Utopia Talk / Politics / Sacha Baron Cohen #metoo

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 18 14:16:54 http://www...xual-harassment-in-me-too-era/ Just joking’ is not an excuse. ‘I was just joking.” One common tactic of sexual predation is the perpetrator’s casual dismissal of the victims’ claims by waving a hand in the air and claiming to be kidding. Not only is it hard to combat — who defines humor? — the dismissal also paints the victim as a prude. No one wants to be either a victim or a prude. Consequently, “Can’t you take a joke?” turns out to be a predator’s pretty effective line of defense. Apparently calling sexual harassment “satire” not only gets you a free pass, it sometimes gets you famous. Take Sacha Baron Cohen. He rose to stardom through the British television series Da Ali G Show, which aired on HBO from 2000 to 2004. In it, Cohen posed as three equally ridiculous characters: the gay Austrian fashion commentator Brüno Gehard, the Kazakh reporter Borat Sagdiyev, and the ever-posing hip-hop personality Ali G. Cohen frequently pretends he doesn’t speak English proficiently, because Americans tend to want to help people who don’t communicate well in the language. He puts unassuming celebrities into awkward situations by making outrageous comments and broadcasting the ensuing “hilarity.” He’s at it again. Showtime’s Who Is America? is a seven-part series that explores “the diverse individuals, from the infamous to the unknown, across the political and cultural spectrum, who populate our unique nation.” Though the series debuted only this past Sunday, pundits are already aflutter over the people he reportedly duped in upcoming shows. He got former vice president Dick Cheney to autograph a “waterboard kit.” Then he posed as a disabled veteran (fake wheelchair and all) to score an interview with Sarah Palin, whom he asked perverse questions about Chelsea Clinton. But should Cohen have a platform at all? Is his shtick “entertainment,” or can we finally admit it’s something else? I’ll put it bluntly: It’s time for him to deal honestly with the filmed sexual harassment of Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul during a 2008 interview. If you didn’t see this scene in his Bruno movie, I can assure you it was hard to watch. Cohen’s people requested a simple interview about Austrian economics. The GOP candidate arrived at the studio and exchanged pleasantries with the man he thought was his Austrian host. (Cohen is British.) Then a few seconds into the conversation, a light goes out. Cohen suggests that Paul go into another room to wait. It turns out to be a hotel room. There are no chairs, so Paul sits on the bed. The lighting is low. Cohen offers Paul champagne, which he politely declines. Strawberries and caviar are set on a table. He takes off his jacket and compliments Paul’s “cute” appearance. The 73-year-old congressman, who had been politely making small talk, starts to get uncomfortable. He gets quiet and perturbed when Cohen turns out a lamp, puts on sexual music, and begins to dance suggestively. Paul physically walks away from him. A secret camera catches him looking around, but there’s nowhere to go. Cohen has blocked the door, gyrating to the music. Paul picks up a newspaper and pretends to read it. Finally, Cohen unbuckles his belt and drops his pants. When Paul looks up and sees Cohen in form-fitting violet satin underwear, he drops the paper and storms to the door. Bruno blocks his exit. “Get outta here,” an agitated Paul yells, waving him off. Secret cameras in the hallway catch the obviously upset Paul trying to explain to his aides what happened. Since Paul didn’t know that this was satire, his feelings of being fooled by a sexual predator were real. That Showtime is elevating Sacha Baron Cohen in spite of the success of the Me Too movement is a slap in the face to the men and women who’ve been in the same situation as Ron Paul — tricked by people with evil intent into an uncomfortable, sexually charged situation. Which is exactly why Showtime should not give Cohen this new platform. Luring someone into a sexually uncomfortable situation is not acceptable — not for Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, or Sacha Baron Cohen. The Me Too movement’s principles of consent are not suspended when someone thinks it’d be funny to use sexuality as a tool. Here’s a quick tutorial, for cable execs who haven’t been paying attention to the news. You can’t make sexual moves toward a person who doesn’t want them. You can’t undress in front of them. You can’t make sexual allusions. Satire doesn’t suspend consent. That Showtime is elevating Sacha Baron Cohen in spite of the success of the Me Too movement is a slap in the face to the men and women who’ve been in precisely the same situation as Ron Paul — tricked by people with evil intent into an uncomfortable, sexually charged situation. Actual, true sexual predators use the “I’m just joking” excuse to cover unimaginable horrors. So does Cohen. His “humor” relies on the fact that his victims can’t tell the difference. Editor’s Note: This piece has been emended since its original posting.
