Edgy comedians

Because some dipshit Dutch comedian apparently had started whinging about how there’s no more edgy comedy because everybody’s getting CaNcElLeD, here’s that clip from James Acaster again:



What makes it even better is he’s doing it — accidentally or deliberately — decked out in the trans colours. He perfectly nails the attitude as well. The only thing missing from it is the self inflicted martyrdom.

That’s what annoys me the most, actually. “You cannot say anything anymore without being cancelled”, says the edgy comedian as he hosts his fifth comedy special on Netflix. People like Ricky Gervais, like Dave Chappelle want to do their lazy, racist, sexist, transphobic material and want to be praised for it. They want to be called brave but suffer no consequences for their ‘bravery’. Fearless speakers of truth, but the least criticism has them sobbing in the newspapers how unfair it all is.

For contrast, let’s look at a few relevant pages of Lenny Bruce’s Wikipedia page:

On October 4, 1961, Bruce was arrested for obscenity[45] at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco, where he had used the word “cocksucker”, and said that “to is a preposition, come is a verb”; that the sexual context of ‘come’ was so common that it bore no weight; and that if someone hearing it became upset, he “probably can’t come”.[46] Although the jury acquitted him, other law enforcement agencies began monitoring his appearances, resulting in frequent arrests under obscenity charges.
[…]
On December 5, 1962, Bruce was arrested on stage at the Gate of Horn folk club in Chicago.[48] That year, he played at Peter Cook’s The Establishment club in London, and in April the next year he was barred from entering the United Kingdom by the Home Office as an “undesirable alien”.[49]

In April 1964, he appeared twice at the Cafe Au Go Go in Greenwich Village, with undercover police detectives in the audience. He was arrested along with club owners Howard and Elly Solomon, who were arrested for allowing an obscene performance. On both occasions, Bruce was arrested after leaving the stage.[46]

A three-judge panel presided over his widely publicized six-month trial, prosecuted by Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Richard Kuh, with Ephraim London and Martin Garbus as the defense attorneys. Bruce and Howard Solomon were found guilty of obscenity on November 4, 1964. The conviction was announced despite positive testimony and petitions of support from—among other artists, writers and educators—Woody Allen, Bob Dylan, Jules Feiffer, Allen Ginsberg, Norman Mailer, William Styron, and James Baldwin, and Manhattan journalist and television personality Dorothy Kilgallen and sociologist Herbert Gans.[50] Bruce was sentenced on December 21, 1964, to four months in a workhouse; he was set free on bail during the appeals process and died before the appeal was decided. Solomon, the owner of the club where Lenny was arrested, later saw Bruce’s conviction overturned.[51]

Now there’s a real edgy comedian.

Can’t Get Fooled Again

Atrios is tired of being expected to take bad faith merchants like Chait seriously when they’ve always lied and helped lurch America and the world from disaster to disaster:

Chait lies and some of his lies are along the lines of, “MY CRITICS ARE NOT ENGAGING WITH THE ARGUMENTS SERIOUSLY,” a neat little debate trick which puts honest people (unlike Chait) on the defensive and encourages them to say, “yes, yes, I am, here’s an example of it,” but by then Chait, laughing, has moved onto the next bit of bullshit. It’s projection and a little trick that helps obscure the fact that he is the one not engaging honestly. No you’re not engaging with my very serious argument!!! Why won’t you stop punching yourself!!!

Tired of being expected to pretend their motivations are pure.

It’s just a game to these monsters. Chait cares about trans kids as much as he cared about Iraqis, which is, at best, not at all. “At best” is a generous interpretation given the number of deaths he encouraged.

I’m with him. Next month will be the twentyfirst anniversary of this blog and on every important subject people like Chait and Singal and Yglesias have gotten it wrong while knowing they were wrong. The only function of these centrists and pretend liberals is to lend cover to the rightwing, to drain the energy of well meaning but naive opponents of whatever disaster they’re cheerleading this time. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, the Great Recession, Brexit, austerity, Roe v Wade, trans rights: for each and every one of those their eloquent and nuances arguments served evil. How many times must they get it wrong before you’re allowed to dismiss them out of hand?

On each of these subjects, any random protestor against them would’ve been a better guide than the people paid very well indeed to explain to us that we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes.

Sharing food is ableist — oh really?

As everybody on Twitter is convinced their favourite hellsite is dying and the exodus to alternatives is increasing, here’s a reminder of something that can only happen on twitter: having a meltdown because somebody tweeted about cooking chili for her neighbours. That’s not something that could’ve happened on Mastodon! Or Facebook. Or Instagram. Or any other social media site, really. I’m sure there are users on other social media websites who take personal offence to some harmless act somebody else is writing about, but only Twitter can blow it up so efficiently. On Mastodon? It would’ve never left its home instance.

