A medical blogger tries to parlay the Coulter-Edwards incident into a witty blogpost:
The second patient, a 30 something year old man, was brought in by his boyfriend.
…
He tolerated the procedure like, well, John Edwards.
Another medical blogger expresses his indignation:
I figured, there’s no way in hell he’s calling his patient a faggot, is he? Honestly? Maybe there’s some new big campaign to label John Edwards as a coward, or weak, or a wimp or something?
To which the first blogger responds:
[B]logs are for ranting and stereotypes are for ridiculing. There is no hatred in my heart for anyone except politically-correct liberal douches[.] … Every other pointed comment I make about any other demographic group is purely for amusement sake. If you don’t like it, then don’t read it.
Well yes, “don’t read it” is pretty much a given at this point.
Still, it seems to me that someone smart enough to become a doctor is also smart enough to do better than the du jour equivalent of Polock jokes. Perhaps Poles are entitled to mock Polish stereotypes, or Italians to mock Italian stereotypes, or physicians, or lawyers — or gays. But Poles shouldn’t mock Italians and then say it is “purely for amusement sake.” Neither should (straight) physicians, or anybody else, mock gays and then cower behind protestations, especially indignant protestations, of “Where’s your sense of humor?” That’s a cop-out as sophomoric as the joke itself.
Let Poles be the judge of the propriety of Polock jokes. Let doctors be the judge of the propriety of doctor jokes. And give gays the benefit of the doubt about whether a “humorous” anecdote involving a stereotype or epithet is indeed humorous or offensive.
(Via Kevin, M.D.)
11 responses so far ↓
Link Ian // Mar 12, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I will never understand why any minority humor must be "cleared" by the minority. Equality for me, but not for thee. . .
Why is it that a Jew/Black/Gay/etc. can ridicule their own kind, AND can riducule the WASP crowd, but it is taboo for a WASP to do the same? Why is it okay for black comics to pick on white folks? Why is it at the end of an ethnicity question that leads with African American/Native American/etc. that I have to check the "White" box? Am I bad for thinking that "The Jerk" was funny? Did Steve Martin clear his famous opening line with the black community?
Well yes, "don't read it" is pretty much a given at this point. It is as simple as that. Marginalize the outliers, rather than give them publicity and notoriety. Why the need to fret over some schoolyard name calling? Is the word faggot really such an affront to your identity or self esteem? I would hazard that it is not. If it is, can you try to explain why?
Still, it seems to me that someone smart enough to become a doctor is also smart enough to do better than the du jour equivalent of Polock jokes. It seems to me that someone who writes such a usually well written and educated blog should be smart enough to shrug it off and realize smart does not generally equal funny.
From your own post: Curtailing free speech in order to combat racism — the ultimate manifestation of the cure being worse than the disease. Is there really a giant leap between legislatively banning words, and the current "some people find it offensive" banning of words? Especially in this "will of the majority" climate?
I see your point Kip, but the longer I live the more I start to empathize with this guy's opinion of politically-correct liberal douches. I grow tired of being told I should feel guilty for being a white male because some other white males did some bad things sometime.
Link dolphin // Mar 12, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Ian,
It's not that straight people can't make a "gay-joke," but rather that if that gay-joke is offensive to gay people, then let gay people be the judge of that. Don't berate gay people for 'being to sensitive' or 'not being able to take a joke,' if they find the word f*gg*t offensive. Let's say I (a gay man) were to make some kind of joke about straight people and some straight person found it offensive and told me as much. If I didn't really intend to offend straight people, then the appropriate thing for me to do is to apologize for causing offense. If I DID intend to offend straight people, then the appropriate thing for me to do is to stand by what I said and not hide behind "it was just a joke."
The point is people from Group A (whether majority or minority), shouldn't mock Group B only to inform Group B that they shouldn't be offended. Let Group B decide what is or is not offensive for themselves.
Free speech has to cut both ways. You have the freedom to say what you want, but you don't have the freedom to tell me how I can or cannot respond.
Link Ian // Mar 12, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I understand your point, but I'm curious as to where the line is drawn.
Which gay people are to decide if the joke is offensive or not? How many are needed? One, ten, a "majority"? If one single person is offended, is a public apology in order? This seems to be the illogical progression we are moving toward.
I think the disconnect lies in the "Group A vs. Group B" type thinking, when we should be talking about individuals.