hood Member	Wed Jul 18 14:24:21 Oy very.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 19 00:42:46 Lol... when is the next Purge Night?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 01:47:54 If I put my MRA glasses on, well I wont, because the world looks hideous, but you know where this is all going, we wouldn’t be laughing and giggeling if this had been a woman. In fact Cohen would probably be jail and his career over. We can have the same laws, but we will never apply then equally, because there is cultural cobsensus that man on woman is worse than man on man and you may joke in this manner with men, but not with women. The two standards are upheld.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 19 01:56:26 <insert generic rebuttal about historic inequality of sexes and systemic patriarchy and strength discrepancy>
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 19 01:58:19 <generic Seb rebuttal, that is>
Aeros Member	Thu Jul 19 01:58:47 Every night is purge night when you are #woke. What is amusing is these social media lynch mobs only have power over people on the left who accept the SJW ideology. They are absolutely powerless against people who don't give a shit what they think. Exhibit A being Donald Trump, but there are other examples like Jordan Peterson, that Diversity and Comics guy and so on. I am going to put Bill Maher at the top of the #metoo deadpool.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 19 02:49:17 Well, and people caught in the middle. Quite a few employers are quite happy to kowtow to a fucking meaningless leftists social media presence. Our decade-long employee called the cops on a woman at an HOA swimming pool because she gave a fake address? We'll happily fire him and bloat about it on Twitter.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 03:27:43 It was pointed out fairly early into metoo that by a good margin the accued people were atleast nominally feminist and progressive/left. Sexual predators that take an anti-feminist position will automatically and without fault be looked at with suspecion, you are basically alerting anti woman sentiments, or so the gender theory goes. http://i.p...96dd86a4e96930e1601169a2e2.jpg
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 03:28:17 As in my ”gender theory”.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 19 04:01:35 lol@that jpg .. [Aeros]: "What is amusing is these social media lynch mobs only have power over people on the left who accept the SJW ideology." That's what'll make this next expansion of the witch hunt entertaining, for sure. I'm just going to guess that Sacha Baron Cohen supports a lot of the feminist ideals that this author wants to use to destroy him. With luck he'll be behind so many layers of parody that he'll just make fun of her, but if he's retarded then he'll apologize, giving more ground to an impressive viral idiocy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 06:27:15 It is called the violence pyramid in Sweden a much touted gender theory explanation for violence. Cohen is smart and has been in shitstorms before, luckily his victim was a man and nothing will come of this. I am calling it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 06:39:33 Oops spoke to soon, they found the woman angle on Cohen and his show! Sacha Baron Cohen has been criticised for hiring digraced comedian Kurt Metzger to work on his new show Who is America?. Metzger, a former writer for Inside Amy Schumer, has a history of harassing women and belittling their claims of sexual assault. In August 2016, Metzger wrote on Facebook in defence of comedian, Aaron Glaser, who was banned by several New York comedy clubs after being accused of rape by multiple women. In the since-deleted post, Metzger poked fun at the women coming forward to accuse Glaser because they had not gone straight to the police. He wrote: "Jiffy Dilfyberg [a fake name he uses to refer to Glaser] is dangerous! "So f------ dangerous that we can't go the police to report his many rapes... the women are too brave for that." This was not the first time that Metzger had poked fun at women who claimed to be victims of sexual assault. As reported by The Daily Dot, the comedian previously posted on Facebook that "the 1 in 4 rape statistic is bull----. It's more like 1 in 14." http://www...iring-sexist-troll-writer/amp/ ALL BETS ARE OFF. I suggest him and his advisors to go into Defcon 1, enemy subs detected, nuclear launch imminent.
hood Member	Thu Jul 19 07:19:58 I forsaw this ending when we had Gilbert Gottfried fired from Aflac for his (sometimes amazing, sometimes hard miss) jokes around the Japan earthquakes. Also brought up how dumb the mobs were when it got a girl fired (and slutshamed) for a Halloween costume (Boston bomber victim girl). I really hope Cohen leans all the way into it and pulls an act with a paid actress to do the same thing as he did to Ron Paul. Just go full on troll mode.
hood Member	Thu Jul 19 07:20:53 Also, I'm surprised nobody brought up the time he tried to kidnap Pam Anderson during the Borat movie. Seems like a much better target than gyrating in front of a mummy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 07:29:39 I think Pam Anderson was in on that, I could be mistaken, but I remember something like that from when this was all relevant.
Nekran Member	Thu Jul 19 08:19:37 I didn't see Bruno, but I have to say that the description of that scene sounds legit terrible and definitely not funny.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 09:16:35 It was not the funniest part, no doubt. Even back when I saw it I felt a bit sorry for Ron Paul since I was familiar with him, but ultimatly nothing that would scar him for life or even the craziest thing he has experienced for sure. Cohen a crazy guy and he is funny, you have to give comedians some space to offend, occasionally they will cross the shitline to figure out what is funny and we should forgive them most of the time, or comedy will turn to shit. We have to remember that they are not trying to offend, but t be funny. Cohen definitly puts that last sentence to the test though. The type of funny that is based on offending is perhaps not the most unifying sort, but in Cohens defence, he does not discriminate, everyone is fair game.
