is “Was the statue erected during a period of domestic terror as a means of further intimidating the citizens targeted by that terrorism?” T

So now we are comparing General Lee to Bin Laden?

Author
Time

Is anyone against memorials erected purely for the deaths of Confederate soldiers themselves? There are some memorials in Germany for the war dead that are not in any way a memorial for Nazi Germany. Obviously the Civil War isn’t pressing anymore since pretty much everybody who even knew an elderly Civil War vet is now dead, but a lot of people from both the North and South died in that war, and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers weren’t slave owners. In fact, people rich enough to own slaves bought their way out of the war.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Is anyone against memorials erected purely for the deaths of Confederate soldiers themselves? There are some memorials in Germany for the war dead that are not in any way a memorial for Nazi Germany.

This.

A memorial for those soldiers killed is not the same thing as a statue with a Confederate leader on a horse.

Maybe we can remove the men from the statues and leave the horses.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

I would like to do more in depth research before concluding that the all the Confederacy was about, was slavery and racism. My gut is telling me it is a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. But, I could be wrong.

Btw, there is a Confederate monument in NJ. It marks the place where a lot of Confederate Pows died and were buried. They died of diseases and such, probably because the North didn’t take all that good care of them. It is monument the the men that died and there and I guess acts as their grave marker. Their identities are unknown. I don’t think it was put there show black people that the whites were still in control. Does it need to be removed?

What about confederate flags and stuff at cemeteries where confederate soldiers are buried?

What about all the markers at Gettysburg that mark were all the various soldiers of both sides were? Do the Confederate ones need to come down?

That all should be left alone. Most of the statues and monuments people are upset about went up well into the 20th century, when a romantic idealized version of the old South was being promoted. You even had schools named after Confederate “heroes”. The South Shall Rise Again is a slogan I’ve seen on bumper stickers in the past.

Something like this probably should be left alone, as it was a memorial marker in a cemetery.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-forever-monument-20170815-story.html

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

There is nuance in nuance. Obviously nuance is important, but as a said a statue is not a nuanced object. It is a symbol, and for many people when they see it they don’t see a million things, they see only one.

Of course it’s important to understand all the reasons as an educated citizen, but the truth is most of those reasons have little to do with the effects the war still has today (beyond being a common, phony excuse and dog whistle).

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Again, nuance. If a statue depicts a glorification, it should go. If it symbolizes something else, maybe not.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

There is nuance in nuance. Obviously nuance is important, but as a said a statue is not a nuanced object. It is a symbol, and for many people when they see it they don’t see a million things, they see only one.

Maybe better education on the Civil War and its other causes could help here.

Of course it’s important to understand all the reasons as an educated citizen, but the truth is most of those reasons have little to do with the effects the war still has today

None the less, those reasons need to be considered in the the decision to remove the statues.

(beyond being a common, phony excuse and dog whistle).

?

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Again, nuance. If a statue depicts a glorification, it should go. If it symbolizes something else, maybe not.

unfortunately, some of the statues at Gettysburg do probably depict glorification. Still if you try to remove them, you will probably get a fight from battle field historians.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Is anyone against memorials erected purely for the deaths of Confederate soldiers themselves? There are some memorials in Germany for the war dead that are not in any way a memorial for Nazi Germany.

This.

A memorial for those soldiers killed is not the same thing as a statue with a Confederate leader on a horse.

Maybe we can remove the men from the statues and leave the horses.

Not all of the statues people are vandalizing are statues of leaders on horseback.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

There is nuance in nuance. Obviously nuance is important, but as a said a statue is not a nuanced object. It is a symbol, and for many people when they see it they don’t see a million things, they see only one.

Maybe better education on the Civil War and its other causes could help here.

Of course it’s important to understand all the reasons as an educated citizen, but the truth is most of those reasons have little to do with the effects the war still has today

None the less, those reasons need to be considered in the the decision to remove the statues.

(beyond being a common, phony excuse and dog whistle).

?

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Again, nuance. If a statue depicts a glorification, it should go. If it symbolizes something else, maybe not.

unfortunately, some of the statues at Gettysburg do probably depict glorification. Still if you try to remove them, you will probably get a fight from battle field historians.

i was just recently at gettysburg,

http://wesa.fm/post/confederate-monuments-arent-going-anywhere-says-gettysburg-park#stream/0

there certainly doesn’t need to be an erasing of history. but i have heard the sentiment going around, that i agree with. it goes something like this. “places of prominence should be given to good role models” so to me, anything along the lines of naming a public school, what goes up in the town square, basically anything that says ‘hey world, these are people we like, and you could do worse than to emulate them’, those are places that confederate statues probably don’t belong.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

There is nuance in nuance. Obviously nuance is important, but as a said a statue is not a nuanced object. It is a symbol, and for many people when they see it they don’t see a million things, they see only one.

