The Black NRA

[Joe Guy]

Lord Jim is not the definitive interpreter of all things

Oh heavens to Betsy, no...

Let's see... she said 'you are not' and you responded that you are not what she said you are not.

So, that means that you think you are...

I'm offended once again!!

[Lord Jim]

Let's see... she said 'you are not' and you responded that you are not what she said you are not.

So, that means that you think you are...

No need to channel your Inner Meade, Joe...

[Gob]

"Inner Meade" Sounds kinky.

[Econoline]

Apparently you see some substantive distinction between saying "went whooshing over your head" and being "completely clueless" (a distinction which frankly is not immediately apparent to me...it must be a very subtle distinction...perhaps you can illuminate it for me) so I wanted to make sure I quoted you precisely....

Apparently you missed this post above, in which I said:

I want to apologize to you and to @W for including you and her in my comment (though I continue to think that the makers of the second video missed the point of the first video...and that the second video is not at all funny).

I've also gone back and re-edited the earlier post which offended you; I hope that helps.

---

I think myself, and @W and Meade have all already made our cases for why we believe our interpretation is correct, so I don't really understand why you are asking at this point why we think our interpretation is the correct...

Not quite. Meade said, "What is the anti-black message in #1? It is that blacks with guns are dangerous and therefore the NRA is risking offending all the right wing gun nuts who naturally hate knee-grows."[/quote] You said, "BINGO!" @W said, "I didn't laugh at either video." None of you tried to argue *WHY* you were right and I was wrong: you merely asserted it.

And then I said

I assume it's supposed to be funny. The way I interpreted it, it was funny. Some of you have found a way to interpret it so that it's not funny. So why should I think that your interpretation is right, and mine is wrong?

So I clearly haven't say that there's only one possible interpretation, and I still would like it spelled out why (other than disliking Sarah Silverman) it makes more sense to see the Silverman video as offensive rather than satirical. It seems to me that you, Meade, and @W are the ones insisting that there is only one possible interpretation--and that that interpretation is one that is offensive and not at all funny. For example:

I'm with Econoline on this one.

Well, then I know just the bar where you two should meet for drinks:

Look, I get it that not everyone has the same sort of sense of humor. If any of you had simply said that you did not find it funny, I could understand that and accept that. But that's not what any of you said, and none of you has given any indication that my (and Joe's, and BSG's, and Crackpot's) take is simply different, rather than flat-out wrong.

[Lord Jim]

Oh brother, Part II ,

Econo, I was just getting ready to copy and paste comments from myself and others on my side on this, and put them up against quotes from you and others on your side to illustrate with glaring clarity conclusively just who are the ones insisting that only their interpretation is correct, but I think there's quicker and simpler way to get at this....

I am prepared to say that it's possible for someone to not see how the Silverman video could be offensive to black people.. (even though I personally consider that interpretation to be superficial and wrong-headed)

Are you prepared to say that it's possible for someone (white or black) to interpret that video as offensive to black people, (even if you disagree with that interpretation) while they fully understood what sort of "joke" was intended, and didn't have "the point" "whoosh" over their head?

If you're not willing agree to that, then clearly you must be the one who is insisting that there is one and only one possible intellectually legitimate interpretation involved....

Yours...

[Econoline]

Yes, I'm willing to say that it's possible for someone (white or black) to interpret that video as offensive to black people (obviously: some already have); I think the rest of what you want me to say depends on making a distinction between "understanding" a joke and "getting" a joke. Fine, I'm willing to make that distinction. I guess there have been times when I've understood what was supposed to be funny about something yet didn't myself think it funny (e.g. "I Love Lucy", most slapstick, most racial jokes...in fact, if I had interpreted the video the way you and Meade did, I would not have found it funny).

Are you willing to concede that the "offensive" interpretation probably was NOT what was intended by the makers of the video, and that if someone did NOT interpret it that way they COULD have found it funny?

[BoSoxGal]

Stating one's opinion once is far from the same as beating others over the head with it over and over and over.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Stop - you're all right / wrong

I don't think the first video was intended to be offensive to anyone other than the identified patient i.e. white right wing anti-black gun-nuts. It was intended to satirize WRWABGN. Both POVs should be willing to agree on "intention" and that the piece was satirical.