Aeros Member	Thu Jul 19 09:28:06 I am hoping that people will get wise to the fact that the best thing you can do when confronted by these people is to never apologise. If you stick to your guns, people will come out of the woodwork to defend you and the mob will trip on its own incoherence. Apologising to a mob just gives it permission to hang you. It's an admission their deranged accusations are true.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 09:37:43 It depends on your specific social context, you could also get fired and have your career destroyed and lose friends. Even if people come to your defence. It depends how deep into the American coastal progressive cricle your bank account is nested in this case.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Jul 19 09:45:21 "I didn't see Bruno, but I have to say that the description of that scene sounds legit terrible and definitely not funny." That's a good description of most of his work.
murder Member	Thu Jul 19 10:08:31 "They are absolutely powerless against people who don't give a shit what they think. Exhibit A being Donald Trump" And that makes you feel powerful, doesn't it? Yesterday you were just another shitty vet getting shitty medical care for your shitty problem ... but now you get to treat other people like shit, and that makes it all better, doesn't it? You don't have an inflamed asshole ... you ARE an inflamed asshole!
Nekran Member	Thu Jul 19 10:59:58 "you have to give comedians some space to offend, occasionally they will cross the shitline to figure out what is funny and we should forgive them most of the time, or comedy will turn to shit." Agreed 100%. "That's a good description of most of his work." I really liked the Ali G movie back in the day. That was pure fiction though.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 19 11:08:48 Yeah, this is actually pretty creepy and deserves to be called out.
hood Member	Thu Jul 19 11:25:35 Too predictable.
Delude Member	Thu Jul 19 12:16:05 Bawhaaahaha
Seb Member	Thu Jul 19 13:26:37 Hood: Well, you wouldn't do it to a woman. And you wouldn't do it to a 70+ year old man. So, what's the humour here? An old man thinks he might be about to get raped? Or is it ok because he's a congressman? Does the guy have a record of playing down harassment or harassing aides? Then there might be a satire angle. I remember SBC back when Ali G stood for Alistair Graham and the joke was he was a white posh teenager pretending to be black to give himself street cred. Unfortunately not many got the joke. Ditto Borat. The joke was originally "which fucking bigoted retards think this is authentic eastern European because it chimes with their expectations". I rather felt he wound up with a fanfare he was actually targeting as objects of derision and then decided to embrace the stereotyping he was originally attacking. Predictable? It's a 50:50 call and if I'd said "no, it's fine" you'd be saying hypocrisy, how predictable. *slow hand clap*
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 19 13:51:11 lol
hood Member	Thu Jul 19 14:03:49 "Predictable? It's a 50:50 call and if I'd said "no, it's fine" you'd be saying hypocrisy, how predictable. *slow hand clap*" Not a 50:50 call; supplemental information (knowing you) tips the scale. Had you come down in the "no, it's fine" side I would be shocked and in disbelief. I might state as such. That's about it.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 19 14:36:30 hood: What, like Forwyn up there with his totally wrong guess also based on the same information? Sorry hood, you are being a bit of a div again. It was equally predictable you would have no issue with this; as it is also predictable that with pretty much any case where there is discrimination, you will predictably dismiss the issue as being of no consequence. In any case, it's reasonable to ask exactly what the audience is being invited to laugh at here. Or do you think it would be acceptable to do it to a random person in the name of humor?
hood Member	Thu Jul 19 14:49:47 I will not be sucked into a pointless argument with a fern. However, I will state that I do not find this sort of humor (another example: impractical jokers) all that amusing. I also recognize that some humor will offend people. See: Tim Minchin's Lullaby. Which I'm going to go watch now.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 19 15:28:32 Hood: Of course humour can offends. That's not really the point here. Firstly, just to point out limitations: If I dump a load of pork offal onto a prominent Jewish banker that would certainly offend. And a good many people of a certain persuasion would find it funny. Does it warrant widespread criticism? Secondly, in this case it's not that it's offensive, nor that it is often funny to see the proud and powerful bought low. It's that the means of offending and humiliating the target of satire comes very close to if not actually being sexual harassment which is *objectively* a crime, even if done to a politician. And it also tends to trivialise and normalise this kind of scenario when it's real. "Oh, it's no worse than what that comic did to Ron Paul, and nobody went to jail over that". Now if Ron Paul was avowed homophobe, or a serial sexual harasser, then there would be an angle here where you would say "this is why I'm taking this approach to humiliate this guy". Not to deconstruct the joke obsessively (I bet Stuart Lee has a skit on this kind of thing), it's actually a shitty and lazy way to satarise. Obviously being sexually harassed is offensive and demeaning. But then, rather than humour also offending by necessity, are we not simply finding offence *itself* humourous? And if so, what forms of offence could not simply be justified on the grounds someone finds them funny? Like pouring pigs blood on a Jewish banker. Or tricking him into eating bacon? Compare to Chris Morris stuff on Brass Eye, where he did this "get serious people to say stupid things" to much better and targeted effect where the material matched the target in some way. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WwylBRucU7w SBC is a very poor imitation. Literally - he started off these interview bits on the eleven o'clock show which was commissioned after Chris Morris pissed the head of C4 off so much he was black-balled, and Armando Iannuci had to pull together the eleven o'clock show to meet the demand. Check out his stuff. It's hilarious.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 19 15:33:28 Hadn't seen lullaby. Nearly as good as storm.