Of course it’s important to understand all the reasons as an educated citizen, but the truth is most of those reasons have little to do with the effects the war still has today (beyond being a common, phony excuse and dog whistle).

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Again, nuance. If a statue depicts a glorification, it should go. If it symbolizes something else, maybe not.

By “go” do you mean destroyed? I’m not opposed to putting them in storage but the destruction is inexcusable to me.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Is anyone against memorials erected purely for the deaths of Confederate soldiers themselves? There are some memorials in Germany for the war dead that are not in any way a memorial for Nazi Germany.

This.

A memorial for those soldiers killed is not the same thing as a statue with a Confederate leader on a horse.

Maybe we can remove the men from the statues and leave the horses.

Not all of the statues people are vandalizing are statues of leaders on horseback.

Maybe we can put them all on horses and then remove the men.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Regarding where to draw the line on statues: generally speaking a very easy line to draw is “Was the statue erected during a period of domestic terror as a means of further intimidating the citizens targeted by that terrorism?” T

So now we are comparing General Lee to Bin Laden?

The domestic terror campaign I’m talking about was kicked off when Reconstruction ended, and lasted about a hundred years (i.e. the period when the statues were erected). I’m not sure General Lee was involved in any of that.

EDIT: If I were to compare Lee to any contemporary figure, I’d say the best match would be one of the Iraqi Republican Guard leaders who went on to fight for ISIS, not because of a great deal of ideological allegiance (the Baathists were not Islamists), but because that’s the way the sectarian split of Iraq went.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

The one that a bunch of unlikable thugs vandalized and tore down was just of a nondescript soldier, not even standing in a glorified position and it was dedicated to the war dead.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

There is nuance in nuance. Obviously nuance is important, but as a said a statue is not a nuanced object. It is a symbol, and for many people when they see it they don’t see a million things, they see only one.

Of course it’s important to understand all the reasons as an educated citizen, but the truth is most of those reasons have little to do with the effects the war still has today (beyond being a common, phony excuse and dog whistle).

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Again, nuance. If a statue depicts a glorification, it should go. If it symbolizes something else, maybe not.

By “go” do you mean destroyed? I’m not opposed to putting them in storage but the destruction is inexcusable to me.

It depends. Storage/museums might be a good solution for most, but a lot of these statues were mass produced. Might be better to recycle.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Most statues are not nuanced. The other reasons for the war don’t really come into play in a non-nuanced world, it’s the main one that rings loudest: slavery, and we can’t glorify that.

Maybe the world needs to be more nuanced. Maybe the other reasons for the war need to be better understood.

There is nuance in nuance. Obviously nuance is important, but as a said a statue is not a nuanced object. It is a symbol, and for many people when they see it they don’t see a million things, they see only one.

Of course it’s important to understand all the reasons as an educated citizen, but the truth is most of those reasons have little to do with the effects the war still has today (beyond being a common, phony excuse and dog whistle).

Build a memorial if you want. But the statues as they exist are misguided.

Which statues? What about the ones for the pows I mentioned and the battlefield markers?

Again, nuance. If a statue depicts a glorification, it should go. If it symbolizes something else, maybe not.

By “go” do you mean destroyed? I’m not opposed to putting them in storage but the destruction is inexcusable to me.

It depends. Storage/museums might be a good solution for most, but a lot of these statues were mass produced. Might be better to recycle.

Well, yeah the ones built within the last 50 years or so probably aren’t worth anything, but a lot of them were built to commemorate the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the war. Those belong in a museum.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

The one that a bunch of unlikable thugs

Sure.

vandalized and tore down was just of a nondescript soldier, not even standing in a glorified position and it was dedicated to the war dead.

There are other ways to memorialize the dead. I’d definitely argue that statue was a glorification.

Author
Time

I will say this, I don’t people should just take it upon themselves to tear down a statue, do it the legal way. Do it via the appropriate government entity. And yes, it might not be inaccurate to say that those that illegally tear down statues are thugs.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

vandalized and tore down was just of a nondescript soldier, not even standing in a glorified position and it was dedicated to the war dead.

There are other ways to memorialize the dead. I’d definitely argue that statue was a glorification.

even though he said the soldier was not standing a in a glorified position?