The original blogger was not remorseful that some didn't find his joke funny, and encouraged those who were offended not to read. I imagine you only found his blog through Kevin M.D., so it's not as if he lost a regular. I don't see where he told anyone how they can or cannot respond (nor am I trying to do such). Am I reading that your expectations are that he will either apologize publicly or publicly announce that he despises homosexuals? What if he is not sorry, nor despises homosexuals?
I suppose what I am really trying to understand is why public ridicule seems to be the norm, when in many instances a simple ignoring would seem to suffice. I don't understand how a single word can cause you to burn valuable time acknowledging it.
Link dolphin // Mar 13, 2007 at 10:27 am
Which gay people are to decide if the joke is offensive or not? How many are needed?
Just one. If I insult one person person unintentionally, then I owe that person an apology. That's not PC liberalism, that's basic human decency.
I think the disconnect lies in the "Group A vs. Group B" type thinking, when we should be talking about individuals.
Agreed, yet we all belong to a nearly infinite amount of groups (like it or not). If a person insults an entire group of people, then the individuals within that group have the right to take offense (even if not all of them do).
What if he is not sorry, nor despises homosexuals?
Then I'd argue he finds himself in a bit of a paradoxical situation. Aside from the occasional sociopath, most of us do not intentionally hurt people we like (or even people we have neutral feelings towards). When we do unintentionally hurt those people, we tend to feel bad about it (ie. sorry for it). I've experienced this, have you not? Therefore I'm suggesting that if he didn't dislike the people he insulted, he would feel sorry that he "unintentionally" insulted them. I just don't see a third option (other than perhaps, as I mentioned previously, if he is a complete sociopath).
I suppose what I am really trying to understand is why public ridicule seems to be the norm, when in many instances a simple ignoring would seem to suffice.
Ignoring is sometimes best on an interpersonal level, but I've yet to see a group in all of history that has overcome hardship by ignoring it. Are you of the opinion that if gay people just ignore the word f*gg*t without ever voicing that it's hurtful, that straight people will just one day figure it out and stop using it on their own? I not only find that unlikely, but I would not even blame the straight person who had never been told a word was offensive if he used it.
Link Ian // Mar 13, 2007 at 11:10 am
Thank you for the perspective dolphin. I suppose my dilemma is never having been in a classified minority.
I suppose my curiousity is piqued by the public social ramifications. I personally have never known a gay man who objected to the term. Many use it as other ethnic groups use their own monikers.
I have also had encounters with folks who detest certain forms of the "black" label. Some don't like black, some African-American, etc. Some of the older gents still prefer colored, or just don't care. Of course, I'm always white, even to those who don't like black. Okay, sometimes I'm cracker or honkey, but I digress.
I guess my concern is that I need to meet new people by asking them what they want to be called, never speak in public, and just tattoo "I'm sorry for anything that might come out of my mouth that offends you" somewhere visible on my body. That just doesn't seem right.
Is there some sort of middle ground, or are we all destined to speak like politicians?
P.S. I finally broke down and read the guy's posts. Yes, he made a racial slur and makes the "I'm not a bigot, I just hate all you queers" kind of defense. So I'm asking out of my own curiousity rather than any attempted defense of this guy.
Link scalpel // Mar 13, 2007 at 11:51 am
I never even said the guy was gay, despite my use of the term "boyfriend." (Are females who have their "girlfriends" with them in the ER automatically gay? Why is the term "boyfriend" more perjurative? Hmmm.) I don't even know if he WAS gay, because I never ask people that question. Yes, he was sort of effeminate and he had another guy with him, but it could have been his brother for all I know. The issue certainly never came up diring the visit.
I'm not arguing that I didn't think he was gay or lead the readership to that conclusion, but I never actually said it, and I certainly never made any slur towards homosexuals. I didn't even refer to Coulter's remark. A sensitive reader did. Again, I won't argue that that was not my intention. But I never actually made the overt connection. An inference is not a slur. Think of it as more of a Rorschach inkblot test.
Where is the uproar over these sorts of "jokes?" Basically, I think when the "powerless" make jokes about the powerful it's considered OK, but those "in power" don't dare make jokes about the powerless. Perhaps that's the way it should be.
Link scalpel // Mar 13, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Ian, I'd appreciate it if you'd point out where I made any sort of "I hate all you queers" sort of comment or defense. My defense is the first amendment, primarily, and my hatred of political correctness secondarily. I did appreciate your first couple of comments, but I think the last one was out of line.