Aeros Member	Thu Jul 19 15:54:12 "And that makes you feel powerful, doesn't it? Yesterday you were just another shitty vet getting shitty medical care for your shitty problem ... but now you get to treat other people like shit, and that makes it all better, doesn't it?" Who am I treating like shit?
hood Member	Thu Jul 19 16:09:34 "Now if Ron Paul was avowed homophobe, or a serial sexual harasser" I'd just like to point out that, in your words, sexual harassment is acceptable in certain contexts.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 19 17:03:34 So then what is the moral difference between Brüno-ing a believing christian "homophobe" and tricking a Jew to eat bacon? I think tricking someone to eat something is worse, subjective preference. There have been very elaborate candid camera shows, where they have tricked people into believing they are facing a real serial killer sociopath. There was that Russian guy on youtube, I believe he was brought to court for handing a suit case to people and running away, insinuating it was a bomb. You had those series of videos "bumlife", anyone remember those, paying homeless people to fight and fucking homeless prostitutes. The bottom of the barrel is deep, dark and full of dried cum.
Paramount Member	Thu Jul 19 17:51:58 How do you trick a Jew to eat bacon? Do you mean how to trick him to eat bacon and eggs, a bacon burger, or a spagetti carbonara? Has anyone actually done that on TV?
Dukhat Member	Thu Jul 19 20:29:15 Nimatzo using shitty cuckservative media sources as "evidence" for his dumbass worldview. It was more a shitty movie scene than assault. Funny how NRO tries to co-opt #MeToo and toads like Nimatzo swallowing it whole.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 20 02:22:43 So fuckhat, explain to us which part of the story you are questioning? The movie, the scene in question or simply that viewing the same thing, can produce two (or more) different interpretations? AKA do you have anything worthwhile to say, other than displaying the 6 month running butthurt you have been showing, ever since I (alone) gangraped you here on UP?
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 06:25:52 Hood: I said you'd at least have the angle. I didn't say you'd have the law. Reading comprehension my friend. But as it stands as far as I can see, the joke is "we sexually harassed a politician, which made him scared and offended, scaring and offending people is funny!" So for me, humour may offend needs to mean the offence is at least legal and should be incidental, not the joke in and of itself. Otherwise anything that offends can be defended as a joke, even if, in this case, it might actually be illegal.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 20 06:33:00 But the things is seb, you can always find the angle, this is just not your angle. And the angel is often all it takes to not get sucked up in the initial wave of outrage and rationalize why ”this was a joke” and go on the forgivness train, even if it was ”illegal”-ish.
Asgard Member	Fri Jul 20 06:49:11 " I think tricking someone to eat something is worse" According to Jewish lore, it's OK if you were tricked into eating non-kosher food, or if you just ate non-kosher food without knowing it's not kosher. It's just a funny thought to it to someone but it will have no effect.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 20 07:15:06 Fair enough, I was speaking from a personal pov. You know, you tricked something into my belly that I didn’t want and now it is a part of my system. Does the book say anything about what to do with the person who tricked you? Death right?
Asgard Member	Fri Jul 20 07:21:08 never read the book, but it's a non issue, anything is Kosher so long as you didn't know it wasn't when eating. You think people here didn't think about tricking people and ruining their day? of course. When I shared an apartment with a religios jew, She ate non-kosher all the time when I cooked, and her trick was "don't ask, don't tell". Same as with the US Marines as I guess...
Asgard Member	Fri Jul 20 07:23:45 Kosher wasn't a "thing" before a 100 years ago, where Orthodox Jews took over the Kosher thing and made it a business. Now if you don't have rabbinical Kosher stamps you're officially non-kosher and jews won't eat at your place or buy your products. It isn't Jewish, it is Cult-ish, and a business. Before that, it was just a guidline.
hood Member	Fri Jul 20 07:24:05 "I said you'd at least have the angle. I didn't say you'd have the law." I don't know how it is in the UK, but sexual harassment isn't a crime in the US. Cohen was potentially falsely imprisoning Paul, but the gyrating wasn't remotely illegal. Cohen would have had to specifically pose a physical danger to Paul or touch him (sexually). Sexual harassment in the workplace is a thing due to protected classes and equality laws, not because harassment itself is illegal. So in this case, you don't have the law. You would only have the "angle." Law comprehension, my friend.
hood Member	Fri Jul 20 07:25:41 "Before that, it was just a guidline." TBH this is a good phrase for most of Judaism.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 20 07:29:51 Asgard That is brilliant :-) be an orthodox jew, we have loopholes so big you won’t even notice.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 20 07:36:04 I have to appreciate that fact the Judaism has inoculated the bad parts of the code, to praphrase Eric Weinstein. Allegedly the worst parts of Judaism rests on there being a Sanhedrin, which has not existed for 1700 years or so. Stleast this can be used as a plausible excuse by a majority to not execute the archaic stuff.