It all started with someboy tweeting that her new neighbours were a bunch of college kids and wanting to feed them by cooking them a chilli. Which is, well, a fairly ordinary thing to do for your neighbours? A nice little gesture to introduce yourself and maybe get to know your new neighbours better. My own upstairs neighbours, who moved in during the pandemic have done this a few times for me and tasty it was too. In return it became a lot easier to ignore the increased noise from above (the last tenant was an elderly woman who you’d never hear unless her grandchildren visited). My next door neighbour looks after my cat when I’m on holiday, while I accept postal packages for most of my neighbours since I work from home most of the week. Just those little things you do for each other.

Only on Twitter can this incredibly normal thing be made into something weird and problematic. First there was the gender critical (sic) brigade harassing her, partially because of pre-existing beef for her being too much of a trans ally. They went with their normal existential sexism: “A mAn WoUlD nEvEr Do ThIs” and “YoU’rE tRaInInG mEn To Be HeLpLeSs” and “DoN’t CoDdLe MaLeS”. That sort of thing is to be expected if you’re a reasonably well known Twitterer and you’ve spoken out against TERFs. But the weirdo who responded to this act of kindness by imagining it was them receiving it and then cataloging all the ways in which it was inappropriate for them, that was special.

Again, there seems to be a pre-existing grudge at play here: why else get so offended at a stranger offering kindness? Why make it this personal? Why spent this many tweets on it? It’s not just that this person wouldn’t have done this, or not have liked having been the recipient of this, it’s the way in which they go out of their way to make their dislike into a moral issue. It’s not just that this gift is unwelcome; it’s ableist. It’s not just that this maybe a bit too a noisy a neighbour, no, she’s a white saviour. It’s not that she made this food unprompted, it’s that she didn’t ask for consent. Everything about it needs to be morally wrong. So they go into way too much detail about their own personal situation and the way their own disabilities means that this gesture would’ve been ableist and the wrong kind of help, without even noticing they contradict themselves in the process. If you’re too tired and incapable of cooking because of OCD that you need to order take out, why exactly is having a free meal brought by a neighbour instead a problem again? Why indeed should the original poster have catered for your own personal situation when that was completely irrelevant to what she was doing for her actual neighbours?

There’s a real problem with this kind of social justice language abuse by crybullies. Here it just comes over as laughable and pathetic, but in the real world we’ve seen it used by transphobes (PrOtEcT wOmEn) to invent situations in which it’s morally justified to harass and attack an already vulnerable minority. So it’s good to see it slapped down hard in this case. What lends it power is the structure and design of Twitter: it’s easy for a tweet from a relativily ‘famous’ poster to escape their own circle through quote tweeting and retweeting to new audiences. Unlike almost every other social website, Twitter offers the illusion of privacy while in reality everybody is shouting to everybody else in the same town square. So a tweet written with a certain audience in mind can easily be picked up and misunderstood by other audiences unfamiliar with the context, especially when malicious actors retweet them. On a site like Mastodon, deliberately designed to slow down this process this would be far harder to do.

The downside being of course that it’s also harder for benign content to find new audiences. One of the worst things on Twitter, that uncontrollable spread of (mis)information, is also its best. So many new things and people I’ve found because they got retweeted into my timeline. More importantly, this process was and is incredibly important in getting (underrepresented) communities to find each other and grow.
Quote tweeting, retweeting and hash tags makes it easier for isolated members of such a community to find each other and for groups of like-minded people to ‘advertise’ their existence. It’s this that has made Twitter, more than any other social medium, so important for marginalised groups and peoples. That’s why I’m a bit skeptical of Mastodon’s refusal to implement quote tweeting and other technical solutions against bullying and bigotry.

(And of course everything about chiligate here is hilarious and I think Mastodon on the whole is too po-faced to enjoy this sort of content.)

Judith Butler says trans rights

Alona Ferber’s interview with Judith Butler in the New Statesman is a thing of beauty. You can feel the frustration of Ferber here, trying to get Judith Butler to agree with her transphobia and failing miserably:

AF: One example of mainstream public discourse on this issue in the UK is the argument about allowing people to self-identify in terms of their gender. In an open letter she published in June, JK Rowling articulated the concern that this would “throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman”, potentially putting women at risk of violence.

JB: If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.

AF: I want to challenge you on the term “terf”, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which some people see as a slur.

JB: I am not aware that terf is used as a slur. I wonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women’s spaces would be called? If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary? If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists? My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples. My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived.

It shows the lack of intellectual depth in the socalled “gender critical” movement and how much of it is just a mask for transphobia as well as old fashioned homophobia. The resulting outbursts of terfy anger on Twitter after this was published only confirmed this. What was supposedly an intellectual hero of these people was quickly subjected to the Two Minute Hate. It’s rare to see terfs self own so spectacularly.

A concise list of terfs, nazis, nazi sympathisers and useful idiots

The poor man’s Slate tries to be relevant by publishing a whiny wE nEeD oPeN dEbAtE letter, as signed by:

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Kerri Greenidge, historian
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Maschek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

It’s mostly the usual thin skinned numpties from the chattering classes, wanting to spew their nonsense without getting uppity no-ticks criticising them on Twitter. Don’t pay too much attention to them, just keep this as a handy list of people who are not on your side.