Link Ian // Mar 13, 2007 at 4:34 pm
It has nothing to do with calling the guy gay, which you didn't do. You used an apparently pejorative term to describe a stereotypical behavior. Having waited tables and knowing many servers, I will stand by the statement that black people (in my area) are generally bad tippers. My analogy would be referring to a bad tipper by any pejorative black epithet, regardless of the tippers race, etc. The use of the sterotype in such a manner suggests bigotry. Your original post suggests that all gays are sissies. While a common stereotype, it has the same pitfalls as other stereotypes. Mainly, one is not supposed to air it in public, even as a joke.
If you had ended it with "like a little girl", or "like a sissy", probably no one would have cared. Of course the former might have gotten some feminist response. "Faggot" is apparently on the dirty word list. Look at the attention it has brought Coulter. I don't live in fear of the "dirty words", but notice that most people won't even type those letters. If you had said "like a gay man", I imagine the response would have been the same, because you would again be resorting to a stereotype.
I didn't even refer to Coulter's remark. You didn't need to. Without knowledge of the remark, your joke makes no sense.
As to the second post:
If people don’t act like their stereotypes, then they don’t get made fun of for acting like the stereotypes. Whether you realized or intended it, this is the classic defense of the bigot. Realistically, pretty much everyone has a little inner bigot (some stereotypes exist for a reason). You're just never supposed to allow him out in public. Remember that even the hardcore KKK types will publicly say they are not racists. The "I am not a bigot" defense is a dead horse.
In today's culture, the offended will not be placated by "it was a bad joke". They want blood.
As to why Dave Chapelle can do white guy jokes and appear in "White Face" and it's funny, but Ted Danson goes blackface once and he's a racist (who was dating a black woman). .. I've been asking that for years. I suppose we're supposed to pay for the sins of our ancestors. Oh, and never be able to run for public office.
My defense is the first amendment, primarily, and my hatred of political correctness secondarily.
As dolphin pointed out, the first amendment lets you say what you want. It also lets folks verbally crucify you for it. If you realize that you threw an insulting thing out there (and I think that you did, whether you meant to or not), you can either apologize for it, or you can ignore the folks who are going to be offended by anything else you say. I don't think any defense you can offer will soothe the offended.
I only posted here because I thought Kip might have some insight. He's apparently too high on his throne of righteousness right now. Dolphin gives some insight, but the subject is difficult to vocalize. It's hard to kill an idea, so folks jump on words that suggest the idea.
I'm gleaning that the answer to my question is that once someone decides that you are a bigot, you can either walk around apologizing, or you can accept the label. Unfortunately, the term bigot is cast about fairly regularly these days.
With that answer, I bow out of this thread. . .
Link scalpel // Mar 13, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I don't really feel the need to apologize to anyone (nor did Peter Pace, I notice). My patient would never know he was being ridiculed (I hope), but if he did I would certainly apologize to him. I definitely wouldn't apologize to John Edwards. He's in the public sector and obviously fair game for any remarks.
I don't agree that suggesting an individual is acting like their stereotype is the same thing as saying "all gays are sissies." I don't believe that all gays are sissies, so why would I say something that I don't believe? If I said that he "looked gay" is that the same as saying that all homosexuals are effeminate? Not to me; it is saying that he looked like the stereotype. I'm usually the last person to know whether someone is gay at all, so they have to be pretty flaming for me to even notice.
So I'm not keen on apologizing to gays in general, or even just to people who were offended (identical groups, near as I can tell). But I do appreciate the discussion as to why certain people might be offended.
Link dolphin // Mar 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Is there some sort of middle ground, or are we all destined to speak like politicians?
Hi Ian,
Well, I can only speak for me and the way I live my life, but here's how I do it. I don't worry about offending people. Generally I find that since I'm not specifically looking to offend people I generally don't, however (not being one to be scared to speak my mind) I do occasionally say something that offends somebody I did not intend to offend. When that happens I simply say "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend you." It's been my inexperience that 9 times out of 10, people won't hold an honest mistake against you. As for the 1 of 10 who will; well I'm not all that interested in having that kind of person in my life in the first place.
Link dolphin // Mar 14, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Oops, major typo up there, should be "It's been my experience…" I had originally typed "in my experience" and somehow left the "in" there.
Since I'm typing another comment anyways, i thought I should note that I don't consider my personal way of doing things to be "politically correct." As far as I'm concerned "political correctness" involves not saying something you want to say because it might offend some people. I on the otherhand say exactly what I want to say, I'm just willing to apologize if I screw up and unintentionally offend someone else. If an apology isn't suited use after you've made a mistake, then I can find no use for it at all.