Asgard Member	Fri Jul 20 08:28:54 "That is brilliant :-) be an orthodox jew, we have loopholes so big you won’t even notice." Exactly, you can even grow pigs for Bacon in Israel... so long as you grow them on elevated platforms... (da faq?)
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 12:28:26 Nim: Hmm, not sure I agree. I mean, how does your position (I'm asking this as a genuine question here) differ from arguing that as long as something amuses someone - even if what they find amusing is simply *that* someone is offended or humiliated - then it is by definition exempt from criticism on moral, ethical or perhaps even legal grounds on the basis it is a joke and margin should be allowed? Asgard: Ok, but I think you a rather missing the wood for the trees. Hood: Ok, again, you are rather bike-shedding the point. You are seeing hypocrisy where there is none. Nothing I said can be construed "in [my] words, sexual harassment is acceptable in certain contexts." Rather, the opposite.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 12:34:35 So what it comes down to here is, what is funny? Is there some wider joke exposing hypocrisy or irony based on his public views and policies, or is it just that we are seeing a powerful man being humiliated by the potential fear of sexual assault by a gay man? It's not the same as, e.g. doing the same to a figure that has harassed other individuals or repeatedly downplayed it as no big deal. Then the joke is "look how differently he behaves compared to his public position", and the offence and humiliation follows from the humour, rather than being a source of amusement in and of itself. These, to me, are different things. Even if not explicitly illegal, it's still something there would be grounds for criticism.
hood Member	Fri Jul 20 13:07:16 "Nothing I said can be construed "in [my] words, sexual harassment is acceptable in certain contexts."" What? You previously said, and just now repeated, that what Cohen did, were it done to a homophobe, would be a joke with humor. Are you saying that if he were exposing hypocrisy, it still isn't acceptable? If that is your stance, you have not made that clear.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 13:45:46 hood: "Now if Ron Paul was avowed homophobe, or a serial sexual harasser, then there would be an angle here where you would say "this is why I'm taking this approach to humiliate this guy"." Which of the following statements is best supported by the above paragraph: A. "The author believes that when someone of the same sex sexually harasses a homophobe a case could be made that it is a joke" B. "The author believes that when someone of the same sex sexually harasses a homophobe, it is clearly a joke" C. "The author believes that if a case could be made that something is a joke, then it is always acceptable" D. "The author believes that only things he thinks are jokes are always acceptable."
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 13:51:50 Also I did not repeat an example relating to homophobia. If you read closely what I actually said the second time was: "It's not the same as, e.g. doing the same to a figure that has harassed other individuals or repeatedly downplayed it as no big deal."
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 13:59:13 For someone who has repeatedly gone ballistic when I've made incorrect inferences, and then suggested I "don't know words", this is pretty silly hood.
obaminated Member	Fri Jul 20 17:03:09 So sasha and now gunn. Im not a fan of the right using leftist tactics to destroy careers, but thats what is happening.
hood Member	Fri Jul 20 17:04:44 "Also I did not repeat an example relating to homophobia" Oy vey. Fern indeed. (fern: constant, unmoving, unyielding)
Seb Member	Fri Jul 20 17:28:24 Facts often are.
hood Member	Fri Jul 20 17:44:05 Yeah, facts aren't the issue here.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 21 06:20:50 It's a fact I didn't repeat an example relating to homophobia as you asserted. It's also a fact that nothing I've said suggests I think sexual harassment is ok under any circumstances. Phrasing the paragraph as a verbal intelligence test question probably helped you think about it, hence your strange and diversionary cod yiddish comments which rather miss the mark. Cheerio dipshit.
hood Member	Sat Jul 21 10:37:49 "It's a fact I didn't repeat an example relating to homophobia as you asserted." Sure. That you think this is relevant is why I just replied with oy vey.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 21 17:03:12 "What? You previously said, and just now repeated, that what Cohen did, were it done to a homophobe, would be a joke with humor." I think you will find what it *could at least then be argued* it was a joke, and I used the homophone example once, the second time was sexual harasser. This is relevant because you have made ability to correctly and accurately read a major point of discussion on this board.
jergul large member	Sat Jul 21 17:49:39 Seb I would tend to classify satire and humour under art and demand merit for it to qualify. Not all art is great and established artists should have some leeway for shoot-and-miss attempts of what would otherwise not have artistic protection. Cohen would be protected in this case.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jul 21 18:02:19 I do not follow the moral logic seb. How can it be a mitigating circumstance if you _know_ the person in question will be severely offended? Most people you would call "homophobe" are religious and disgusted by homosexuality. Now if you do it to someone who does not have a religiously or otherwise motivated disgust for gays, wouldn't that be the more mitigating alternative? And how is being a sexual harasser comparable to being disgusted (involuntary) by something?