I was reminded of a joke that the early SNL writers were told to leave out: "How do you know which way is north?" - "Just see which side the moss is growing on Karen Ann Quinlan". There's a distinct choice there whether to laugh or become very angry - satire is like that.

In order to satirize WRWABGN, the participants portrayed a widespread prejudice held in a much larger (presumably) white population, appealing to stereotypical images of black people. They also generalized about the NRA and its members, basing their "humor" on another stereotype - that of equating the identity "WRWABGN" and the identity "NRA" when in fact the NRA is multi-racial, multi-political (though preponderantly conservative) group that purposes to support the Constitution (which includes a Bill of Rights and an amendment or two). Both POVs should be willing to agree on "stereotype".... there is no need to argue about the NRA.... just the video and what it says.

Much of the response video was in fact directed at the untruths put forward about the NRA and was not, IMO, meant to be "amusing".

As with the Karen Ann Quinlan joke, I see the offence more than I see the humor in the first video.

And that's why we call them POVs... whatever the "thing" is, we react in different ways. That's especially so when the thing in question actually does, as this does, contain both the elements identified in those POVs.

[Lord Jim]

Are you willing to concede that the "offensive" interpretation probably was NOT what was intended by the makers of the video

I believe I've stated several times that I know what they "intended". I concede that they did not consciously intend to make a video that could be offensive to blacks. They did that out of thoughtlessness and ignorance; not out of intent.

I think the rest of what you want me to say depends on making a distinction between "understanding" a joke and "getting" a joke.

No, I'm not making a distinction between "understanding" a joke and "getting" a joke. I'm saying that it's possible to fully "understand" or "get" (or any other term you want to use) the intent of a "joke" and what the person or persons who made it thought was supposed to be funny about it, and still find it not funny and/or offensive...

I "get" perfectly well what the joke is supposed to be when Moe pokes Curly in eyes, but I don't find it humorous (And I would put the Silverman video on about the same level of subtlety and "brilliance"...)

Stating one's opinion once is far from the same as beating others over the head with it over and over and over.

Oh come on, I don't think Econo's been that bad...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Sometimes I am happy that the work computer blocks such things.

[Econoline]

Meade - Thank you for that thoughtful and, may I say, rather generous response. I think you articulate the whole of what we've been arguing here in this thread better than anyone--myself included.

Jim - I should have made myself clearer in the distinction I was making between "understanding" and "getting" a joke: in your 3 Stooges example, my reaction is much the same as yours...but I would say that I understand what the joke is supposed to be, but it's not funny, I don't know why everyone else around me is laughing, I don't get it. Not "getting" the humor of something could be due to any number of reasons (including not-understanding or mis-understanding) but I like Meade's focus on POV (point-of-view):

As with the Karen Ann Quinlan joke, I see the offence more than I see the humor in the first video.

And that's why we call them POVs... whatever the "thing" is, we react in different ways. That's especially so when the thing in question actually does, as this does, contain both the elements identified in those POVs.

[Joe Guy]

So, if I see humor in the 1st video and I see offended people responding in the 2nd video, the 2nd video has gone way over my head? Or if I see no humor in the 1st video but think the 2nd video was hilarious and informative, the 1st video went way over my head?

It depends on the viewer. If you don't like Sarah Silverman or any of the other participants in the 1st video, you'll either consciously or unconsciously block out any possible humor there and decide it's not funny.

Like this person:

Aside from her appearances on Monk and her "I'm fucking Matt Damon" video, I'm hard put to think of another instance where Sarah Silverman was actually "funny"...

Or if you're a black celebrity and always see underlying racist intent when a white person participates in humor that involves black people, you'll make your own video and slam whitey in response to the 1st video.

If you don't see the humor and powerful statement on racism in the 2nd video, you don't understand the true plight of the black man.

Or if you are a black celebrity and were involved in the 1st video, you're a washed up comedian who is no longer funny or never was funny.

Oh!?.... did Meade put an end to this argument?

I read what he wrote but I don't get it...