Seb Member	Sun Jul 22 12:06:08 Nim: I agree that's an area of great difficulty. I guess I am saying there is a trade off here as we all agree I think. It's pretty much guaranteed that satire will offend it's target. It's not about whether you knowingly cause offence, but whether the offence is itself the joke or an incidental (if necessary) consequence of the joke. If the source of the humour is simply to offend someone you hate, well how can you expect any more leeway in the court of public opinion than say, a neo Nazi who shouts abuse at an immigrant because it amuses them and other neo Nazi's to do so? And all the more so when one cuts it fine on breaking laws. Again, I'd make the comparison between Chris Morris's fake interviews with celebs and Sasha Baron Cohens around Borat move era (I've not yet seen his new stuff) which I think cut to the heart of this kind of issue. One is very clearly art, the other less so. Early SBC was pitched at 25+ demographic on a political satire show - and the audience is supposed to be laughing at the character as an example of the feckless desire of the middle class youth to be streetwise (this was during peak "Cool Britannia" and Tony Blair's attempt to appeal to the "youth"), and the interviewees gutless kowtowing to youth culture in their own desperate attempt to appear streetwise. Somewhere along the way Ali G got appropriated by thick middle class white Brit teenagers into hip hop who thought it was a *celebration* of them and their ability to bring down the powerful. And there was a lot more money in that, hence the Ali G movie. By the the Borat movie, it seems much more to be pitched to acommodate "har har har, Kazhaks are backwards, and Americans are stupid lets humiliate them with a gay person". Not that this example should then be extrapolated back to inform a universal principle - but perhaps you can understand from a richer background why I'd look askance at this particular skit and say: Hmm, actually, yeah, in my judgement based on a great deal of familiarity with SBC, his skits, his tendency to go with the money etc. that the joke here is "we made an old white american uncomfortable by pretending we might be about to sexually assault him". Which, morally if not legally, I'd look at say "no, not funny enough to warrant that actually, and not due to poor execution but conceptually.". If I wanted to explain my point in this case,I'd explicitly point out that SBC is whom the writing team that used to work with CM turned to when CM got himself informally blocked from working on TV shows after flashing a subliminal message saying "Michael Grade is a Cunt" in the last episode of Brass Eye (Michael Grade being the head of Channel 4 Commissioning). Jergul: Dunno. Not sure about Cohen (see above) - if the art is "har har har I offended someone" I'm not sure it meets the threshold. I rather feel with cohen while he strives for high brow by satirising low brow, too often he ends up just being not-even-low-brow.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 22 12:09:00 tl;dr: Breaking the law is breaking the law - which he may not have done here. Morally, it's going to be a subjective question for individuals. For me, looking back at that skit, I'm not sure that the joke simply wasn't "ha, lets put a guy I politically disagree with into a situation where he thinks he might get sexually harassed" - which on a personally level ticks my "not cool" box. For me, if you are going to be doing that, there needs to be a bigger point that transcends the individual involved in some way.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 22 13:32:33 Ok, I get you, the discussion was been blending the subjective with the legal, a clarification was warranted. Let us suppose it was not a joke, but real life gay guy tries to seduce old guy. Old guy does not consent, gay guy is a bit pushy and blocks the door for a second, nothing physical happens, old guy yells and leaves. Do you think that should be a criminal offence?
Dukhat Member	Sun Jul 22 16:40:37 Nimatzo, you should be kinder to your elders.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 22 17:18:44 Nim: I'm not sure why you are asking as it's not exactly pertinent to the conversation to date really. And there is a bit more going on there than that though isn't there in this scenario though isn't there. We've gone from "interview" to what is very clearly a "locked you in a room with intent that we should have sex" - which is potentially going to make some people justifiably nervous. In my head I've sort of superimposed an image of SBC wearing only that ridiculous man sized thong thing but I think that's not how that scene played out on screen. Is it illegal? That depends very much on the legal jurisdiction but it probably falls below the threshold but perhaps very carefully calibrated to do so whilst leaving the very strong impression in the victim here that it won't pan out that way. Which of course, adds an extra layer of mens rea etc. in European jurisdiction where sexual harassment laws are stronger. I.e. it's actually possible that in some jurisdictions the prank is a better fit for harassment than the scenario it is intended to simulate which could be "seduction gone wrong" as you outline, and thus more criminally as the intent to distress the victim is clear and integral (and indeed, the sole source of humour), even if the intent isn't sexual. It would depend on the precise construction of the law. Legally, if you commit a crime you commit a crime. I think we all agree on that. Here the question is more "to what lengths is it ok to offend, or - be more specific here - scare the shit out of someone on the grounds that humour has to offend". Humour doesn't always have to offend, in fact, much humour does not offend. Satire largely does have to offend. But here I don't see the satire - I just see "lets make Ron Paul Squirm in a way we probably wouldn't be comfortable with in other circumstances, while making light of sexual assault" in which case, yeah, I tend to agree people are within their rights to complain about it. But this is where you so called free speech advocates confuse me. In what world should people be insulated from criticism and not subject to consequences for their actions? If you piss people off with your speech that they no longer wish to associate themselves with you - that's the very freedom that is intended to be preserved by ensuring speech is free in the first place. That which is not forbidden by law, people should be free to do. Including boycotting things they find distasteful.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 23 03:47:17 I think that it is very pertinent to the discussion over the rules of human mating activities, which have been the subject of much outrage and anger. We have consensus on many of the examples (Weinstein), others (like Ansari) acted like a watershed moment for metoo. *This is not a gotcha line of questions, I am trying to understand. I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer here, I accept your opinion and my own on the matter as subjective. Though ultimately we (who live in the same society) have to agree on a general principle that we can legislate, or not.* The situation in the movie, when you remove the cameras is very similar to some metoo stories. I think Louie CK did something like that, whip out his dick and blocked the door. Justifiably nervous situations. That is why I want to remove the comedy aspect all together, as a thought experiment, because we agree comedy/art can mitigate, nothing bad would happen ultimately. Let us remove those aspects. Should it be illegal to unwittingly or perhaps even not so unwittingly make someone nervous/uncomfortable trying to seduce them? The law is the law, so this would be a question, what do you, seb, think the law should be? "their rights to complain" We agree that complaining is a right guaranteed under free speech :) "free speech advocates" Consider this a free fuck advocacy discussion. I want to remove the free speech aspect and see it as a metoo story. "In what world should people be insulated from criticism and not subject to consequences for their actions?" None that I want to live in, but I also do not want to live in a world where people are destroyed by the social media mob for nothing or anything that the flavor of the month decided to rage over. You have to appreciate that even under a stringent theocracy like Iran, the majority of the censorship takes place on the individual level. You learn what will ruin you very quickly by watching the fate of others. This is specially true, for the mellow middle, fringe people are usually willing to sacrifice more for their principles. And so the extremes set the agenda and the tone. But this is another story.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 23 03:51:01 I keep doing this one... especially*
jergul large member	Mon Jul 23 04:12:11 Seb The Jewess is laying her egg sketch was brilliant! Cohen is a legitimate artist in my opinion.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 23 06:40:58 Jergul: I remember watching Borat in the cinema and realising, rather uncomfortably, that a lot of the people appeared to be laughing at the wrong bits and not laughing at the right bits. Not enjoying the absurdity of the figure or the absurdity of people taking this character seriously thus betraying their own prejudices; but instead enjoying the licensed anti European / anti Semitic jokes. I think SBC found mass market success when his clever, twisty satire turned out to appeal to those who enjoy racist humour and for whom the satire was so subtle and clever as to be invisible. And I think he built his routine on that knowingly. Hence my somewhat dubious view of him.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 23 06:52:46 Nim: Hmm, thought we were talking about how far "humour must be allowed to offend" gets you particularly when the amusement derives simply from the fact someone was offended? Well I think Ansari went way beyond this scenario, according to the account, in a number of points. So let's ignore the facts this is a set up and add whip his dick out. Ok, so: A man gets a person to come to meet them in a hotel for business purposes. The man arranged through trickery to get that person to move to a different room that he has set up, clearly premeditated, with the intent they should have sex. The target of his unrequited affections indicates discomfort. He then whips his dick out and blocks the door, relents and his target then flees. From an ethical and moral standpoint, this is very very wrong and if a celeb behaved this way yes, many people would rightfully condemn the behaviour. From a legal standpoint, I think this might be The point where you have harassment (as he exposed himself) or some other crime aggrevated but need to check the law.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 23 06:59:13 Basically there's the law, and there's "don't be a dickhead". In an age of social media, being a dickhead gets broad and instant condemnation. As The internet has reopens folk narrative and undermined authoritative narrative (the so called Gothenburg Parenthesis), so it has undermined the expectations of privacy that emerged in the late 19th and 20th C. Once again, we live in a village where your reputation is intensely vulnerable. I can buy that two or more people in private may expect privacy from third parties, they cannot necesarily expect it from each other if one of them behaved poorly towards the other.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 23 08:45:22 "Hmm, thought we were talking about how far "humour must be allowed to offend" gets you particularly when the amusement derives simply from the fact someone was offended?" It is for sure a different angle I got interested in and that I have been abundantly transparent with you about. "Well I think Ansari went way beyond this scenario, according to the account, in a number of points." He did, but it was a turning point in metoo nonetheless, it is in that light I am asking you, when does lying and be aggressive to get laid, become illegal. I can check the law myself, I want to know if seb was drafting the law, would SBC the imaginary gay guy been convicted of something? We have the benefit of cameras, but I imagine something like that is happening IRL as we speak. And I think we agree, that my hypothetical (but real) situation I describe is unethical, but _should_ it be illegal? I am interested, because fucking is not regulated in law beyond the blunt, don't take by force. And metoo was details, details, details. And a lot of people think the rules are abundantly clear as to the details. What level of assholery do we have to tolerate, as part of life and which assholes are criminals? Millions of men are out there right now, exaggerating who they are and how awesome they are to get laid. Millions of women are as well, from the cloths and make up they wear to the "Oh I don't have an issue with that at all, I am a cool chick". People lie to get laid. So far no clear answer from you, but in your defense, this is a tough cookie. I don't know. Hood You said this was not illegal in the US, but surely some states have laws against exposing yourself to others? Other laws that would fill the place of "sexual harassment" to some degree?
hood Member	Mon Jul 23 09:02:40 "You said this was not illegal in the US, but surely some states have laws against exposing yourself to others? Other laws that would fill the place of "sexual harassment" to some degree?" Cohen was clothed the entire time, wasn't he? Or at least, covered. Either way, what I said was that sexual harassment isn't illegal. If Cohen had exposed himself, that might fall under assault or exposure. Various forms of sexual harassment can be covered under law - had Cohen touched the senator in a sexual nature, that too might be assault. But generic sexual harassment isn't illegal in the US in any criminal sense. It's prohibited in the work place under equality law, but those are civil issues. And certainly trying to keep someone contained against their will is illegal. However, making someone uncomfortable by gyrating at them is not illegal. Hopefully that covers both the Cohen bits that actually happened and your hypothetical non-comedy bit (for which I had not responded to until now, in case that wasn't clear).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 23 09:10:19 "Once again, we live in a village where your reputation is intensely vulnerable." It is true that you are intensely vulnerable on social media, but the mechanisms and the reasons for why you may come under attack, are nothing like living in a small village. You _know_ the people in your village, all 50-150 of them. You know them by name, you are related to many of them. In case conflict arises, 40k retweets is to all the other villages on the continent is not plausible scenario. And people can not do all of this in a village, safely behind a computer 1000's of km away. You need to face people and talk to them, with all the social cues that we have evolved to detect and learn through socialization. All those things are wiped out. There are very few trolls in the village and you can pretty much see when someone is clowning and really no one comes to clown on the conflict you are embroiled in. There are intermediaries that can help set up reconciliation and not let things get out of hand. Things will take much longer to develop. Once we reach the scale we are on, things can also reliably be manipulated. We are programmed to respond very strongly towards negative things, even obsess over them, and these days there is an abundant stream of negative news ways coming your way. One can generally trust our evolved cognitive functions to deal with these negative things in small settings, but in these mega settings, not so much. We did not evolve the social skills to safely navigate billions of potential friends and enemies. So you did something stupid in your village and things were dealt with in a proportionate manner, we forgive our closest kin more readily. The resolution would not likely have devolve into some meta battle left/right, men/women or piping into a culture war over ideology, all the while crowds are chanting I HOPE YOU GET RAPED! LOL what a fucking idiot!. If you fuck up now, you will be out of a job and a social pariah before your plane has landed. TL:DR The village comparison has many many huge caveats and breaks down when we scale up. But I think we agree on that.
TJ Member	Mon Jul 23 09:14:05 Causing emotional distress is a civil not criminal matter. Paul could conceivably file a civil suit against Cohen, but he won't, because he'd rather it just fade away than continuing to carry it through the mud. Crazy things happen in civil court.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 23 14:16:47 Nim: Should it be ilegal to lure someone to a business meeting (here an interview) for ostensibly work related reasons, manipulate them into a dark room, then expose yourself (dont think this happened in the movie though) to them? Er yes. If it would be illegal for your boss to do it to you, then it ought to be illegal for your business contacts to do it. Also flashing people on the street is a crime, why would it not be a crime just because you've tricked someone into a room? The two big elements here are having to trick someone into meeting you in the hotel room (no expectation of consent) and exposing yourself. That's not a particularly normal way of seducing someone. I can't see many people innocently doing this outside of a very weird Romcom meet-cute.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 23 16:30:58 "What level of assholery do we have to tolerate, as part of life" A lot less than the law considers a criminal matter. If society decides "fine,it's not criminal, but your behaviour goes beyond what is acceptable, and thus puts you beyond the pale", that's peoples freedom to do so. Or to put it another way, would anyone make "people who behave badly to woman" a protected class who are safe from discrimination? Particularly when the solution is so obvious.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Jul 25 14:40:29 Lawmaker Duped By Sacha Baron Cohen Resigns http://www...awmaker-duped-comedian-resigns
murder Member	Wed Jul 25 15:05:27 ^ he had already been defeated in the primary, and he really couldn't continue in his office after that display. Yelling "nigger" is something the locals could forgive, but simulating running naked ass first at a terrorist ... and biting into a simulated penis? That's way too far.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: