So when you're making jokes about sensitive subjects, pals before portents? (Gonna talk about my experience being sexually assaulted, mild trigger warning I guess.) The impetus behind Sam Pepper's videos was kind of misguided anyway because he thought that by gender-flipping an assault scenario you'd get some kind of insight, but that's not always possible: I was sexually assaulted once by a woman while I was working in a bar, she grabbed my butt and my crotch repeatedly, and I didn't actually think that much of it at the time. Later on I realised it was technically sexual assault but I still wasn't hugely phased by it, and thought 'What's the big deal?' It was a little uncomfortable but I didn't think about bringing charges or even telling anyone. I also realised that had been the other way round I would have been in big trouble! But then I realised why mentally gender-swapping it doesn't work - I wasn't phased by that girl assaulting me because I'm six foot 1 and I weigh 85kg. On average (average!) men are physically stronger than average women, and in this case that average held true so the situation was very unlikely to develop into one I was unable to control, but not everyone is that lucky! I was also aware that the majority of rapes and violent sexual assaults are perpetrated by men against women, so I knew that the situation was statistically unlikely to get really bad. So I had significant male privilege on my side. Obviously I'm not denying that assault by women on men happens or saying it's not just as much a violation of bodily autonomy, but that privileged position is why when women get assaulted it's not often helpful for us guys to gender-flip it in our heads: there's important context that affects the mindset of the victim that doesn't get transferred over by just swapping the gender of the assaulter in your imaginary scenario or your "social experiment" or whatever.
I got grabbed by a guy while working in a bar - sounds like a similar scenario. Didn't really care. I think a lot of this conversation's marred by a stench of 'how it is for women' and 'how it is for men'. If we could show that 25% more women than men react to something in a particular way then that's interesting but 25% more isn't enough to talk about 'how women experience things', even on average.
Good for you that it didn't phase you, but I fail to see what the point is. Does the fact that it didn't phase you mean that other men should't be phased by it either? Because that is exactly the problem with sexual assault against men; people feel that it isn't a problem and that men should just deal with it. There are plenty of men who wouldn't have felt very different from you had they been in the same situation but they can't really go anymore because there assault isn't being taken serious. So you where bigger than this women, you weight more, does this mean that it is just assault if you are bigger and heavier than the other person? So you felt safe because you thought you could have handled her had this become any worse, does that mean we should allow assault if it is a reasonable assumption that the other personmwould beat you in a fight? Just because you could win in a normal fight doesn't mean you could handle beung attacked, you could have a blackbelt in karate and still freeze in sheer panick when sexually assaulted. The fact that you personally didn't have a problem with "technically" being assaulted doesn't add much to the discussion. It just means that both you and your assaulter were kucky that day, it means that you can consider yourself lucky for being part of what probably is the the majority of men who feel they can't be assaulted. However teling this stroy also mesns you are a little bit part of te problem, because it shows a lack of empathy for all the men who have been assaulted and felt worse for it. Men, who after beinv assaulted, had nowhere to go to. Nobody to complain to, because they felt they would be huminalted for complaining about assault or who actually were huminalted for being assaulted. Being turned into the laughingstock after something horrendous happened to you is no laughing matter. I csn't help but conclude that those videos served their purpuse, they once again showed men being assaulted is not viewed as a crime by an alarming number of people. But good for you that you didn't feel phased by something that could have just as easily crushed what in your opinion is probably a lesser man. I'm sure your story brings hope to all those men who were assaulted and still have nowhere to go with their own story.
DhrAaldert What on earth are you on about? PhilosophyTube was pretty clear about his point, which was fairly limited in scope: It's often misguided to "gender swap" sexual assault scenarios because of "important context that affects the mindset of the victim that doesn't get transferred over" when swapping genders. In addition, he never said or implied that men who had different experiences of sexual assault are "lesser". It's pretty ridiculous to read his story and suggest that his telling implies a lack of empathy for male survivors of sexual violence.
***** My point was that his point was very much beside the point. The original problem that Sam Pepper tried to address is the fact that when sexual assault happens to men, people don't take it seriously. Him not being phased by it is his individual reaction which comes from him as a person and not him as a male. I mean, girls can be bigger and heavier than their assaulter and I don't see anyone claiming it's not a big deal for them. His statics "privilege" argument is also ridiculous, and offensive to both male victims of sexual assault and mathematicians. Yes, statistically women get assaulted a lot more than men (keep in mind though that the numbers are skewed because most men don't report it when it happens to them. If they did it would still be more, but the margin would be way smaller). But the changes of a specific individual being raped/assaulted are also very very small. Statistically as a specific individual woman you’re very unlikely to get raped, but when somebody does start to grope you, you aren’t going to think “Well, the chances of me being raped today are slim to none”. Also, the fact that a type of crime happens more often to a different group of people is little comfort when it does happen to you. Do you want important context? A man gets raped, but when he goes to the police to press charges, they laugh at him, they tell him it is not a big deal. It’s not a crime and he should in fact consider himself lucky. He can’t tell his friends what happened either because he will get a similar reaction. Not only did something terrible happen to the guy, but he can’t go anywhere and he feels smaller and smaller everyday thinking about it. A person broken for a life with no chance of getting justice because too many people don’t consider it a crime That is the context everybody forgets when they gender flip it.
DhrAaldert I don't know about your friends, but if I told mine I was raped, I don't believe they'd laugh at me. I choose friends more carefully than that. It's funny how you're disguising support for Sam Pepper as some kind of giant disagreement with PhilosophyTube on a pretty strange notion. What he was originally pointing out is that the psychological variables of the situation always affects the way the victim is going to react, and therefore you don't always get an appreciation of what it's like simply by putting yourself in the situation. There are many variables that need to be taken into account. In this way, psychologically someone who is physically able to withstand an unwanted assaulter is probably going to be less traumatized than someone who experiences actual imminent danger for his or her self. It's kind of hard to see why you would argue with this. Of course, he could have also pointed out that it can be very difficult for men in a different way; say, if you're assaulted by your boss and have no authority to stand up to him/her and might risk losing your job over doing so, this is probably going to affect you psychologically in a serious manner, much unlike the general annoyance of getting groped by a stranger in a bar. As a man, this would understandably be more difficult to talk about, because this is something that is far more rarely seen and discussed in public, and the general experience of being sexually exploited is indeed often considered an impossible feeling for men - we are generally portrayed as though we should react to such an experience with an exclamation of "hell yeah, I'm gonna get some tits!". Which isn't necessarily true of all or even most of us. The problem I see with your post is that you're actually telling PhilosophyTube that his reaction to the situation he told you about was WRONG. He gave his experience of a situation, explained his feelings based on several important psychological aspects that affected his experience, and you're telling him he's WRONG? That he's part of "the problem"? No, dude, that's just... not cool. What he did was point out how psychological variables might affect one's reaction to harassment - THE SAME EXACT POINT you were trying to make, except you were using other variables as examples. So yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really see your point.
All these people saying "this isn't your place" to comment - just please be aware, I've never watched your videos with more attention and interest. What you're saying is good and right - and you should keep saying it.
Fantastic episode, man. Heck, the last few minutes are thoughts I quite regularly express to fellow comedians. That part about "all topics should be open to comedy, but the darker the territory, the more skill it takes as a comedian to handle it responsibly" is something I've told people countless times. I even use Dave Chappelle as an example quite frequently. It doesn't make me a very popular person, because that puts me neither in the "fuck the sensitive crybabies" camp, nor the "sensitive topics are never funny" camp, yet I stand by that opinion.
This reminds me of the theatre theorist and practitioner Augusto Boal. He created a system called "Theatre of the Oppressed" which was designed to arouse social consciousness by breaking down the boundaries of theatre. He was interested not in showing criticism on stage, but instead using "spect-actors", the audience as the actors, to work through ways to solve their oppression on stage, in real time, using improvisation. But what I think most applies to this discussion is a technique he used called "Invisible Theatre". In Invisible Theatre, a group of actors portrays an oppression, in public, with the goal of getting the spectators, normal people on the street, to involve themselves. The hope is that they can show this oppression, get someone to involve themselves in defeating this oppression, and then walk away and no one will ever know it was staged. This raises all sorts of moral questions, very much in the vein of this video. If it is done "correctly" then anyone who witnessed it will see that when someone stands up to this oppression, it can end it. But, in my experience of doing it and reading about it, it can take a long time and a build to a hyperbolic level by the oppressor before someone steps in. When it comes to things like racism, sexism, or assault, does this help or hurt? Part of the point of having all of the original participants be actors working together is that they can agree on a script of sorts. Both sides have their bullet points of argument, and so the victim gets to, without fear, argue their side and confront their oppressor. But it still ends up being, for all intents and purposes, a representation of the oppression with little support or framework for a better discussion of the criticism. Boal has a lot of other styles of Theatre of the Oppressed that deal with these issues in much better ways, but I just wanted to share this discussion that occurs in the theatrical field around these issues.
Mike, this might be the most articulate video yet on an already very articulate channel. I think I love you for 1:00 - 2:10 alone: two very thorough take-downs of two absolutely bullshit yet staggeringly common lines of criticism. The explanation of the extreme difficulty of successfully making jokes about dark/sensitive subjects is also particularly good. I think that proponents of absolute free speech in comedy often miss a few key points: 1) just because you can make a joke about something doesn't mean it will be funny; 2) just because you *can* make a joke about something doesn't mean you *should* in a given context; and 3) the fact that you were attempting to make a joke does not necessarily absolve you from being an asshole.
MMMMmmmmmm no. A joke is a joke. Nothing should be off limits. Humor us object. Choose to find it funny or not. Choose to be offended or not. It's that simple.
Tyler Eschberger I agree with you but, of course, other people are then equally free to judge/deride that joke or voice their displeasure with the comedian for telling it. Free speech is a two-way street.
Tyler Eschberger He didn't say the opposite of what you said, he just pointed out some observations about why people could find your joke funny or offensive. Nobody is saying he can't make the joke, they're saying he sucks at making jokes. You say "A joke is a joke". And what is a joke? Anything? I could do whatever I want and say it is a joke and it'll be fine?
Tyler Eschberger I'm not saying anything is off-limits, but just because you make a joke doesn't mean it's funny, and I don't think saying "it was a joke" is a criticism-proof shield.
To those who said that it's not Idea channel's place to comment on these type of things, I would say that these are EXACTLY the things Idea channel is supposed to comment on. At this point it is almost their responsibility to create discussion around these events. Whether or not you agree with the opinions displayed on this channel, it doesn't matter. The point is you comment and discuss, whether you agree or not. This is why I love this channel so much, because they make me think about how I feel about different issues, serious or not.
The pacing of anything matters. Be it composing music or teaching a lesson plan, you cannot generate an emotion in the beginning and then pull the rug out. Or, worse, generate an emotion, let it fester, and then challenge it. If I'm teaching a class on the vocabulary of race, a good way to start the class would be, "I'm going to use a very foul word. How would you feel if someone said n*g**r?" I would not say, "I saw that a n*g**r robbed someone at the store, ain't that a shame. Friggin n*g**rs." and then, after the students are emotional locked up, tell them I was joking and ask them to discuss an issue rationally. Or worse, I won't finish a class by saying, "I guess next time we have to talk about n*g**rs. See you in two days" then wait two days and then hope a discussion will ensue. I would absolutely lose my job. If you want a discussion of an issue, make it clear that's what supposed to happen. That way, when people feel emotions, their mind is already in a place of "Hey, this is going to have all the feels, so focus and work through them." If you start by slamming someone with an emotion, they may never be able to effectively discuss it, and may pull away, run away or retaliate. Quickly, the other problem on RUclips is that we don't know context. If it's a TedTalk, I'm getting ready for feelings. In a sociology class, I know I may feel shame or be in struggle. At a concert, I have prepared myself for the idea that this is a concert. An essentially random RUclips video has no context. I could not possibly know what the intention or context is, therefore I won't be able to effectively engage.
Mr. Rize AG I know, I was simply making my reasoning clear. I'm not going to type out that word. Unless I'm writing a novel set in a time when it is vital for a character to say that to be accurate, in which case I will.
I really appreciate that you make a space on Idea Channel for your personal feelings and emotional responses to the content that you discuss, and I'm glad that you're not backing down in the face of the backlash that you receive for it. I see a lot of comments urging you to be "professionally neutral" and that your opinion is "inappropriate," but I don't think it's possible for any sort of social commentary to be neutral (tho it is possible to be nuanced and balanced, and I think you guys do a good job of that). All academic and creative work (really all work) is made by thinking feeling people with emotions and stakes in that work, and it would be dishonest to pretend that you're not affected by the things you talk about. The issues that you discuss aren't just abstract ideas to sit around and ponder - they have material emotional consequences for people's lives, and that is important. Thank you for drawing attention to that. Keep up the good work!
The Wolf of Wall Street is an interesting case. That's a movie that put a whole lot of trust in the audience to understand that it's depiction of hedonism, greed, and excess is meant as criticism. And not just clean "this is bad" criticism either. I think the *strength* of that film is how it depicts all of this despicable behavior as what it would be -- incredibly, horribly fun. And then it goes even further by showing that after all their crazy behavior, we reward them socially as being smart, savvy business men for what they did. The fact that they are hurting the people around them is brushed over rather quickly, and the fact that they are hurting people they don't know even more severely with their greed is just a subtext we bring to the film and only acknowledge in passing when the story needs to change gears. BUT! That's what makes it great social criticism, it get really deep into both the absurdity and the terrifying reality that their behavior looks both morally disgusting and like a good time. We start to GET how it can happen, rather than simply blame. Maybe Pepper created a woefully worse work of criticism. It wasn't nuanced, and maybe wasn't totally thought through... but maybe we also just don't respect youtube and a creative medium in the same way. Like, I can imagine a similar set of videos which are created in a way we more closely associate with art-- nicer cameras, lighting, ect. and I can't help but imagine that if that's what Pepper had made, none of the backlash would have happened and it WOULD have been seen as criticism. But then his only mistake was using low-quality tools? I don't know!
I strongly disagree that depiction and then criticism is bad. If you start out by framing an action as bad, you immediately lose the audience who probably needs to hear the message the most. Two examples: Pinocchio, where even though Jiminy Cricket keeps telling him it's wrong to do all those stuff, we understand why Pinocchio would chose those "fun" activities instead of school. Later we see the consequences, but for them to have any effect on the audience, they need to empathize with Pinocchio first. The second one is one of my favorite recent games, Spec. Ops: The Line. It starts out like a regular military "war is fun and heroic" shooter and then turns the audience's expectations on its head and brutally show why all this is wrong, why the make-believe "let's go to war for honor and heroism, yay!" attitude is total BS. But if it was upfront about it, the typical CoD / Battlefield audience would never have touched it. (eve if this anti-was angle and its "mechanics as metaphor" approach were what got me interested, but I'm very anti-war to begin with).
Nathan Hawks Okay, fair enough. But I can literally not name any such examples where the message is "after the show". Aside from maybe this Sam Pepper social experiment thing.
Nathan Hawks I'm a bit offended by you and Mike calling the portion of the story where the moral lesson is imparted the "responsible" bit. Why is it irresponsible to have morally ambiguous content with no clear lesson? Because if Breaking Bad's writers don't tell us what is right or wrong, who knows what we will think? As if it is always so clear what is right and wrong in the first place? Come on. I've gained more philosophical insights discussing the ethical implications of Walter White's actions with my friends than I would ever learn watching some after school special about the dangers of the drug trade. Adult entertainment SHOULD be morally ambiguous, because it takes an adult to watch then think for himself. Shame on anyone that thinks "responsible" social criticism can only be made by treating the audience like children.
Nathan Hawks Dexter as a show didn't take years to give its audience each and any message. If certain people watched it because they just love psychopaths killing each other, then alright, they probably didn't get any message from it. However, you start getting the point by the time Dexter's life starts revolving around chaos and hurting everyone around him. Yes, it's the end that sums it up and draws the final conclusion from his point of view, but we already understand that his choices ruined the people that surrounded him, even though he sometimes tried to make things right or do the right thing in the first place. It was morally complex and many things were to be deciphered, for example, you didn't need to watch the whole show to understand how the world is full of full-time liars.
A funny version of the improvised, man-on-the street sexual assault gag isn't ever going to be possible. I think the key aspect that precludes it from ever being anything other than inappropriate is the requirement for *consent.* Going up to strangers (women especially) and touching them without their permission will never be funny because it is the definition of assault. It's reproduction without any commentary. The prank is framed in the same context as an instance of real sexual assault. If the series events is: A) Groped by a stranger B) Feeling panicked or traumatized C) Being reassured it's been staged for comedic effect The context of comedy (C) doesn't erase A & B. The experience of being assaulted is still there.
I really appreciate that you decided to talk about the Sam Pepper debacle and follow up with this video, because the responses of creators and viewers have been so varied and there's been kind of a low quality of discourse on the subject, at least among viewers, which only gets worse when creators are silent. Generally a low quality of discourse is just what you expect from the internet when anything happens, but I think in this case it's actually hurting a number of people and the lessons we should be learning from all of this are getting lost. Based on what I've seen in comments and on Tumblr and Twitter, there are-underneath the very vocal support and opposition of sexual offenders on RUclips-a lot of fans or former fans who are uncertain as to where they stand on the issue(s) and who they ought to be supporting and how much "punishment" people like Alex Day and Jason need to serve and why it's better to shut them out of the community and "why nobody will listen to Alex about how he's changed" and how angry or not angry they're supposed to be, etc. To me, this says we haven't done a good enough job of talking about it. There are a lot of young people being affected by this and the last thing we want is for a sizable chunk of those people to not understand what's going on and start seeing people like Sam and Jason and Alex as victims, which is what's happening now. I don't blame people who knew any of these creators personally for not wanting to talk about it, and many have made videos anyway expressing their thoughts on the subject, which is good and I'm grateful to those who have. But the message isn't getting through to everyone, and that worries me. Anyway, thank you for making this video, because you've done a very good job of explaining why Sam Pepper's videos were not a social experiment and I expect it will help make things much clearer at least in that area.
I believe comedy is fair game in every situation. I recently watch Gabriel Iglesia's Aloha Fluffy where Gabriel Iglesias talks about his trip to Saudi Arabia.(Ir'a on his RUclips channel if you want to watch it yourself) He (and myself) was surprised to find out that Jeff Dunham was actually the #1 most popular comedian in the region regardless. The Saudi people found Jeff Dunham's Ahmed the Dead Terrorist character funny even though they understood that Ahned was the Middle Eastern stereotype from the American perspective. To a much smaller degree, I see something like this in my groups of friends. Just today my friends and I (three Caucasians, one Indian, one black guy, and one Latino) were joking around poking fun at racist stereotypes. We all acknowledge the racism, and the way that combat its ignorance is by being able to laugh about it. My mentality is that if a bigot insults you, but you take no offense, then there's nothing to be said. The main problem that arises when using a medium such as RUclips (or any social media) to make a point is that you'll be faced with two obstacles. One obstacle is simple and straight forward, no matter how eloquent you are, everyone will not understand what you're trying to say. The other one is that people like to stir up trouble and will attempt to troll. There are extremists in every mentality who will find something wrong with anything that you say. It's a big problem that I can't say something like "I love steak." without an extremist telling me that I'm wrong for eating flesh. TL;DR - There's no way to please all the people all the time. It's difficult to even please some of the people some of the time.
I think the key thing about Sam Pepper's video was the word prank. The connotation of prank means nothing serious, just joking around, no big deal, which is exactly what sexual assault is not. And the thing about censorship is, it is hiding away something that certain people don't want others to see, and to discuss about, when taking a video down on RUclips or another platform, where there are set rules, norms that everyone follows, and it is discussed, it is clear to all that what should be taken down does not follow those rules. Of course there could be times when that is not fully talked about, but in the case of the Sam Pepper video, most people agree.
One problem with the "social experiment" claim is that Sam Pepper never gave a hypothesis. He claimed he wanted to see how the audience react, but he never said what he expected. Did he think people would look away, or that we'd get all outraged at it? And that's all putting aside the question of whether it *was* a social experiment or just Sam Pepper being an asshat and trying to cover up his mistake. I'm convinced it was Option B.
Assuming Sam Pepper was being truthful about his intentions, then the social experience he was criticizing was NOT sexual assault on women and men. It was more precisely, the differing media reaction to publically showcased sexual assault on women and men. By that framing, Pepper was doing his criticism at the same time as his reproduction, because he was criticizing the reaction that media had to his portrayal.
"I will stand by the utility of laughter as a healing method and a tool to show audiences just how awful the world can really be." I think this is my favorite channel on RUclips. Thank you very much for saying this, it is a very important idea to me and you represented it well.
This is why I love doing game criticism . I treat gaming as an art form and get to analyze the style, track the themes, and read into subtext to see the more subtle story elements. Bioshock's portrayal of a world filled with self centered genius rotting itself from the inside, Mass Effect telling us "good or bad, we all end the same", or even Portal teaching that life really is one long test. Good criticism is an art, and I really hope I do my part in gaming justice.
To the point you opened with, I think people making that whole "RAAH CENSORHIP!" argument not only forget that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of speech (as you articulated), but it also does not mean that anybody owes them a platform or attention. People are free to say all of the terrible, hurtful things that they want to say, but nobody else is obligated to (a) enable/proflierate that speech - or - (b) acknowledge/support that speech. Responding to criticism with "BUT CENSORSHIP!" is the intellectual equivalent of a child destroying their friend's toy and then accusing the friend of not sharing when their friend reclaims their property. All of this, in turn, extends to criticism itself. In much the same way that RUclips doesn't owe anyone the space to share their destructive views, no content creator is obligated to allow damaging responses in their comments section. If you have moderator controls over a space then you are similarly entitled to say, "No, this kind of speech will not be tolerated here." (I'm thinking specifically of people who have chosen to delete comments defending sex offenders, but there are countless other examples.) Again, it's not about censorship, it's about keeping your own house clean and telling people that they aren't allowed to urinate on your floors. They can go find their own floor to pee on if that's their jam.
I don't always agree with everything you say, but man do I respect your thoughtfulness and the fact that you're open to intelligent discussion and even being corrected on a mistake. I really appreciate that you understand the power behind and inherent responsibility in media creation. You, for the most part, seem to have a really good grasp on the intricacies and differences between pontificating your political views, simply not hiding them, and talking about basic morality and human dignity. Even though I generally don't subscribe and don't stay subscribed to channels like this, you're kind of winning me over. I guess we'll see when I run out of your videos. :P
Here's an idea. "What you find to be offensive maybe be funny to someone else." People find things funny for multiple reasons. When a person laughs at a very tragic or disturbing event, it doesn't mean they condone it. In fact it could mean they condemn it but find the event to be so wrong, that they laugh at it.
*Confession that will make me unpopular to a lot of people: I subscribe to the You Tube channel Feminist Frequency. I had my partner sit down and watch one of their most recent video's "Women as background decorations." (this is a critical look at female non-playable characters as objects on whom violence, often sexual, is perpetrated with the sole purpose of conveying a "dark and gritty" atmosphere) His response was "that was a waste of time." I was really upset and we had a very heated discussion about the portrayal of women (particularity npcs) in video games. One thing that came up, and I couldn't seem to express very well was that portraying something violent doesn't make people just go out and do that thing but it does often normalizes it or aspects of it. This has put me in a very nuanced position in that I don't think games make people become violent but I do think normalizing violence against groups that are in the real world often the real victims of assault is irresponsible. You made a very brief allusion to that and I would love a more in depth look at that idea. Just an idea or maybe more so a request. Thanks.
It's nice to have a RUclips show that really makes me think and challenges my ideas. Disappearing or not, I've got alot of these to catch up on. Cheers :)
It is so important that we recognize the responsibility of the creator for the media they make. I feel like the internet has really put a magnifying glass on this issue. If only because anyone can make a video or post about anything and put it up for public viewing by millions of people. This gives us a larger understanding of how we think as a culture. And how to handle such issues. To write off videos (like Sam Pepper's) as their right to free speech or just a "social experiment" is not okay. People are not infallible. We make mistakes regularly but I'd also like to think that we can learn from them. And the only way we'll know is to speak out loud when something is not acceptable. This video is a blessing for having pointed that out.
***** Not at all, I'm talking about the opposite. The person who made the content is responsible for the things they say and make. As a viewer, pointing out moral groundings (as he stated a minute into the video) is not censorship. The creator shouldn't be judged in an isolated group of people within that media. It should be discussed by the people as a whole. That's how we as a culture learn.
I definitely think this could apply to Game of Thrones. People often talk about how the show's sex and violence and (possible) racism is contextual but there reaches a point when it is just gratuitous.
Thank you. As much as I like to say I am desensitized to these sort of videos, it is not often you are able to witness a social experiment with no consequences, lest you go make your own and risk getting arrested. On the other hand, I have an unlimited amount of time on my hands, as do the people writing comments on this video. Entertainment (I am using this term in my own perspective) such as this social experiment are nothing more than interesting scenes that you simply cannot witness on your own. When I sit down to watch a video like the one featuring Sam Pepper, it equivalates to me than nothing more than a skit comedy performed by SNL. RUclips or any social platform used by a large percentile of the internet, sacrifice their own profits by taking these viral videos down. I don't just speak for myself when I say I would be willing to sit through a million dollar advertisement about laundry detergent, just to see both sexes harassed in a social experiment.
Hey, been watching for awhile, decided to comment for the first time since I've thought about this myself. Usually when people talk about "anything can be made into a joke" they like to mention George Carlin, my response is usually "Yeah... but you're not George Carlin." I think that's important to remember for anyone who ever wants to be a comedian. George could make anything funny because he was a master comedian, he knew what he was doing, so anyone who wants to touch on more darker topics better understand that they have to put on their A game, and even then. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
This reminded me about an idea that John Green brings up a lot, as it is relevant to his writing: The author's intent doesn't matter. What matters is how the audience interprets the product. I think the Idea Channel also has a video on something like this. I agree entirely. It doesn't matter that Sam Pepper had some grand scheme in mind, or if it was him trying to save his own ass. It matters that, collectively, people all over the world agreed that it was sexual assault, and that his videos were wrong. And there is no room for debate. His videos were wrong.
Well, as I bring up in another comment, does that not exonerate Sam Pepper from having to face the consequences? How can a content creator be held responsible for the interpretation of their work if their intent does not matter? That is the same as saying that the manufacturer of a car is responsible for the actions of a drunk driver. The idea of the author of a work not having a privileged position is one of the few areas where I strongly disagree with John Green. IMO, it is an example of extremely oversimplistic thinking. In the case of Sam Pepper, let's just assume for the moment that he was genuine in intention. Obviously his execution was poorly thought out and the end result disastrous. That might be compared to a gun manufacturer being at least somewhat culpable for a shooting even if the intent was to make rifles exclusively for hunting. If we take the position that the creator's intent has no special meaning, then they definitionally cannot be held responsible for what people do with that work. This is the argument the NRA makes when they say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Clearly this is not a simple, binary answer. Just like our legal system has to consider shades of gray in the balance of responsibility between the manufacture of a device and the personal responsibility of the end user, we have to think of free speech the same way. Clearly the intent of the creator is privileged to some extent. Look at how people interact with media. The vast, vast majority of them want to know what the intent of the creator was. Conversely, it is correct that a creators intent is not the only valid viewpoint. The truth is that the world exists somewhere between those two poles. The creator's intent is important and is usually the most important prism through which to interpret the work. However, it is entirely valid for other viewpoints to have merit and sometimes even supplant the creator's. Let's make another example. A singer writes a patriotic song celebrating the culture and people of the country they live in. A disaffected, angry person hears it and it inspires them to beat an immigrant worker to death. Is the singer then responsible for that death? If the song were a "Born in the USA" style song, then most people would probably agree that the creator is free of responsibility. Clearly that was a listener taking a pathological interpretation of the song and the result is purely their responsibility. However, if the song were part of the "turbo-folk" movement in pre-civil-war Yugoslavia, where the songs glorified Serbian military conquests and the villainy of the Bosnians and muslims, it's a very different situation. Even if the song did not explicitly call for war, the turbo-folk movement is widely cited as one of the major driving forces that incited the Serbian population to start committing the atrocities that followed. Likewise, our hypothetical singer now has at least some blood on their hands. We can't just say that the creator of a work is completely responsible or disconnected from their work. That sort of black and white interpretation is silly. In the case of Sam Pepper, the intent does matter. The question is how much does it matter? I would argue in this case, his intent does not show a lot of deep thought or value as a commentary. Its value as commentary is outweighed by the negative aspects of the work. However, just because it is distasteful and poorly executed does not mean we can wholesale ignore his intent.
As someone who is not american and was not born or lived in the US but followed your media and culture all my life (38 years so far) it amazes me how extreme people in the US can be about this politically correctness and free speech. You will crucify a white guy making racist jokes but it’s ok for a black man to do it, you will applaud a woman being sexist towards men but bully (rightly) a guy doing the same. There is an inherit problem in US media and culture and it’s the double standard, why would some people defend their right for opinion but try to censor others?
I agree but the worst part is US media is influencing non-US media and nowadays everything is so PC. Hence why a sexist joke or a racist joke isn't a bad thing. Media would treat the sexist joke, dear this is the living room the Kitchen is the other way around, as if it was anything but a joke. In my country it has gone so far now that, we can't say the name of one of our most popular cookie, but must describe it in terms of it's content. It is called Negro ball, because they are brown and made from cocoa, coffee, oats, butter and sugar. Oh sure it's sounds racist... but then Gingerbread is considered racist as well. We live in a fucked up world.
Jokes can be "racist" and "sexist" if told well and in context. it's a craft, if your not good at it then don't do it. Take a look at family guy cartoons, no one has crucified Seth MacFarlane but they walk that fine line between funny and offensive. What about Tosh.0, whoa its a bit racy take a look at these shows. So I don't think it's a poor white comedian situation but a quality of comedy versus lack of talent or just plain being mean that is the issue.
I deeply appreciate you criticizing Sam Pepper and I DO think it is your place. The reason so many people are writing long essays saying, "This isn't the appropriate venue," is they came here expecting fluffy fun and were instead forced to question themselves and their own sexist asshattery. To all those commenters here who would rather let women get groped and assaulted than be inconvenienced for FIVE FUCKING MINUTES OF THEIR LIVES by *THINKING* about how women get groped and assaulted, I give you the middle finger, once, and again, and forever. Thank you Idea Channel for standing up for women and our rights!!!!
Since when is idea channel a venue for 'fluffy fun'?? It's mostly a place for drawing bizarre connections and trying to stretch metaphors and sometimes critique of certain media... All the SJWs are attacking sam pepper and it isn't the kind of video usually on this channel. Also, Mike said that the content creator is related to the audience in that they have to prevent a disconnect, which is very much the case here.
"The reason so many people are writing long essays saying, "This isn't the appropriate venue," is they came here expecting fluffy fun and were instead forced to question themselves and their own sexist asshattery" The fact that this exact argument works *so* well to defend Sam's video against Mike's critisism is so incredibly and amusingly ironic that I coudn't help myself from leaving this late reply
Ethics in social research online is something we're going to need to tackle this decade because it's almost impossible to moderate or enforce currently. The somewhat recent example of facebook's mood altering experiments is a sign of the times, and a sign that we need to reign in the frontier of the internet.
Great job, Mike. It wasn't perfect, but this is such a shitty, difficult, and incredibly important topic to cover that I'm really grateful that it's your imperative to do so. Masculinity is, to me, the biggest thing we as a culture, and a species, need to unpack. It affects all of our relationships: racial, class, and gender; national, governmental, professional, international; our relationships with ourselves. The more empathy and respect we can generate on all fronts, the closer we'll get to something that looks like progress.
Drew Gaughan I'm sorry you feel that way. As an empirical question: Do you feel like you were compelled to say something because my words seemed like an attack? Gamergate could actually lead to some fascinating reframings of sexism, but only if there's some real discourse. If trolls are the only ones showing up to the party, it's hard to call that an adequate defense of masculinity as it stands. Anyway, I'd be glad to hear more if you want to say more.
***** Hey, I think you had another reply earlier that I can't see now that I'm on this page. You have some interesting points about gender's role if it's a social construct that it'd be great to hear more of if you'd still like to post it here.
***** I can't say I have a definite answer for you; I'd love to hear what you think, or what your experiences point to. It can look like a lot of different things in different places. In my experience, to really step back, it means that people who look physically male are generally given more authority and credibility as a matter of course, and have more leeway when it comes to looking beautiful. They're expected to exhibit aggressiveness, and sometimes violent tendencies. They're expected to exemplify strength, and expected to be better at leading. I think that when we say that masculinity is a construct, we mean that it's silly to apply these expectations universally to people with particular sex organs. Here's what Planned Parenthood thinks: www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientation-gender/gender-gender-identity Here's what I'd consider a masculine perspective: www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/07/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/ I don't know much about this organization, but they seem to have a vested interest in the question: genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/femininities.html And here's an example of what unpacking might look like: www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-masculinity-in-crisis-9096561.html
Jason Eckenroth I'd say masculinity is a natural consequence of testosterone mixed with the natural formation of gender roles in nearly all societies across the world. I wonder if feminists have ever though that (while unnecessary now) gender roles were prevalent in society simply out of convenience brought on by superior strength of males and nurturing nature of females? I doubt that gender roles were made as a system of oppression or else they wouldn't have existed everywhere in the world and for as long as they have. Going back to masculinity, yes there will always be exceptions where some males are more feminine and some females are more masculine but if 95% of males take on masculine traits and 95% of females take on feminine traits all across the world it's probably more than a coincidence. FYI: I don't know you're personal beliefs but the SJW Social Reconstruction Project is ridiculed because it involves calling half of the world's population evil for being masculine. Real feminism is done in the Western World, now we need to move on to true equality (ie. abortion rights, fathers' rights to custody etc.) BTW: Look at the case of John Money and David Reimer and see what unnaturally changing someone's personality and gender will do. I live happily knowing that John Money is rotting in Hell for what he did to that boy.
Good video but was pretty disgusted by the Daily Show clip. Completely and utterly downplays sexual assault on men and completely exaggerated the frequency of sexual assault on women.
Not to mention men face a system of guilty before innocent courts outside of the law now on american campuses for whatever claim made against them. They have the privilege of being kicked out of college with no degree and all of the student debt for not being able to defend themselves against a claim with no evidence in the first place. Better stay on the good sides of those perpetual victims.
Are you actually unaware that a third of women are sexually assaulted? Like, the Daily Show clip was 100000% accurate. To exaggerate the frequency of sexual assault on women you would have to live in another universe where it isn't happening ALL OF THE TIME like it is in the real world.
how can you be so sure that it exaggerates the frequency of sexual assault on women? I would really, really have some credible sources about that but was unable to find them. My fear is that lots of people (me included btw.) underestimate the true frequency of this sort of thing.
Im sorry.... what!? I think the problem is using sam pepper as an example, it wasnt a "social experiment" it was an excuse he used when people discovered what he does in his "prank videos". He retroactively changed the meaning to get out of hot water, it it were an experiment, how does it explain all his other videos?
It's the same issue with trolls. How do you make a statement that is inherently moronic, then come back on it as being trolling, or worse, expect others to see it as trolling, when really, unless you think every moron online is a troll, it's just their being morons.
I'm so glad you talked about what some people perceive as 'censorship'. Its so annoying that people try to do our say inflammatory things under the banner of free speech and think they can get away with no repercussions. Uh, no, people are allowed to react. And any private institution (including websites) can kick you out for bad behavior. It's their right.
I see what you mean. That's why all the racist rants in Tarantino movies always bother me. No one ever challenges them. They're not funny. They're not satyrical. They just make me uncomfortable. And yet no on ever seems that fussed about them.
Drew Gaughan"A joke's a joke" - Someone who isn't systemically oppressed. Thing is jokes can reinforce social stereotypes which can be hurtful and even oppressive. Jokes that exclude certain groups can even create "us vs. them" mentalities that prevent rational discourse. Once again, oversimplification of a complex issue leads to ignorance - not sure why I expected anything different from youtube comments.
But that's the whole point of the rant. You're supposed to feel uncomfortable and (in my opinion) contrast that feeling with how you felt when you watched people get killed. Likely trying to ask, "why did the racist stuff make me feel sick, but I felt little to nothing when I saw all those people die?"
*_THANK GOD_* YOU BROUGHT UP THE INTERNET'S TERMS OF SERVICE. Free speech isn't some magical shield, and not enough people realize that. I love your opinions in this.
There is a difference between "Freedom of Speech" and the "First Amendment" The first is a cultural value, the second is represents a limitation to govt authority. That's why RUclips's decision to delete Sam Pepper's videos for being offensive is legal and doesn't violate the First Amendment, but it does represent an affront to Free Speech on RUclips. I recommend reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty where he discusses how communities are harmed by silencing individual speech, even when what that person is saying is objectively wrong or morally repugnant.
Another point I think it's important to discuss is the matter of apologizing. Even when content creators try to do social criticism or humor responsibly, they'll get something wrong eventually. It happens, it's not the end of the world. However, it is incredibly important that they learn to apologize while completely understanding what they did wrong and growing from it. A half-hearted apology, or a dismissal of the people being offended, doesn't do anyone any good. If the creator doesn't feel they did anything offensive then they should explain why.
Thank you for articulating the thoughts I always had trouble with to put in words. I think this video is even more interesting in light of the terrorist attacks that happened in Paris a few weeks ago and the discussion of events in popular media and politics that followed (that especially, since 'freedom of expression' was practically thrown at anyone who felt uncomfortable about the reaction the journalists of Charlie Hebdo published after the attacks).
Is offense something we're not aloud to make people feel anymore? Is it really an our responsibility to tell our viewers what's normal and what isn't? I don't think so, and would argue that the problem here is a culture of faith in media. The viewer is expected to suspend their disbelief a bit to emerse themselves in an experience with any media, but it seems to me that many people just stay in a permanent state of completely suspended disbelief. If a viewer takes a portrayal of normality that is obviously not normal and incorporates it into their paradigm of reality, that's the viewers fault (or if the viewer is cognatively deficiant, ex: a child, their caretaker's fault), not the creators.
"the problem here is a culture of faith in media" "many people just stay in a permanent state of completely suspended disbelief" Do you mean to say is that this culture you are proposing is one where significant portion of the population are being encouraged & reinforced by cultural pressures to believe what the media tells them? If that is the case, would that mean that members of this culture can be expected to take a given piece of media and make no effort to scrutinize or consider whether anything within that piece is non-normal whenever the piece of media makes no effort to indicate how non-normal the behavior exhibited actually are, even when the behavior exhibited is understood by the wider culture as usually harmful and therefore treated as such?
Ron Burgundy Indeed that would be a greater overall problem. But so long as that greater problem persists, would it not still be worth it for the social criticism to account for that portion of the population until the greater problem is resolved somehow? I was under the impression that the aim of social criticism is to promote scrutiny of a given social norm or a social ill's origin in obsolete norms. Part of doing that effectively is understanding that the audience may need some clarification (not the condescending kind, mind you) in order for the words to actually communicate what was intended. As such, failing to do so undermines any claim that the aim of the piece was to be both effective promotion of a responsible message *and* use deception, unaddressed reproduction of criticized behavior, or irony to entertain as well. This undermining of the message might even give off the impression that the creator's aim wasn't to promote such a message but later figured out that they'll get more money/laughs/respect/whatever if they claim that the message was there all along. Actual incompetence may be mistaken for malice, and actual malice may be obfuscated by an unintentional implication of incompetence being passed off as the viewer's fault for misunderstanding what the creator didn't make clear. I think that the deal with irresponsible producers/creators in the media as a whole as opposed to specifically youtube creators is something that can't be effectively addressed in any direct way. Pressuring media outlets to make it easier for parents/guardians to raise a child in the presence of media which doesn't take into account the child's limited cognition (nor could possibly do so without treating the rest of the audience like kids) appears to be the only way to go. But who knows, maybe social media could be changing the scope of media criticism in places outside of youtube such that tastes for and tolerance of certain antiquated tropes will change too rapidly for producers/creators to rely on them in their works.
chaosvii For the most part I agree that being purposely deceptive can undermine a message, and I would also agree that it definitely undermines it when the producer has semi-obvious ulterior motives. That said, if Pepper's videos were a genuine attempt at social critisism (slim as that possibility may be), I'm not sure how he would gauge viewers responses without decieving them that what they were seeing was a real attempt at humor. If he would have uploaded the less inflamatory video first though then it wouldn't be seen as backpedaling and we might not be having this discussion, but even that would probably have been seen as an excuse to make the more inflamatory video. Ultimately, I think it is children that people are really worried about being influenced, or at least I hope that's the case. While I'd like to argue that most children grow out of bad paradigms tought by any influence, and I believe most do, I do know that there are a significant minority that don't. That said, the responsibility for those children's views being scewed by media still falls on the parents/caretakers and not the producer. How the parents react to something is how the child will learn to react to it, and if the parents teach children how to react to bad influences, or to act sceptically to all influences, then their children can be better prepared than they may have been in a world of completely socially responsible media.
Way to handle this issue Idea Channel. First criticism of this guy I've seen that hasn't been a sloppy, self-affirming cry fest. I always enjoy your careful and precise presentation of an argument. Well done.
I think responsible social criticism has a lot to do with how the media is digested. When I first heard about ABC's show "Black-ish" was going to come out this fall, I was so angry and hurt. I have been told most of my life that I am “not a real black person”, “The whitest black guy”, or called an "Oreo", and a hand full of other micro-aggressions like that because of the way I talked and acted. The title of the show alone is saying "There is only one way to be black" and that upsets me. Don't get me wrong, I get what the show is about. There have been many shows featuring an African American family and what it means to be black in a predominately white neighborhood, and what it means for their culture (The Jeffersons, The Cosby Show, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Family Matters, just to name a few). However, all of these shows were about the families first, and they showed these black families as people, not just black roles. My major frustration with Black-ish is that it's an on going series that has a title that is enforcing a major micro-aggression that if you look and live like this, you're only kinda black. If the show were instead a movie talking about race and what it means to be a black family in America and it were still called "Black-ish", I might not have a problem with it because the message and conversation about race would be clearly identified and taken in all at once. I personally think that it's irresponsible social criticism because it's doing something harmful first in order to get to a message. I get the importance of culture, I get the importance of representation of race, I understand the importance of diving into the issue of race and what it means to be an ethnicity, but to me this is the wrong way to go about it.
I don't have anything meaningful or thoughtful to say but I do just want to thank you for this video. Also for using this platform to talk about things like the Sam Pepper incident which struck a very personal chord in me. It's so so SO important to talk about these things and understand how powerful media is. I don't know if people even realize it. We're so unaware of the influence that our media has on us. It influences us so subconsciously because of the way it's fed through us non-stop nowadays. It's almost impossible to get away from it all. So THANK YOU for this. It was so important to me to have you guys address this issue. I can hardly express it in words how important this was to me. Truly, from the bottom of my heart... thank you!!
As a creator, you should never fear going against popular opinion. Sometimes upsetting and offending the audience is precisely what is intended. It does not have to be displayed humorously. Showing REALITY, that there are heinous acts occurring today, may be the best method in expressing the problem. The reaction itself is all the commentary necessary. We are capable of drawing our own conclusions. In this particular case, the social experiment was performed on the audience. If the audience knew of this beforehand, they would have reacted differently, thus ruining the results.
I agree. Real sexual harassment is bad. But if this truly was staged, nothing wrong has taken place. If not, the victims, RUclips and the legal system can handle it. Viewers of this video, however, should hold no power over it other than choosing not to watch it. Of course they are free to complain.
Tory Steller You seem to put a ton of faith in RUclips. Even if the author should not have fear of popular opinion, he/she should have fear of going against RUclips's wants. As was mentioned, YoutTube has the ultimate power, deciding what is acceptable or not acceptable to the population. The real concern is, what are the rules of acceptance. We can all agree that things like child pornography is something we don't want to come across in our feed. But what happens when youtube decides to censor a political candidates that they don't agree with, maybe someone fighting for privacy laws that go against the doubleclick model? Is hiding behind their terms of service good enough then? Legally, yes. Morally, well that's up to you.
As powerful as RUclips is, it is not omnipotent. We as a collective decide the strength of RUclips. It can make a mistake tomorrow and slip off the mountain top just as any number of its predecessors.
Usually this channel just brings up new lights in which to consider media, but man, this video is important, this video has substance. This video articulates an important statement I've never encountered anywhere else.
I actually think that these videos, who "cheat" the audience, are very important and the best way to show the gravity of the case. If a video shows a "bad", or better, "unacceptable" behavior in a way, people might laugh at it or "think it's ok", and then show them "No, it's not ok.", it makes people think. It makes them questioning themselves, and their own actions. But if you only show "this is bad", "don't do it" - people only pay half of the attention, because they don't feel involved, they don't feel targeted. It's very much like the example of a crowd watching an accident. Most people go there and just watch. But if you stand up and give orders ("You, call the police!" "Get me a blanket" "Help me moving the injured to the side", and so on) - they start to react because they're suddenly involved. It might not a fair tactic, but it's effective. And it might be very necessary.
Atticus Edwards I think that's a given. If you harm people just to show that you shouldn't (instead of pretending with actors, who're aware of the situation), you're a big hypocrite and should be ashamed of yourself...
You look tired man. Are you getting enough sleep and iron in your diet? I definitely agree that this is exactly the sort of thing idea channel was made for as you look at pop culture with a more serious light than what we normally get, and that's what we love about it. Remember we wanted you to do the episode on Ikea. Just take care of yourself and stay awesome.
you know, sitting in the place where you have opinions and values but actively engage in discussion without slandering the people you disagree with is hard. good on you and your team for doing this so well.
2:00 The implication of the argument "there's more important stuff to worry about" isn't that we only worry about/discus the end of the universe, it's that we start with the most important problem and work our way down the list.
This was a good episode after watching tonight's episode of South Park. SPOILERS TO FOLLOW! In the episode, Cartman pretends to be a transgender girl to gain access to a private, single-person bathroom reserved exclusively for transgender students (which would only include him). Meanwhile, Randy Marsh feels more comfortable using the women's bathroom at work in his alter-ego, Lorde. Cartman doesn't want to use the girls' room while Randy/Lorde doesn't want to use a separate one. The episode ends criticizing "transgender exclusive" bathrooms as pointless separation while supporting the idea that transgender people should be able to use the bathroom that matches their identity. Being a transgender viewer, this was a pleasant surprise considering I still have to deal with "dolphin" comments. That's what we want and that's what we're fighting for. Inclusion, not exclusion. Compare this episode with an episode of Glee where a transgender student "wins" by getting her own separate bathroom. Even the character's name, "Unique", was a sign that they were not well versed in trans stuff. South Park (now) has a better grasp on transgender rights than a show that prided itself on LGBT issues.
Can you please define what being called a 'dolphin' means exactly? I've never heard that term being used against transpeople before, so I'm genuinely curious.
Epic Ebi There was a pretty repellant episode of South Park that mocked transgender people and made a parallel between surgical gender reassignment and Randy Marsh wanting to surgically turn himself into a dolphin.
It was Kyle's dad that was surgically turned into a dolphin, but yeah, pretty much. This episode doesn't completely make up for that one, but it's a step in a better direction. Journey of a thousand miles.
Right on. Thank you for being a voice of thoughtful and compassionate reason on the internet. It's totally your right to speak your mind on your own show. That's why we all come here. We want to hear what you have to say because it's always well thought out and complex. Even if viewers don't always agree with everything you say, I hope they can at least appreciate the time you've put into developing your argument, and at the very least consider your points. Keep up the great work.
People are just upity about that "social experiment" because they felt messed with. People take things too seriously, and just give people or subjects crap because, who knows, most likely they are bored and its easy to lean negative, especially when it comes to crap on the internet.
tsuich00i Or maybe you should read "The Giver" before radical professors turn all of you college kids into cultural Marxists where everyone and everything is the same.
tsuich00i You're clearly not up-to-date on the videogame industry and how it's been hijacked by dishonest professional victims like Anita Sarkeesian. That's where the #gamergate comes into play in my comments. Besides, Tumblr exists, the hotbed of perpetual victimhood and censorship on the internet.
It wasn't a social experiment. That's just naive. It's possible that he was trying for 'social-experiment-artsy-hipster-crap', but he failed at it miserably, and at that point all it presents is just 'assault'. It isn't anyone's responsibility to have read his mind prior, or to believe him when he tries to cover his ass afterwards. That is all his own responsibility. He assaulted women no matter what purpose we want to give it. It doesn't matter how much truth was actually in his explanation, it's still naive to defend a total failure.
Regarding the comments that it is not your place to address these things, no, this is what makes you relevant and powerful. It is what *I* at least come here for, challenging perspectives on a wide variety of subjects.
If someone makes a series of videos depicting something as a way of showing how reprehensible situations are handled in public - like that one show that was going around with actors acting like scumbags in public, seeing how normal people react to these situations, and then discussing it afterward - and it brings awareness to the big problem, it's not wrong. Just because the 'character' in the video frames it as a 'joke', it's a *serious* commentary on the situation. Just because YOU don't agree with how it's done does not make it wrong.
Nathan Hawks In your world, any sort of intelligent commentary on the issues of the day is dead. Oops, we can't make jokes about the government shutdown because a government employee who can't pay their rent might see it. Oops, we can't ridicule the government in a humorous way for their involvement in a war because a veteran might see it. Oops, Brass Eye can't make jokes about paedophilia scares because a victim might see it. Do you see what being afraid of offense would do to satire?
Sorry if I strawmanned you, but please explain and stop patronising. 'You literally just said you don't know the difference between social satire and sexual assault' Since when is laughing at a video about sexual assault equivalent to sexual assault? Also, how do you define 'actual satire'? That's completely subjective.
Nathan Hawks Again, this stupid patronising. I might seem like the biggest idiot in the world to you, but I did really mean it. Try to convince me of your argument.
I just wanted to say : the first (short) video you made about Sam Pepper, it was really professional. You told something had to be said, and also that you would take your time to do it properly. That is what you do in this week video. Yes, it changes from your original style but you already tried other things before. I'm proud to be one of your fans.
So, wait. If the guy had stated that the two videos were actually a social experiment at the beginning, would that ruin the whole thing. because it wasn't those who were being violated that were the variable in the experiment, but the audience watching the videos. He wanted to see what the difference in reaction would be between the two videos, weather it would be more socially acceptable for women to violate the personal space of men rather than the other way around.
there are many debates going on in the comments about whether or not he was actually experimenting, or if it was just a cover up. But, as no one can read minds, it will be forever some upset nerd's word against the guy who did it.
The question is whether or not he was telling the truth. It might be true that people reacted more to one video than they did to the other, and that it's something worth noting, but the idea is that Sam Pepper only said that in order to clear himself of the guilt. The people who showed up in the video said they weren't aware of anything, and he has other videos about harassing women and men.
That new intro elicited an audible gasp from both myself, and my roommate when i showed it to him. I think you guys really nailed this one. Quality episode
Regardless of whether you want to call it censorship, I do think the RUclips community harms itself when it silences offensive content like they did by removing the Sam Pepper videos. There is no doubt that Sam's video was offensive and should be criticized for all the reasons that Mike mentions (e.g. normalizing bad behaviors). However... by removing the video from its site, it will now be harder for future RUclipsrs to have the exact same conversation we're having now about Pepper's videos. How can those future RUclipsrs discuss why the Pepper videos are so bad if they have never seen them? This is exactly why John Stuart Mill argued that Freedom of Discussion was so important in On Liberty. Even if the person you silence is wrong, the community is still worse off for not having the opportunity to discuss why they are wrong.
Just want to say that I think this video is great and is exactly what I criticized your last video on the topic for not being. I hope you didn't interpret my comment as 'Idea Channel shouldn't talk about certain issues'. It was less WHAT you were talking about and more HOW you were talking about it. I'm super happy to see you return to the topic in a more formal, thought-out video.
I have a question. It seems like the idea that the video maker's intention cannot be separated from the audience's perception or interpretation of the video. But when we read a novel, I am/was often told in literary criticism classes, that what the author intended was irrelevant and the only thing that matters is how the reader interprets the text. So, is that different in other forms of media, e.g. videos? or did I miss part of the point here.... Or once the media is published as a book the rules are different?
Author intention matters less than context, language, dialect. If I'm reading a novel set in 1910's England, I need to prepare for vocabulary that differs from my own. Yes, the author's goal of "Hey look at this big idea over here" matters alot. However, if a large group of people read a book and none of them notice that idea at all, that's a failure on the author's part. In video media, the same responsibility applies. If a crap ton of people miss your point or upon hearing it go *cricket noise" "that didn't work". That was a failure of the creator. Author intention matters if the audience receives it. If they don't, but gain other things from the book, the book has aspects of success and failure.
what you take away from a piece of art is all that matters to YOU. Whether that lines up with the author's intentions is entirely up to the quality and skill of the author. In other words, the quality of the author is how well they can convey their ideas to the audience, the quality of the piece of art is how impactful of an idea it can provide to its audience. Terrible artists produce amazing art all the time *coughmodernartcough*
It depends on the school of criticism. Reader-response criticism (or, in this case, viewer-response criticism I suppose) is one school of thought, but it's not the only one. I agree with Seth Waters in that creator failure is something that needs to be considered. If people haven't the skill to articulate what they want to articulate and give it necessary context, that's their problem. Their intention, in that case, does have to take the back seat.
The issue is also finding out true intent in the first place, as audiences can (and have) pulled out a completely different meaning than what was intended. For example, Fahrenheit 451 is about how much Ray Bradbury hates TV. He's said so himself, multiple times, however every English class in the US will insist (even to Bradbury!) that it's about censorship. This is a case of either covering his tracks (he's a perverted troll and, once he caught heat on the internet decided to make it a "social experiment") or he's just incompetent in portraying his true intent (it really was a social experiment but he just did a terrible job of making that fact clear). Typically I'm of the mindset that you shouldn't assume malice when stupidity is just as valid, but here I'm leaning to him just being a pervert. If he's not, though, it was his job as a content producer (of any kind, be it music, literature, art, etc) to convey his ideas and beliefs through his chosen medium and he just failed so utterly terribly that it's actually turned into a learning experience.
While watching your video, I thought of the series 'What would you do'... a social experiment series which uses actors to create a public event centered around a social concern like racism, prejudice, violence, poverty, etc. I love this series because it not only casts a light on the social concern, but it ALSO encourages people to interfere and become pro-active in 'righting' whatever injustice they might be witnessing. The show gives us some amazing heartwarming moments, but it's also sometimes fascinating seeing what kind of social injustices are more 'ignored' than others. And sometimes it's downright chilling seeing certain injustices being not only ignored by the witnesses, but sometimes even encouraged, supported and facilitated (e.g an actress pretending to be drunk at a bar, while an actor, who is clearly taking advantage of her inability to properly refuse his advances, is dragging her away to a hotel room and is actually cheered on by other people at the bar for his opportunism).
I feel like the ideas in this video are a slippery slope. It's like the episode of South Park where they pull an episode of Family Guy because they thought Muslims would get upset over it and then everyone started complaining so the show went off the air. To me, either everything is okay or nothing is okay. And in a way, shouldn't good art offend? The point of art is to make us see the world in a different way and for some people that's going to offend them. If your an artist, your goal shouldn't be to make art that pleases and is safe for everyone, you should make art that you want to make, something that shows how you view the world or something to express your feels. Hell, many films like Fight Club and Bonnie and Clyde were conspired trash, offensive and irresponsible, but today they're classics. I'm not saying be shocking and offensive for the sake of being shocking and offensive, but I don't think artist or film makers or whatever should make videos in mind of what their audience would like, because then it's no longer art. It's a product. Artist should make what they want to make and if it gains an audience, great! But don't hold back on your vision just because you think it might offend someone.
As much as I agree with what you said, I think its important to remember what your channel is about. This is the PBS IDEA channel, and is a place for you to present your ideas and thoughts and discuss those ideas with the audience. In this video you presented your feelings as a fact, and unlike every other video on this channel you did not ask a question, you simply told people what you consider to be correct.
It's interesting to see how, in the wake of polarising new media happenings like Gamergate and the Sam Pepper video, there have been a flood of commentators who try very hard to explain what the 'underlying principles' of the controversy are. (Gamergate is about corruption! No it's about the absence of standards in gaming media! No it's about the rampant sexism in gaming and the promotion and normalisation of deeply sexist attitudes in pop culture!... etc.) This is particularly weird because no one quite comments on HOW people go about exploring the implications of these 'underlying principles' - whatever they may be. What kind of reactions are in good taste and which aren't? So far as I can see, new media debates seem doomed to a lack of resolution or rapprochement, because each side is guilty of the things they lay at the door of the other. Whether one sees Sam Pepper as a victim or violator, the debate that follows lacks ALL decorum. Maybe that's why those who engage in it feel no obligation to adhere to the results of the debate. A who-cares-if-he's-right-he's-an-asshole approach to the truth. Is it time for the Internet to evolve it's own pervasive code of ethical behaviour?
And Idea Channel is a rare exception to this trend. The notion that consideration should temper the creative impulse is, logical, reasonable, and very complicated in a world where we still give a very privileged place to creators and the vaguely numinous aura that surrounds their act of creation. It is a beginning. A first axiom in the new Internet Ethic, perhaps?
Alright, this is one of the reasons why I love idea channel. Everyone involved in the show sticks to their guns regardless of what blowback may happen. Brave. I'll give my opinion on the subject of the video later when I'm more awake.
Also, if people are made uncomfortable by certain media, can they not simply.. not watch it? And in theory, if it makes enough people uncomfortable would business/creators not take that as meaning their content is not acceptable and thus change it?
^^This. Capitalism is the only reason a creator should need to change their own work. In this video you talk about the "consequences" of fictitious media, but if the only consequences you can relate to that are the distraught that Sam faced when he presented that media as an actual scenario than your whole argument falls apart. Here I'll summarize: Don't pretend to do something illegal without specifically giving context that it is fictitious. There that's the only legitimate point you made in this video.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to not watch then for it not to be made? Hell wouldn't trying to silence or shame them just draw them more attention?
Two things. One, I want to commend IdeaChannel for taking positions sometimes, even when controversial. I'm sick to death of the fear that people have about tackling controversial issues just because it's controversy. The whole point is that sometimes people do things that cause a disagreement among people and I'd love to see MORE people who have a forum use it to take a position about what's wrong and what's right. That's how we, as a whole society, ought to work out these issues, rather than tiptoe around them. Secondly, I think that the biggest problem with these kinds of issues is that conversation around them shuts down because people get hurt and offended. I appreciate that saying and doing hurtful things can cause people real pain. But if that pain means that the subject is so unapproachable, so sensitive, that nobody else is allowed to talk about it without being offended, then it becomes nearly impossible to work through these issues and try to make policy that improves them in the future. I'd like a world with a lot less reactionary anger and a lot more opportunity to discuss issues like sexual assault in detail and figure out the best ways to prevent it in the future.
I don't fully agree with you. Criticism coming after the reproduction is extremely common in most media that depicts these social ills. For example, in most gangster films, you see the gangster-to-be protagonist be very successful at being a gangster and the unpleasant consequences slowly unfold throughout the movie. True, it's still the same piece of media that is being consumed, but there is quite a long period where the gangster life is going _extremely_ well for the protagonist. In fact, this same pattern is present in ancient tragedies as well. A person of high prestige committs some heinous act very early in the tragedy and it comes back to bite them fairly late in the tragedy. The deed stays unpunished for the longest time. Whether these tragedies were meant to be social criticism is another discussion entirely, but this pattern is certainly used very often, even in pieces of media that critique social ills.
You're missing his point. Imagine Scarface ended with Tony Montana on top of the world, and you only saw a clip after the credits where Al Pacino told you crime was bad. That is what he is talking about.
I think you're conflating reenactment and repetition. It is one thing to tell a story in two hours, but within which the time spans throughout years. It is another thing to try and make that story play out in real life, with real time-spans, real costs, real people. It is always good if we can learn our lessons without subjecting ourselves or others to real life suffering and loss.
People in the movies are actors. We'll never know for sure whether or not the people in Pepper's RUclips videos were actors, even though in my opinion they don't seem to be actors at all, but victims of sexual assault. Anyhow there have been many instances in which the people in prank videos are sexually assaulted without their legal consent and it's a problem.
The thing is, in gangster movies, there is usually more narrative focus that social commentary. This is because they usually show scenes without explaining that they are doing wrong and letting the audience figure it out themselves. However, the videos about assault were suppose to be viewed as bad just because he said so later. This differs from the movies since he shot them in a comedic light that was suppose to be seen as bad without his audience knowing his complete intentions.
Late on the commenting here by like weeks, but thank you SO MUCH for taking the situation seriously. I'm really amazed that you managed to make this a well-thought-out and reasonable piece and like you said you wanted to, handled it with nuance, because this is a very important issue and it deserves to be talked about. Thanks so much for not just letting this situation pass without comment.
You mean like lab experiments do? That's an interesting suggestion... I guess maybe someone could say that ethics committees are there to make sure the institution doesn't fund anything unethical, whereas a "social experiment" like a person-in-the-street thing is usually funded by the person setting it up so it doesn't need to answer to a committee? But then if that reply worked it would mean you could set up science experiments that you funded yourself in your basement without going through an ethics committee, so something must be wrong there.
I don't know about lab experiments but if I want to test a piece of software and testing it involved people trying it and giving feedback I would need to run my plan by an ethics committee. As an individual I probably don't need to but if I want anyone to accept the results of my testing I kinda do.
Daniel Bech "but if I want to test a piece of software and testing it involved people trying it and giving feedback I would need to run my plan by an ethics committee." . This struck me as odd. I live a techy city with lots of computer companies, and I can't imagine a scrappy little start-up even *having* an ethics committee, much less put a project on hold while their philosophers contemplate the morality of their intentions. I *can* imagine larger established companies having some sort of "ethics committee," to consider issues of legal liability, regulatory compliance, best practice, public relations, and things like those... Applied to Pepper, such a committee would say don't do that because you will look bad, you'll hurt your brand - not because it's wrong, which is what a lot of the people offended by the videos want to say...
No, because ethics are entirely subjective and to have one standardized government entity to judge any ethical action that acts as media would be a restriction of free speech because ethics vary from person to person and they are mostly based on opinion.. However, this should only go as far as the law.
it's generally not a government entity. They are usually specific to the area you're working in. They don't actually have any say weather you do what you want to do or not it's more of a recommendation thingo.
What if you make up some injustice? Like, say, domestic abuse is more likely to come from the dog than the owner. And then, (somehow) get everyone to believe it? Making a false claim that everybody believes, is what I'm trying to say. Would that be a fictional reproduction, or maybe false criticism? Just a thought that fell out of my brain holes
Shows like South Park and Family Guy really get on my nerves because of their brand of 'satirical' humour. Maybe it's meant to be purely offensive for shock value. I don't know. Either way, there's a massive disconnect between the audience and the creators, and if satire is intended, a lot of the audience don't realise it's there. A good example would be 'Borat' exposing the anti-semitism rife in America, but getting Americans to join in with his anti-semitic song. This is satire - it's just that many people read it as 'anti-semitism is funny'. In my opinion, creators need to be more conscious of the gap between them and their audience. If you have a point of view you're trying to express, make 100% sure that it can only be read correctly one way. Leaving room for interpretation, especially with sensitive subjects, ends up perpetuating awful things.
I disagree with this video but I almost don't know how to respond to it. It was just assertions. You say showing something and making people laugh at it makes it seem normal and that's something you need to support beyond just saying it is so.
003dylan That's one possibility. However it's also possible that people don't respect Hitler because his ideas are demonstrably wrong - and are not defensible without resorting to fallacy after fallacy. I suspect there may be some truth to what you're saying but I don't want to jump to the pessimism of thinking of people as glassy eyed automotons whose beliefs are based on blind conformation to the percieved norm rather than the reasons for and against the beliefs themselves.
I would agree on that point. I've never quite thought having super powers was normal no matter how many times I laughed at those...but that's probably an extreme example that has no relevance in this argument. Well, I don't see programming as particularly "normal" or typical, though, likely growing in popularity, despite all that I research on it. But, again, this is not a study but ....some word meaning it's a personal example...what's that word? Ok that's going to irritate me.
Danny Duchamp Valid argument. I don't think the masses are swayed that easily either. I'm just saying that if someone is in a place of democratic power then the norm will be that they deserved to be there. Sure people can put the wrong man or woman in charge and then they deserve some of the blame for that, but the norm should still keep in mind the effort they put in to get there.
Completely agree with you, plain and simple. There is no possible situation in which harmful behavior should become acceptable - if not to show us dread instead of laughter
your point about reproduction vs criticism really makes no sense to me. when i think about film for example, many scenes that simply reproduce a vicious act in a stark, realistic way are in my eyes especially strong forms of criticism of said act. so the distinction you tried to make between those two is extremely vague, i think. it depends on what the viewer, or consumer of media in general, is already thinking. also i'm pretty sure, that you wouldn't want explicit moralizing in every work of art, that displays terrible things that humans do. but this also means, that different viewers will interpret the "message" differently, and what one person may consider an "anti-war"-film another person may consider simply exciting entertainment. an especially grotesque example of this is, that i've heard that some racists enjoy the film "american history x" because it displays extreme acts of violence against black people, even though the movie itself has a clear anti-racism message...
I think the distinction is between the earnestness of a film portrayal, aka reproduction, and the levity in criticism, which prompts to healing as he's mentioned.
I love Idea channel because of videos like these. This whole episode(And the vast majority of them, I'd say,) is expertly written and I loved every second of it. Just wanted to share my love. Keep on rockin Mike.
Ok, honestly this was grinding me the wrong way, but I can at least respect your point in this-- the whole notion of responsibility to a community/audience is a very hot-button topic as of late, ESPECIALLY within editorial and critique-only pieces. holy shit is it hot button, but ultimately its very much a question of cultural ethic I find. one can not simply walk into a cannibalistic tribe, tell them that their culture is wrong and forcibly change their culture to suit the morals of their own culture because at the end of the day we can not empirically denote what is absolute evil and absolute good. it is a moot argument to begin with and something best left to philosophy students to pontificate over. assertion is a color most ill suited for the critic and sadly has become quite the popular choice of ensemble for many of them to date. in some respects perhaps the recent rise in such might be due to the sudden proliferation of popularity in the field of critique for media consumers (I.E. us) and by such we create a cult of celebrity around the critics and therefore breeding a sort of confirmation bias that spirals out of control. I of course am referring to notions put forth by actor Jack Gleeson in his Oxford speech 'I hate celebrity culture'[1] (who does an infinitely better job of explaining the concept than I ever will) We see this sort of confirmation bias and pumped up self-bias-esque "I obviously know better because I have all these wonderful people telling me I am and so I must be" type attitude prevalent in Hollywood culture for decades now-- Movie Stars and Television Icons becoming outspoken activists for one cause of another to the point of being blind to any contrary points put forth. I really think this has made its jump from the Hollywood stage, to that of lesser celebrity activists and major editorial columnists. While I can agree some things are best left (tastefully) unperturbed by media creators, I can not abide an idea of meddling with another's creative vision or simple right to do what they do. I as a content creator (my day job is a commissioned illustrator) have seen so many of my friends pitched into a seething mob of outrage for the silliest of infractions due to catching the attention of these whistle-blowing critics (professional AND internet-amateur) simply chewing though a piece of work with little thought of the creator or creators of such and how much work goes into such. Ultimately it is expression and whether it is right or wrong for your personal culture, we do live in a massively multicultural world and we'd be fool to believe ourselves to be a supreme authority on really anything. Perhaps its because I do have a personal stake in such, but I really do agree that people attempting to shame and lead a pitchfork wielding mob after content creators is actually a bad thing. its breeding a toxic environment that discourages any discourse that doesn't toe the line for the current dominant social structure, and by extension might as well be, quite simply put, *censorship*. Yes I do agree that these website owners (like RUclips/Google) reserve the right to police their sites for what they think is culturally acceptable, but as you put it, they are not beyond the reproach for reaping the effects of their actions-- THOUGH, it does bring up a very powerful question; in a digital age of what could be quintessentially be considered the 90's Virtuality come to fruition, at what point do we consider sites being large enough that they are to be considered public virtual domain? should these sites traffic be the ones to dictate the content of said sites and supersede those whom hold ownership? (because hey, its their views and patronage that pay to keep the owners in business and the lights on) food for thought. hopefully someone reads this [1]: tune.pk/video/1985071/i-hate-celebrity-culture-jack-gleeson-oxford-union (note: seriously give this a listen to, brilliant stuff. would have linked on youtube, but oxford union seems to have swapped it out)
No, it's not. You're writing this on the internet, the most pervasive, accessible, and democratic publishing platform in human history. Equating the removal of a video from RUclips with governmental threats of execution or imprisonment should make you feel embarrassed.
Rockoman100 Given the size and scope of the internet, one website failing to allow you to say whatever you want on that one website, while leaving THE ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET open for you does not in any meaningful way restrict your ability to create or share content. You should still be embarrassed.
The effect of a single website, or a handful of websites "banning" certain discussions is actually a very effective way to make sure that discussion stays suppressed depending on the influence of the website(s). Anybody can go anywhere on the internet and say what they want, but some websites are orders of magnitude louder and more populated than others. For large websites to censor common discussions, points, attitudes, or arguments (within reason) only leaves small obscure communities left to discuss these things, which, in the scope of the internet, is to make them almost entirely disappear. The internet cannot restrict what you can say, but it can restrict where you can say it, and when discussions are banished to obscure locations where nobody can hear you screaming, you feel, well, censored.
Rockoman100 By the same premise, Hachette is a censor because they don't publish my book. Barnes & Noble is a censor because they don't carry my book. Private entities refusing to broadcast your creations is, itself, a form of free speech: these private entites get to decide for themselves which creations to share through their platform.
You know what? Whatever other people may say about the liberties you're taking with the Idea Channel format, I think you seem more authentic. You're talking about things that interest you and things that you care about. I like this. Carry on.
To be honest some people need sarcasm to be obvious in order to understand it. You can't blame a show for wanting to appeal to more viewers... well sometimes you can but I don't think that time is now.
Over the summer while preparing to lead teenagers I was told by my teacher a very important way to look at human interaction and emotion. He gave us the situation of stubbing someone else's toe. In this situation you may not have ever wanted to stub that person's toe but you did and they're hurt. Your intent was not to hurt them and you may make that very clear to them but they are still hurting because of what you did. I think if you're going to create social criticism you need to be very careful because you may never want to hurt your audience but it can easily happen.
I disagree with what you said about the bigger threat. Consider the principle of Medical Triage for a second. Some problems should have priority over others, we just justify not taking that route because it is politically easier. But it doesn't make it right. Sam Pepper sexually assaulting a woman is really not as important as children dying of extreme poverty, famine or diseases that can be prevented. We forget about the bigger picture because it's too broad or too far away to handle, so we go for a smaller focus on an easier and closer-to-home problem. But easier is not better. And closer is not necessarily more important. We just pretend it is.
I disagree with the implied assumption that caring about or talking about issues is a zero sum game, I think we have the energy as people to care as intensely about huge issues like global warming, global famine, economic disparity, and political inequality as we do about "small" problems like sexual inequality and sexual assault. Slowing down progress in some areas doesn't speed it up in others.
Denver B All of that almost sounds "right", but it still carries the same basic mistake if you look closely. Having progress in areas that are less important than others while leaving those others in a critical state is ethically inneficient, no matter how you slice it. And caring intensely about smaller problems, while not wrong, still doesn't make them a priority.
Danoriel (Vast Blue) A couple of things you're forgetting: firstly, knowing about a worse situation does not equal being able to help or aid in that situation. If a person is able to help in a smaller issue but not a larger, then it's important all issues are broadcasted so everyone can help where they can. Secondly, larger issues frequently (sensibly) have a lot more people who know and are actively fighting for it. Often your personal contribution to some world wide problem is so tiny as to be meaningless. Personally, I think people do a good job helping everywhere, with a variety of people thinking of the big picture, and some people thinking in their personal area of expertise, we end up helping a wide array of those in trouble. And no issue is left unturned.
KKlawm "not being able to help or aid in that situation". That sounds like rationalizing to me. "larger issues frequently have a lot more people who know and are actively fighting for it". Uh.. not really. "personal contribution to some world wide problem is so tiny as to be meaningless". Yeah... definitely rationalizing. But that's ok, I'm not here to teach ideology. Believe what you want.
October 9th's episode of South Park, "The Cissy", definitely deserves a mention in this conversation. They did a lot of interesting things in the episode. They explored contemporary gender issues in a respectful, balanced, and entertaining manner that I can't imagine any other show pulling off as well as they did except for Adventure Time. They showed the perspective of a person taking advantage of the issue, the person genuinely confused and feeling what I would consider neutral on the issue because of that confusion, and the perspective of a person who was following their feelings and dealing with the pushback that non gender conforming individuals can face. The episode had incredibly touching moments and overall I feel the South Park team was using their platform to create the most responsible social criticism we've seen from them yet and some of the most responsible social criticism of any fictional television show that I can think of.
I'm going to address a thought I had that is sort of contrary to the thesis you put forward here. Full disclosure, I haven't seen any of the aforementioned Sam Pepper videos, so I may be off the mark here, but I'm going to say it anyways: Would Sam still be in the wrong if the social commentary he was making was pertaining to the *reactions* to the prank videos? In essence, would people be as outraged (or what have you) at a prank video of a woman groping a man, as they would be to a prank video of a man groping a woman (or vice versa). In that case, one would need to release both videos, and give time for them to be seen and reacted to before announcing the intention, and the subsequent criticism or commentary, would they not? The same idea as a blind experiment. If the people in the video were indeed actors, I would see no problem with that. Just my two cents.
Also, I'm well aware that Sam has a history and reputation of being a misogynist that started well before the prank video fiasco, so I doubt that it was indeed his intention. More, I would think, that he was trying to mask his misogyny in the guise of social commentary after the outrage began. But I still stand by my above comment.
Late reply, but yes, that's what was happening, and I totally agree that as long as the victims were actors it was completely justifiable, what I don't agree though, is that even if the guy is a complete misogynist (I don't know whether he is one or not BTW), that doesn't make him incapable of "social commentary", specially considering that he was pointing out at what could be construed as sexism *against men*
This was a pretty serious episode about responsible social criticism. In today's age of the Internet it's much faster and easier to relay information towards others, and sending certain critical messages can be met with much controversy. It's a fine line between successfully critiquing something and gaining acceptance and failing and being attacked with critiques based on an initial critique. It is indeed possible to make strong critiques and get people to agree with the critique, but the potential backlash that may occur can get really messy in light of recent controversies that have risen. It was kind of subtle in the beginning, but the slight tweak in the intro looked very nice. Good to see some credits to PBS and some snazzy visual effects before the actual video.
You kinda loose me in the responses to the comments where you seem to imply that it's harder/less responsible to talk about sexual assault in a "comedic" performance way than it is to talk about homeless people being robbed. Given the fact that the sexual assault in question is ass grabbing, which, while yes, is wrong, and was a pretty bad idea on the guys part to do a bit on without outlining the gag first... the idea that some homeless person being assaulted being "less important" or "easier to joke about" than someone's ass being grabbed literally turned my stomach.
I do not think he was comparing the severities of the crimes directly, but the parameters of the 'experiments' that were performed. In the video about assaulting a homeless man he used as an example, the homeless man was an actor, and the audience was given that information right away. The experiment was not how the homeless man actor responded, but how random passers-by would react. Whereas, in the Sam Pepper video, so far as the audience knew, the women being groped or pinched were not in on the experiment: they were the targets/victims. This turned out not to be the case, however the audience is not made aware of the fact. Had Sam Pepper's video had the same structure as the one with the homeless man, it would have probably been okay. If he introduced it as, "I am going to be an assaulter, and this actress here is going to get groped, and we are going to see how people respond", I suspect there would be a lot less outrage about the video. Had the structure of the homeless person being assaulted had the structure of Sam Pepper's video - where the so-called pranksters randomly attacked actual, unwitting homeless people, then of course there would (or should) be outrage from the audience. I think that is one of the major points he was trying to make in the video - it's not the subject matter, but the structure in which the content is framed.
thetallaslint See, you read differently into what he said than I did. I see what he said as "If you were to make a video of this type (the one about the fake homeless people) about sexual assault, it wouldn't work well, because it's bad". Watching it again. That's the exact message I still get. He was saying that the homeless person video, while a better concept over-all, would still NOT WORK. Because it's "Worse" to pinch a woman's ass than it is to rob a homeless person.
I think this is a bad premise, presented eloquently. Yes, I understand that PBS-guy strives for criticism perfection, and humor perfection. What I take away from this though, is that behavior is regulated to Level: Thought-Police. That makes me kind of wary. PBS-guy's intentions are good I'm sure, but much humor has Barbs, needs barbs even, to be funny. Also any Criticism levelled at any topic, that has to be chewed over for long enough to be entirely inoffensive would become ineffective, is what I think.
First, I respect you immensely and I feel very strongly that this platform is yours to use so long as your agreement with RUclips, PBS, and whoever is kosher. Second, I concur. I learned a long time ago that how you intend something is not always as important as how it is perceived. Communication by default relies more on reception than transmission. Think of the Telephone game. Most of us have played it in our youth, and seen how every misconception along the way can completely change the message. And to those who say "so what" I offer this; if the end message is not important, what's the point of sending the message at all.
So you want criticism to be spoon-fed and never rely on the audience figuring it out by themselves? Why? Sam Pepper's reproduction seems to have done its intended job admirably - it provoked widespread discussion about harassment and sexism. Imho you make the mistake of viewing the video as a work of art (for lack of a better word) in itself, while indeed it is just one part of a larger work that actually includes not only the videos, but also the discussion it provoked and the final statement. That final statement is the whole point of it - you make people do something and then you hold up a mirror showing them what they are doing. Sam Pepper is British and in Europe, there is indeed a tradition of this specific sort of social criticism using a figurative mirror, dating back to the character of Till Eulenspiegel (who is partially named for this method of social criticism) from medieval Germany. That is not to say you can do no wrong with this method. What happened with HeForShe is a clear case of that going wrong by directly damaging somebody else's work.
shadaik because something is provoking it doesn't make it good or justifies the harm it created. Because of the Nazis and second world war, nationalism and hating jews is not as popular anymore, so you say it was worth it? we can say, okay that is one good thing that came out of it, but still the harm it created is written on another page. ( i know this is an extreme example but the point stands)
shadaik when someone tells his little sister that her dog is dead, and then she cries for an hour and he tells her, it was just a joke. that is horrible but controllable. If you do something like that where hundred thousand of people watch it only a tiny amount of people who hear about this or are offended will see the video where he explains it later. you can't crontrol it and can't tell everyone it was just a joke. the harm is done!
jonas samuel A social experiment is not a joke. It's not supposed to be funny, it's supposed to make you think. It may or may not be funny, but that is not the point of it. The point is to make you do something and then get you to think about what you've just done and reconsider if maybe you can find a flaw in your own actions. Using the example of Sam Pepper, that flaw was everyday sexism influencing our perceptions of sexual harassment as being bad only when done to women. You would have a point if those harassed in the videos would not have been actors. Such things should not harm people, and this one didn't. Did it do harm to the discussion at large? I don't think so, it broadened its scope and pointed to a problem in the discussion, so that those participating could recognize the flaw and thus improve their actions and/or perception and/or thinking.
I might not contribute to anything, but I think that the use of humor to make social criticism it's the best way: humor helps relieve tension in matters people are not willing or afraid to change. Though it's important to distinct between mocking and using real humor, since mocking it's no real criticism, it just stays at pointing something "is bad" but doesn't "explain" why. I really think this way of social criticism is really powerful because of Colombian's political humorist Jaime Garzon who won a lot of acceptance and affection from the people in general and even after 15 years of his murder people recognize him as someone brilliant and who helped a lot people realize what was happening in the country in the 90's.
So when you're making jokes about sensitive subjects, pals before portents?
(Gonna talk about my experience being sexually assaulted, mild trigger warning I guess.) The impetus behind Sam Pepper's videos was kind of misguided anyway because he thought that by gender-flipping an assault scenario you'd get some kind of insight, but that's not always possible: I was sexually assaulted once by a woman while I was working in a bar, she grabbed my butt and my crotch repeatedly, and I didn't actually think that much of it at the time. Later on I realised it was technically sexual assault but I still wasn't hugely phased by it, and thought 'What's the big deal?' It was a little uncomfortable but I didn't think about bringing charges or even telling anyone. I also realised that had been the other way round I would have been in big trouble!
But then I realised why mentally gender-swapping it doesn't work - I wasn't phased by that girl assaulting me because I'm six foot 1 and I weigh 85kg. On average (average!) men are physically stronger than average women, and in this case that average held true so the situation was very unlikely to develop into one I was unable to control, but not everyone is that lucky! I was also aware that the majority of rapes and violent sexual assaults are perpetrated by men against women, so I knew that the situation was statistically unlikely to get really bad. So I had significant male privilege on my side. Obviously I'm not denying that assault by women on men happens or saying it's not just as much a violation of bodily autonomy, but that privileged position is why when women get assaulted it's not often helpful for us guys to gender-flip it in our heads: there's important context that affects the mindset of the victim that doesn't get transferred over by just swapping the gender of the assaulter in your imaginary scenario or your "social experiment" or whatever.
I got grabbed by a guy while working in a bar - sounds like a similar scenario. Didn't really care. I think a lot of this conversation's marred by a stench of 'how it is for women' and 'how it is for men'. If we could show that 25% more women than men react to something in a particular way then that's interesting but 25% more isn't enough to talk about 'how women experience things', even on average.
Good for you that it didn't phase you, but I fail to see what the point is. Does the fact that it didn't phase you mean that other men should't be phased by it either? Because that is exactly the problem with sexual assault against men; people feel that it isn't a problem and that men should just deal with it. There are plenty of men who wouldn't have felt very different from you had they been in the same situation but they can't really go anymore because there assault isn't being taken serious. So you where bigger than this women, you weight more, does this mean that it is just assault if you are bigger and heavier than the other person? So you felt safe because you thought you could have handled her had this become any worse, does that mean we should allow assault if it is a reasonable assumption that the other personmwould beat you in a fight? Just because you could win in a normal fight doesn't mean you could handle beung attacked, you could have a blackbelt in karate and still freeze in sheer panick when sexually assaulted. The fact that you personally didn't have a problem with "technically" being assaulted doesn't add much to the discussion. It just means that both you and your assaulter were kucky that day, it means that you can consider yourself lucky for being part of what probably is the the majority of men who feel they can't be assaulted. However teling this stroy also mesns you are a little bit part of te problem, because it shows a lack of empathy for all the men who have been assaulted and felt worse for it. Men, who after beinv assaulted, had nowhere to go to. Nobody to complain to, because they felt they would be huminalted for complaining about assault or who actually were huminalted for being assaulted. Being turned into the laughingstock after something horrendous happened to you is no laughing matter. I csn't help but conclude that those videos served their purpuse, they once again showed men being assaulted is not viewed as a crime by an alarming number of people.
But good for you that you didn't feel phased by something that could have just as easily crushed what in your opinion is probably a lesser man. I'm sure your story brings hope to all those men who were assaulted and still have nowhere to go with their own story.
DhrAaldert What on earth are you on about? PhilosophyTube was pretty clear about his point, which was fairly limited in scope: It's often misguided to "gender swap" sexual assault scenarios because of "important context that affects the mindset of the victim that doesn't get transferred over" when swapping genders.
In addition, he never said or implied that men who had different experiences of sexual assault are "lesser". It's pretty ridiculous to read his story and suggest that his telling implies a lack of empathy for male survivors of sexual violence.
***** My point was that his point was very much beside the point. The original problem that Sam Pepper tried to address is the fact that when sexual assault happens to men, people don't take it seriously. Him not being phased by it is his individual reaction which comes from him as a person and not him as a male. I mean, girls can be bigger and heavier than their assaulter and I don't see anyone claiming it's not a big deal for them. His statics "privilege" argument is also ridiculous, and offensive to both male victims of sexual assault and mathematicians. Yes, statistically women get assaulted a lot more than men (keep in mind though that the numbers are skewed because most men don't report it when it happens to them. If they did it would still be more, but the margin would be way smaller). But the changes of a specific individual being raped/assaulted are also very very small. Statistically as a specific individual woman you’re very unlikely to get raped, but when somebody does start to grope you, you aren’t going to think “Well, the chances of me being raped today are slim to none”. Also, the fact that a type of crime happens more often to a different group of people is little comfort when it does happen to you.
Do you want important context? A man gets raped, but when he goes to the police to press charges, they laugh at him, they tell him it is not a big deal. It’s not a crime and he should in fact consider himself lucky. He can’t tell his friends what happened either because he will get a similar reaction. Not only did something terrible happen to the guy, but he can’t go anywhere and he feels smaller and smaller everyday thinking about it. A person broken for a life with no chance of getting justice because too many people don’t consider it a crime
That is the context everybody forgets when they gender flip it.
DhrAaldert
I don't know about your friends, but if I told mine I was raped, I don't believe they'd laugh at me. I choose friends more carefully than that.
It's funny how you're disguising support for Sam Pepper as some kind of giant disagreement with PhilosophyTube on a pretty strange notion. What he was originally pointing out is that the psychological variables of the situation always affects the way the victim is going to react, and therefore you don't always get an appreciation of what it's like simply by putting yourself in the situation. There are many variables that need to be taken into account. In this way, psychologically someone who is physically able to withstand an unwanted assaulter is probably going to be less traumatized than someone who experiences actual imminent danger for his or her self. It's kind of hard to see why you would argue with this. Of course, he could have also pointed out that it can be very difficult for men in a different way; say, if you're assaulted by your boss and have no authority to stand up to him/her and might risk losing your job over doing so, this is probably going to affect you psychologically in a serious manner, much unlike the general annoyance of getting groped by a stranger in a bar. As a man, this would understandably be more difficult to talk about, because this is something that is far more rarely seen and discussed in public, and the general experience of being sexually exploited is indeed often considered an impossible feeling for men - we are generally portrayed as though we should react to such an experience with an exclamation of "hell yeah, I'm gonna get some tits!". Which isn't necessarily true of all or even most of us.
The problem I see with your post is that you're actually telling PhilosophyTube that his reaction to the situation he told you about was WRONG. He gave his experience of a situation, explained his feelings based on several important psychological aspects that affected his experience, and you're telling him he's WRONG? That he's part of "the problem"? No, dude, that's just... not cool. What he did was point out how psychological variables might affect one's reaction to harassment - THE SAME EXACT POINT you were trying to make, except you were using other variables as examples. So yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really see your point.
All these people saying "this isn't your place" to comment - just please be aware, I've never watched your videos with more attention and interest. What you're saying is good and right - and you should keep saying it.
Fantastic episode, man. Heck, the last few minutes are thoughts I quite regularly express to fellow comedians. That part about "all topics should be open to comedy, but the darker the territory, the more skill it takes as a comedian to handle it responsibly" is something I've told people countless times. I even use Dave Chappelle as an example quite frequently. It doesn't make me a very popular person, because that puts me neither in the "fuck the sensitive crybabies" camp, nor the "sensitive topics are never funny" camp, yet I stand by that opinion.
Fuck the sensitive crybabies...
#gamergate
This reminds me of the theatre theorist and practitioner Augusto Boal. He created a system called "Theatre of the Oppressed" which was designed to arouse social consciousness by breaking down the boundaries of theatre. He was interested not in showing criticism on stage, but instead using "spect-actors", the audience as the actors, to work through ways to solve their oppression on stage, in real time, using improvisation. But what I think most applies to this discussion is a technique he used called "Invisible Theatre". In Invisible Theatre, a group of actors portrays an oppression, in public, with the goal of getting the spectators, normal people on the street, to involve themselves. The hope is that they can show this oppression, get someone to involve themselves in defeating this oppression, and then walk away and no one will ever know it was staged. This raises all sorts of moral questions, very much in the vein of this video. If it is done "correctly" then anyone who witnessed it will see that when someone stands up to this oppression, it can end it. But, in my experience of doing it and reading about it, it can take a long time and a build to a hyperbolic level by the oppressor before someone steps in. When it comes to things like racism, sexism, or assault, does this help or hurt? Part of the point of having all of the original participants be actors working together is that they can agree on a script of sorts. Both sides have their bullet points of argument, and so the victim gets to, without fear, argue their side and confront their oppressor. But it still ends up being, for all intents and purposes, a representation of the oppression with little support or framework for a better discussion of the criticism. Boal has a lot of other styles of Theatre of the Oppressed that deal with these issues in much better ways, but I just wanted to share this discussion that occurs in the theatrical field around these issues.
Mike, this might be the most articulate video yet on an already very articulate channel. I think I love you for 1:00 - 2:10 alone: two very thorough take-downs of two absolutely bullshit yet staggeringly common lines of criticism.
The explanation of the extreme difficulty of successfully making jokes about dark/sensitive subjects is also particularly good. I think that proponents of absolute free speech in comedy often miss a few key points: 1) just because you can make a joke about something doesn't mean it will be funny; 2) just because you *can* make a joke about something doesn't mean you *should* in a given context; and 3) the fact that you were attempting to make a joke does not necessarily absolve you from being an asshole.
MMMMmmmmmm no. A joke is a joke. Nothing should be off limits. Humor us object. Choose to find it funny or not. Choose to be offended or not. It's that simple.
Tyler Eschberger I agree with you but, of course, other people are then equally free to judge/deride that joke or voice their displeasure with the comedian for telling it. Free speech is a two-way street.
Tyler Eschberger
He didn't say the opposite of what you said, he just pointed out some observations about why people could find your joke funny or offensive. Nobody is saying he can't make the joke, they're saying he sucks at making jokes.
You say "A joke is a joke". And what is a joke? Anything? I could do whatever I want and say it is a joke and it'll be fine?
Yes.
Tyler Eschberger I'm not saying anything is off-limits, but just because you make a joke doesn't mean it's funny, and I don't think saying "it was a joke" is a criticism-proof shield.
To those who said that it's not Idea channel's place to comment on these type of things, I would say that these are EXACTLY the things Idea channel is supposed to comment on. At this point it is almost their responsibility to create discussion around these events. Whether or not you agree with the opinions displayed on this channel, it doesn't matter. The point is you comment and discuss, whether you agree or not. This is why I love this channel so much, because they make me think about how I feel about different issues, serious or not.
The pacing of anything matters. Be it composing music or teaching a lesson plan, you cannot generate an emotion in the beginning and then pull the rug out. Or, worse, generate an emotion, let it fester, and then challenge it.
If I'm teaching a class on the vocabulary of race, a good way to start the class would be, "I'm going to use a very foul word. How would you feel if someone said n*g**r?"
I would not say, "I saw that a n*g**r robbed someone at the store, ain't that a shame. Friggin n*g**rs." and then, after the students are emotional locked up, tell them I was joking and ask them to discuss an issue rationally.
Or worse, I won't finish a class by saying, "I guess next time we have to talk about n*g**rs. See you in two days" then wait two days and then hope a discussion will ensue. I would absolutely lose my job.
If you want a discussion of an issue, make it clear that's what supposed to happen. That way, when people feel emotions, their mind is already in a place of "Hey, this is going to have all the feels, so focus and work through them." If you start by slamming someone with an emotion, they may never be able to effectively discuss it, and may pull away, run away or retaliate.
Quickly, the other problem on RUclips is that we don't know context. If it's a TedTalk, I'm getting ready for feelings. In a sociology class, I know I may feel shame or be in struggle. At a concert, I have prepared myself for the idea that this is a concert.
An essentially random RUclips video has no context. I could not possibly know what the intention or context is, therefore I won't be able to effectively engage.
Mr. Rize AG I will say it in a discussion of the word, but won't type it out online.
Seth Waters I didn't ask.
Mr. Rize AG I know, I was simply making my reasoning clear. I'm not going to type out that word.
Unless I'm writing a novel set in a time when it is vital for a character to say that to be accurate, in which case I will.
Mr. Rize AG Voldemort
***** There is a line. You have crossed it.
I really appreciate that you make a space on Idea Channel for your personal feelings and emotional responses to the content that you discuss, and I'm glad that you're not backing down in the face of the backlash that you receive for it. I see a lot of comments urging you to be "professionally neutral" and that your opinion is "inappropriate," but I don't think it's possible for any sort of social commentary to be neutral (tho it is possible to be nuanced and balanced, and I think you guys do a good job of that). All academic and creative work (really all work) is made by thinking feeling people with emotions and stakes in that work, and it would be dishonest to pretend that you're not affected by the things you talk about. The issues that you discuss aren't just abstract ideas to sit around and ponder - they have material emotional consequences for people's lives, and that is important. Thank you for drawing attention to that. Keep up the good work!
Agreed. +1
The Wolf of Wall Street is an interesting case. That's a movie that put a whole lot of trust in the audience to understand that it's depiction of hedonism, greed, and excess is meant as criticism. And not just clean "this is bad" criticism either. I think the *strength* of that film is how it depicts all of this despicable behavior as what it would be -- incredibly, horribly fun. And then it goes even further by showing that after all their crazy behavior, we reward them socially as being smart, savvy business men for what they did.
The fact that they are hurting the people around them is brushed over rather quickly, and the fact that they are hurting people they don't know even more severely with their greed is just a subtext we bring to the film and only acknowledge in passing when the story needs to change gears.
BUT! That's what makes it great social criticism, it get really deep into both the absurdity and the terrifying reality that their behavior looks both morally disgusting and like a good time. We start to GET how it can happen, rather than simply blame.
Maybe Pepper created a woefully worse work of criticism. It wasn't nuanced, and maybe wasn't totally thought through... but maybe we also just don't respect youtube and a creative medium in the same way.
Like, I can imagine a similar set of videos which are created in a way we more closely associate with art-- nicer cameras, lighting, ect. and I can't help but imagine that if that's what Pepper had made, none of the backlash would have happened and it WOULD have been seen as criticism.
But then his only mistake was using low-quality tools?
I don't know!
Never thought of the Wolf of Wallstreet in that way, but I think I should try watching it again because of your commentary, thanks!
I strongly disagree that depiction and then criticism is bad. If you start out by framing an action as bad, you immediately lose the audience who probably needs to hear the message the most. Two examples: Pinocchio, where even though Jiminy Cricket keeps telling him it's wrong to do all those stuff, we understand why Pinocchio would chose those "fun" activities instead of school. Later we see the consequences, but for them to have any effect on the audience, they need to empathize with Pinocchio first.
The second one is one of my favorite recent games, Spec. Ops: The Line. It starts out like a regular military "war is fun and heroic" shooter and then turns the audience's expectations on its head and brutally show why all this is wrong, why the make-believe "let's go to war for honor and heroism, yay!" attitude is total BS. But if it was upfront about it, the typical CoD / Battlefield audience would never have touched it. (eve if this anti-was angle and its "mechanics as metaphor" approach were what got me interested, but I'm very anti-war to begin with).
Nathan Hawks
Okay, fair enough. But I can literally not name any such examples where the message is "after the show". Aside from maybe this Sam Pepper social experiment thing.
Nathan Hawks I'm a bit offended by you and Mike calling the portion of the story where the moral lesson is imparted the "responsible" bit. Why is it irresponsible to have morally ambiguous content with no clear lesson? Because if Breaking Bad's writers don't tell us what is right or wrong, who knows what we will think? As if it is always so clear what is right and wrong in the first place? Come on. I've gained more philosophical insights discussing the ethical implications of Walter White's actions with my friends than I would ever learn watching some after school special about the dangers of the drug trade. Adult entertainment SHOULD be morally ambiguous, because it takes an adult to watch then think for himself. Shame on anyone that thinks "responsible" social criticism can only be made by treating the audience like children.
Nathan Hawks Dexter as a show didn't take years to give its audience each and any message. If certain people watched it because they just love psychopaths killing each other, then alright, they probably didn't get any message from it. However, you start getting the point by the time Dexter's life starts revolving around chaos and hurting everyone around him. Yes, it's the end that sums it up and draws the final conclusion from his point of view, but we already understand that his choices ruined the people that surrounded him, even though he sometimes tried to make things right or do the right thing in the first place. It was morally complex and many things were to be deciphered, for example, you didn't need to watch the whole show to understand how the world is full of full-time liars.
yesss!
A funny version of the improvised, man-on-the street sexual assault gag isn't ever going to be possible. I think the key aspect that precludes it from ever being anything other than inappropriate is the requirement for *consent.* Going up to strangers (women especially) and touching them without their permission will never be funny because it is the definition of assault. It's reproduction without any commentary. The prank is framed in the same context as an instance of real sexual assault. If the series events is:
A) Groped by a stranger
B) Feeling panicked or traumatized
C) Being reassured it's been staged for comedic effect
The context of comedy (C) doesn't erase A & B. The experience of being assaulted is still there.
I really appreciate that you decided to talk about the Sam Pepper debacle and follow up with this video, because the responses of creators and viewers have been so varied and there's been kind of a low quality of discourse on the subject, at least among viewers, which only gets worse when creators are silent. Generally a low quality of discourse is just what you expect from the internet when anything happens, but I think in this case it's actually hurting a number of people and the lessons we should be learning from all of this are getting lost. Based on what I've seen in comments and on Tumblr and Twitter, there are-underneath the very vocal support and opposition of sexual offenders on RUclips-a lot of fans or former fans who are uncertain as to where they stand on the issue(s) and who they ought to be supporting and how much "punishment" people like Alex Day and Jason need to serve and why it's better to shut them out of the community and "why nobody will listen to Alex about how he's changed" and how angry or not angry they're supposed to be, etc. To me, this says we haven't done a good enough job of talking about it. There are a lot of young people being affected by this and the last thing we want is for a sizable chunk of those people to not understand what's going on and start seeing people like Sam and Jason and Alex as victims, which is what's happening now. I don't blame people who knew any of these creators personally for not wanting to talk about it, and many have made videos anyway expressing their thoughts on the subject, which is good and I'm grateful to those who have. But the message isn't getting through to everyone, and that worries me. Anyway, thank you for making this video, because you've done a very good job of explaining why Sam Pepper's videos were not a social experiment and I expect it will help make things much clearer at least in that area.
I believe comedy is fair game in every situation. I recently watch Gabriel Iglesia's Aloha Fluffy where Gabriel Iglesias talks about his trip to Saudi Arabia.(Ir'a on his RUclips channel if you want to watch it yourself) He (and myself) was surprised to find out that Jeff Dunham was actually the #1 most popular comedian in the region regardless. The Saudi people found Jeff Dunham's Ahmed the Dead Terrorist character funny even though they understood that Ahned was the Middle Eastern stereotype from the American perspective.
To a much smaller degree, I see something like this in my groups of friends. Just today my friends and I (three Caucasians, one Indian, one black guy, and one Latino) were joking around poking fun at racist stereotypes. We all acknowledge the racism, and the way that combat its ignorance is by being able to laugh about it. My mentality is that if a bigot insults you, but you take no offense, then there's nothing to be said.
The main problem that arises when using a medium such as RUclips (or any social media) to make a point is that you'll be faced with two obstacles. One obstacle is simple and straight forward, no matter how eloquent you are, everyone will not understand what you're trying to say. The other one is that people like to stir up trouble and will attempt to troll.
There are extremists in every mentality who will find something wrong with anything that you say. It's a big problem that I can't say something like "I love steak." without an extremist telling me that I'm wrong for eating flesh.
TL;DR - There's no way to please all the people all the time. It's difficult to even please some of the people some of the time.
I think the key thing about Sam Pepper's video was the word prank. The connotation of prank means nothing serious, just joking around, no big deal, which is exactly what sexual assault is not. And the thing about censorship is, it is hiding away something that certain people don't want others to see, and to discuss about, when taking a video down on RUclips or another platform, where there are set rules, norms that everyone follows, and it is discussed, it is clear to all that what should be taken down does not follow those rules. Of course there could be times when that is not fully talked about, but in the case of the Sam Pepper video, most people agree.
One problem with the "social experiment" claim is that Sam Pepper never gave a hypothesis. He claimed he wanted to see how the audience react, but he never said what he expected. Did he think people would look away, or that we'd get all outraged at it?
And that's all putting aside the question of whether it *was* a social experiment or just Sam Pepper being an asshat and trying to cover up his mistake. I'm convinced it was Option B.
Assuming Sam Pepper was being truthful about his intentions, then the social experience he was criticizing was NOT sexual assault on women and men. It was more precisely, the differing media reaction to publically showcased sexual assault on women and men. By that framing, Pepper was doing his criticism at the same time as his reproduction, because he was criticizing the reaction that media had to his portrayal.
"I will stand by the utility of laughter as a healing method and a tool to show audiences just how awful the world can really be."
I think this is my favorite channel on RUclips. Thank you very much for saying this, it is a very important idea to me and you represented it well.
This is why I love doing game criticism . I treat gaming as an art form and get to analyze the style, track the themes, and read into subtext to see the more subtle story elements.
Bioshock's portrayal of a world filled with self centered genius rotting itself from the inside, Mass Effect telling us "good or bad, we all end the same", or even Portal teaching that life really is one long test.
Good criticism is an art, and I really hope I do my part in gaming justice.
To the point you opened with, I think people making that whole "RAAH CENSORHIP!" argument not only forget that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of speech (as you articulated), but it also does not mean that anybody owes them a platform or attention. People are free to say all of the terrible, hurtful things that they want to say, but nobody else is obligated to (a) enable/proflierate that speech - or - (b) acknowledge/support that speech. Responding to criticism with "BUT CENSORSHIP!" is the intellectual equivalent of a child destroying their friend's toy and then accusing the friend of not sharing when their friend reclaims their property.
All of this, in turn, extends to criticism itself. In much the same way that RUclips doesn't owe anyone the space to share their destructive views, no content creator is obligated to allow damaging responses in their comments section. If you have moderator controls over a space then you are similarly entitled to say, "No, this kind of speech will not be tolerated here." (I'm thinking specifically of people who have chosen to delete comments defending sex offenders, but there are countless other examples.) Again, it's not about censorship, it's about keeping your own house clean and telling people that they aren't allowed to urinate on your floors. They can go find their own floor to pee on if that's their jam.
Thank you for this episode, dude. I just spent the last week having conversations with people trying to explain this to them.
I don't always agree with everything you say, but man do I respect your thoughtfulness and the fact that you're open to intelligent discussion and even being corrected on a mistake. I really appreciate that you understand the power behind and inherent responsibility in media creation. You, for the most part, seem to have a really good grasp on the intricacies and differences between pontificating your political views, simply not hiding them, and talking about basic morality and human dignity. Even though I generally don't subscribe and don't stay subscribed to channels like this, you're kind of winning me over. I guess we'll see when I run out of your videos. :P
Here's an idea. "What you find to be offensive maybe be funny to someone else." People find things funny for multiple reasons. When a person laughs at a very tragic or disturbing event, it doesn't mean they condone it. In fact it could mean they condemn it but find the event to be so wrong, that they laugh at it.
*Confession that will make me unpopular to a lot of people: I subscribe to the You Tube channel Feminist Frequency. I had my partner sit down and watch one of their most recent video's "Women as background decorations." (this is a critical look at female non-playable characters as objects on whom violence, often sexual, is perpetrated with the sole purpose of conveying a "dark and gritty" atmosphere) His response was "that was a waste of time." I was really upset and we had a very heated discussion about the portrayal of women (particularity npcs) in video games. One thing that came up, and I couldn't seem to express very well was that portraying something violent doesn't make people just go out and do that thing but it does often normalizes it or aspects of it.
This has put me in a very nuanced position in that I don't think games make people become violent but I do think normalizing violence against groups that are in the real world often the real victims of assault is irresponsible. You made a very brief allusion to that and I would love a more in depth look at that idea. Just an idea or maybe more so a request. Thanks.
It's nice to have a RUclips show that really makes me think and challenges my ideas. Disappearing or not, I've got alot of these to catch up on. Cheers :)
It is so important that we recognize the responsibility of the creator for the media they make. I feel like the internet has really put a magnifying glass on this issue. If only because anyone can make a video or post about anything and put it up for public viewing by millions of people. This gives us a larger understanding of how we think as a culture. And how to handle such issues. To write off videos (like Sam Pepper's) as their right to free speech or just a "social experiment" is not okay. People are not infallible. We make mistakes regularly but I'd also like to think that we can learn from them. And the only way we'll know is to speak out loud when something is not acceptable. This video is a blessing for having pointed that out.
***** Not at all, I'm talking about the opposite. The person who made the content is responsible for the things they say and make. As a viewer, pointing out moral groundings (as he stated a minute into the video) is not censorship. The creator shouldn't be judged in an isolated group of people within that media. It should be discussed by the people as a whole. That's how we as a culture learn.
I definitely think this could apply to Game of Thrones. People often talk about how the show's sex and violence and (possible) racism is contextual but there reaches a point when it is just gratuitous.
"None of those videos are on RUclips anymore."
This offends me more than the content of the videos that where removed.
Thank you. As much as I like to say I am desensitized to these sort of videos, it is not often you are able to witness a social experiment with no consequences, lest you go make your own and risk getting arrested.
On the other hand, I have an unlimited amount of time on my hands, as do the people writing comments on this video. Entertainment (I am using this term in my own perspective) such as this social experiment are nothing more than interesting scenes that you simply cannot witness on your own. When I sit down to watch a video like the one featuring Sam Pepper, it equivalates to me than nothing more than a skit comedy performed by SNL.
RUclips or any social platform used by a large percentile of the internet, sacrifice their own profits by taking these viral videos down. I don't just speak for myself when I say I would be willing to sit through a million dollar advertisement about laundry detergent, just to see both sexes harassed in a social experiment.
Hey, been watching for awhile, decided to comment for the first time since I've thought about this myself.
Usually when people talk about "anything can be made into a joke" they like to mention George Carlin, my response is usually "Yeah... but you're not George Carlin."
I think that's important to remember for anyone who ever wants to be a comedian. George could make anything funny because he was a master comedian, he knew what he was doing, so anyone who wants to touch on more darker topics better understand that they have to put on their A game, and even then. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
This reminded me about an idea that John Green brings up a lot, as it is relevant to his writing: The author's intent doesn't matter. What matters is how the audience interprets the product. I think the Idea Channel also has a video on something like this. I agree entirely. It doesn't matter that Sam Pepper had some grand scheme in mind, or if it was him trying to save his own ass. It matters that, collectively, people all over the world agreed that it was sexual assault, and that his videos were wrong.
And there is no room for debate. His videos were wrong.
***** Yep, that's it. Thanks, I'd forgotten what it was called.
If the people involved were actors, it was *not* sexual assault. That is not to be decided by the audience; it is a fact of reality.
Well, as I bring up in another comment, does that not exonerate Sam Pepper from having to face the consequences?
How can a content creator be held responsible for the interpretation of their work if their intent does not matter? That is the same as saying that the manufacturer of a car is responsible for the actions of a drunk driver.
The idea of the author of a work not having a privileged position is one of the few areas where I strongly disagree with John Green. IMO, it is an example of extremely oversimplistic thinking.
In the case of Sam Pepper, let's just assume for the moment that he was genuine in intention. Obviously his execution was poorly thought out and the end result disastrous. That might be compared to a gun manufacturer being at least somewhat culpable for a shooting even if the intent was to make rifles exclusively for hunting.
If we take the position that the creator's intent has no special meaning, then they definitionally cannot be held responsible for what people do with that work. This is the argument the NRA makes when they say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Clearly this is not a simple, binary answer. Just like our legal system has to consider shades of gray in the balance of responsibility between the manufacture of a device and the personal responsibility of the end user, we have to think of free speech the same way.
Clearly the intent of the creator is privileged to some extent. Look at how people interact with media. The vast, vast majority of them want to know what the intent of the creator was. Conversely, it is correct that a creators intent is not the only valid viewpoint. The truth is that the world exists somewhere between those two poles. The creator's intent is important and is usually the most important prism through which to interpret the work. However, it is entirely valid for other viewpoints to have merit and sometimes even supplant the creator's.
Let's make another example. A singer writes a patriotic song celebrating the culture and people of the country they live in. A disaffected, angry person hears it and it inspires them to beat an immigrant worker to death. Is the singer then responsible for that death?
If the song were a "Born in the USA" style song, then most people would probably agree that the creator is free of responsibility. Clearly that was a listener taking a pathological interpretation of the song and the result is purely their responsibility.
However, if the song were part of the "turbo-folk" movement in pre-civil-war Yugoslavia, where the songs glorified Serbian military conquests and the villainy of the Bosnians and muslims, it's a very different situation. Even if the song did not explicitly call for war, the turbo-folk movement is widely cited as one of the major driving forces that incited the Serbian population to start committing the atrocities that followed. Likewise, our hypothetical singer now has at least some blood on their hands.
We can't just say that the creator of a work is completely responsible or disconnected from their work. That sort of black and white interpretation is silly. In the case of Sam Pepper, the intent does matter. The question is how much does it matter? I would argue in this case, his intent does not show a lot of deep thought or value as a commentary. Its value as commentary is outweighed by the negative aspects of the work. However, just because it is distasteful and poorly executed does not mean we can wholesale ignore his intent.
No, there most certainly is room for debate. To claim otherwise is just closed-minded.
Nulono
But they weren't actors so what are we debating for now??
As someone who is not american and was not born or lived in the US but followed your media and culture all my life (38 years so far) it amazes me how extreme people in the US can be about this politically correctness and free speech.
You will crucify a white guy making racist jokes but it’s ok for a black man to do it, you will applaud a woman being sexist towards men but bully (rightly) a guy doing the same.
There is an inherit problem in US media and culture and it’s the double standard, why would some people defend their right for opinion but try to censor others?
I agree but the worst part is US media is influencing non-US media and nowadays everything is so PC. Hence why a sexist joke or a racist joke isn't a bad thing. Media would treat the sexist joke, dear this is the living room the Kitchen is the other way around, as if it was anything but a joke. In my country it has gone so far now that, we can't say the name of one of our most popular cookie, but must describe it in terms of it's content. It is called Negro ball, because they are brown and made from cocoa, coffee, oats, butter and sugar. Oh sure it's sounds racist... but then Gingerbread is considered racist as well.
We live in a fucked up world.
Jokes can be "racist" and "sexist" if told well and in context. it's a craft, if your not good at it then don't do it. Take a look at family guy cartoons, no one has crucified Seth MacFarlane but they walk that fine line between funny and offensive. What about Tosh.0, whoa its a bit racy take a look at these shows. So I don't think it's a poor white comedian situation but a quality of comedy versus lack of talent or just plain being mean that is the issue.
I deeply appreciate you criticizing Sam Pepper and I DO think it is your place. The reason so many people are writing long essays saying, "This isn't the appropriate venue," is they came here expecting fluffy fun and were instead forced to question themselves and their own sexist asshattery. To all those commenters here who would rather let women get groped and assaulted than be inconvenienced for FIVE FUCKING MINUTES OF THEIR LIVES by *THINKING* about how women get groped and assaulted, I give you the middle finger, once, and again, and forever. Thank you Idea Channel for standing up for women and our rights!!!!
That feel when people laughed at men getting molested.
" A lot of preps stared at me. I put up my middle finger at them."
Since when is idea channel a venue for 'fluffy fun'??
It's mostly a place for drawing bizarre connections and trying to stretch metaphors and sometimes critique of certain media...
All the SJWs are attacking sam pepper and it isn't the kind of video usually on this channel.
Also, Mike said that the content creator is related to the audience in that they have to prevent a disconnect, which is very much the case here.
"The reason so many people are writing long essays saying, "This isn't the appropriate venue," is they came here expecting fluffy fun and were instead forced to question themselves and their own sexist asshattery"
The fact that this exact argument works *so* well to defend Sam's video against Mike's critisism is so incredibly and amusingly ironic that I coudn't help myself from leaving this late reply
Ethics in social research online is something we're going to need to tackle this decade because it's almost impossible to moderate or enforce currently. The somewhat recent example of facebook's mood altering experiments is a sign of the times, and a sign that we need to reign in the frontier of the internet.
Great job, Mike. It wasn't perfect, but this is such a shitty, difficult, and incredibly important topic to cover that I'm really grateful that it's your imperative to do so. Masculinity is, to me, the biggest thing we as a culture, and a species, need to unpack. It affects all of our relationships: racial, class, and gender; national, governmental, professional, international; our relationships with ourselves. The more empathy and respect we can generate on all fronts, the closer we'll get to something that looks like progress.
How very sexist of you...
Are you low on testosterone or just repressing your feelings?
#gamergate
Drew Gaughan I'm sorry you feel that way. As an empirical question: Do you feel like you were compelled to say something because my words seemed like an attack? Gamergate could actually lead to some fascinating reframings of sexism, but only if there's some real discourse. If trolls are the only ones showing up to the party, it's hard to call that an adequate defense of masculinity as it stands. Anyway, I'd be glad to hear more if you want to say more.
***** Hey, I think you had another reply earlier that I can't see now that I'm on this page. You have some interesting points about gender's role if it's a social construct that it'd be great to hear more of if you'd still like to post it here.
***** I can't say I have a definite answer for you; I'd love to hear what you think, or what your experiences point to. It can look like a lot of different things in different places. In my experience, to really step back, it means that people who look physically male are generally given more authority and credibility as a matter of course, and have more leeway when it comes to looking beautiful. They're expected to exhibit aggressiveness, and sometimes violent tendencies. They're expected to exemplify strength, and expected to be better at leading. I think that when we say that masculinity is a construct, we mean that it's silly to apply these expectations universally to people with particular sex organs.
Here's what Planned Parenthood thinks: www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientation-gender/gender-gender-identity
Here's what I'd consider a masculine perspective:
www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/07/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/
I don't know much about this organization, but they seem to have a vested interest in the question:
genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/femininities.html
And here's an example of what unpacking might look like:
www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-masculinity-in-crisis-9096561.html
Jason Eckenroth I'd say masculinity is a natural consequence of testosterone mixed with the natural formation of gender roles in nearly all societies across the world. I wonder if feminists have ever though that (while unnecessary now) gender roles were prevalent in society simply out of convenience brought on by superior strength of males and nurturing nature of females? I doubt that gender roles were made as a system of oppression or else they wouldn't have existed everywhere in the world and for as long as they have. Going back to masculinity, yes there will always be exceptions where some males are more feminine and some females are more masculine but if 95% of males take on masculine traits and 95% of females take on feminine traits all across the world it's probably more than a coincidence.
FYI: I don't know you're personal beliefs but the SJW Social Reconstruction Project is ridiculed because it involves calling half of the world's population evil for being masculine. Real feminism is done in the Western World, now we need to move on to true equality (ie. abortion rights, fathers' rights to custody etc.)
BTW: Look at the case of John Money and David Reimer and see what unnaturally changing someone's personality and gender will do. I live happily knowing that John Money is rotting in Hell for what he did to that boy.
Good video but was pretty disgusted by the Daily Show clip. Completely and utterly downplays sexual assault on men and completely exaggerated the frequency of sexual assault on women.
Not to mention men face a system of guilty before innocent courts outside of the law now on american campuses for whatever claim made against them. They have the privilege of being kicked out of college with no degree and all of the student debt for not being able to defend themselves against a claim with no evidence in the first place. Better stay on the good sides of those perpetual victims.
Do you keep that in a file called "things_to_paste.TXT"?
Are you actually unaware that a third of women are sexually assaulted? Like, the Daily Show clip was 100000% accurate. To exaggerate the frequency of sexual assault on women you would have to live in another universe where it isn't happening ALL OF THE TIME like it is in the real world.
how can you be so sure that it exaggerates the frequency of sexual assault on women?
I would really, really have some credible sources about that but was unable to find them.
My fear is that lots of people (me included btw.) underestimate the true frequency of this sort of thing.
Welcome to the 2010's.
Im sorry.... what!? I think the problem is using sam pepper as an example, it wasnt a "social experiment" it was an excuse he used when people discovered what he does in his "prank videos". He retroactively changed the meaning to get out of hot water, it it were an experiment, how does it explain all his other videos?
It's the same issue with trolls. How do you make a statement that is inherently moronic, then come back on it as being trolling, or worse, expect others to see it as trolling, when really, unless you think every moron online is a troll, it's just their being morons.
I'm so glad you talked about what some people perceive as 'censorship'. Its so annoying that people try to do our say inflammatory things under the banner of free speech and think they can get away with no repercussions. Uh, no, people are allowed to react. And any private institution (including websites) can kick you out for bad behavior. It's their right.
I see what you mean. That's why all the racist rants in Tarantino movies always bother me. No one ever challenges them. They're not funny. They're not satyrical. They just make me uncomfortable. And yet no on ever seems that fussed about them.
They're supposed to make you uncomfortable, m8.
Just because you don't find them funny doesn't make that fact. Get over it. A joke's a joke and nothing more.
Mr. Rize AG Bingo! There's a reason why Tarantino puts the most awful rant of, say, Pulp Fiction into his own character's mouth.
Drew Gaughan"A joke's a joke" - Someone who isn't systemically oppressed.
Thing is jokes can reinforce social stereotypes which can be hurtful and even oppressive. Jokes that exclude certain groups can even create "us vs. them" mentalities that prevent rational discourse.
Once again, oversimplification of a complex issue leads to ignorance - not sure why I expected anything different from youtube comments.
But that's the whole point of the rant. You're supposed to feel uncomfortable and (in my opinion) contrast that feeling with how you felt when you watched people get killed. Likely trying to ask, "why did the racist stuff make me feel sick, but I felt little to nothing when I saw all those people die?"
*_THANK GOD_* YOU BROUGHT UP THE INTERNET'S TERMS OF SERVICE. Free speech isn't some magical shield, and not enough people realize that. I love your opinions in this.
There is a difference between "Freedom of Speech" and the "First Amendment" The first is a cultural value, the second is represents a limitation to govt authority. That's why RUclips's decision to delete Sam Pepper's videos for being offensive is legal and doesn't violate the First Amendment, but it does represent an affront to Free Speech on RUclips. I recommend reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty where he discusses how communities are harmed by silencing individual speech, even when what that person is saying is objectively wrong or morally repugnant.
Another point I think it's important to discuss is the matter of apologizing. Even when content creators try to do social criticism or humor responsibly, they'll get something wrong eventually. It happens, it's not the end of the world. However, it is incredibly important that they learn to apologize while completely understanding what they did wrong and growing from it. A half-hearted apology, or a dismissal of the people being offended, doesn't do anyone any good. If the creator doesn't feel they did anything offensive then they should explain why.
Thank you for articulating the thoughts I always had trouble with to put in words. I think this video is even more interesting in light of the terrorist attacks that happened in Paris a few weeks ago and the discussion of events in popular media and politics that followed (that especially, since 'freedom of expression' was practically thrown at anyone who felt uncomfortable about the reaction the journalists of Charlie Hebdo published after the attacks).
Is offense something we're not aloud to make people feel anymore? Is it really an our responsibility to tell our viewers what's normal and what isn't? I don't think so, and would argue that the problem here is a culture of faith in media. The viewer is expected to suspend their disbelief a bit to emerse themselves in an experience with any media, but it seems to me that many people just stay in a permanent state of completely suspended disbelief. If a viewer takes a portrayal of normality that is obviously not normal and incorporates it into their paradigm of reality, that's the viewers fault (or if the viewer is cognatively deficiant, ex: a child, their caretaker's fault), not the creators.
"the problem here is a culture of faith in media"
"many people just stay in a permanent state of completely suspended disbelief"
Do you mean to say is that this culture you are proposing is one where significant portion of the population are being encouraged & reinforced by cultural pressures to believe what the media tells them?
If that is the case, would that mean that members of this culture can be expected to take a given piece of media and make no effort to scrutinize or consider whether anything within that piece is non-normal whenever the piece of media makes no effort to indicate how non-normal the behavior exhibited actually are, even when the behavior exhibited is understood by the wider culture as usually harmful and therefore treated as such?
Yes, and I'm arguing that such a culture is the real problem, or at least more of a problem than irresponsible producers/creators.
Ron Burgundy Indeed that would be a greater overall problem.
But so long as that greater problem persists, would it not still be worth it for the social criticism to account for that portion of the population until the greater problem is resolved somehow?
I was under the impression that the aim of social criticism is to promote scrutiny of a given social norm or a social ill's origin in obsolete norms. Part of doing that effectively is understanding that the audience may need some clarification (not the condescending kind, mind you) in order for the words to actually communicate what was intended.
As such, failing to do so undermines any claim that the aim of the piece was to be both effective promotion of a responsible message *and* use deception, unaddressed reproduction of criticized behavior, or irony to entertain as well.
This undermining of the message might even give off the impression that the creator's aim wasn't to promote such a message but later figured out that they'll get more money/laughs/respect/whatever if they claim that the message was there all along. Actual incompetence may be mistaken for malice, and actual malice may be obfuscated by an unintentional implication of incompetence being passed off as the viewer's fault for misunderstanding what the creator didn't make clear.
I think that the deal with irresponsible producers/creators in the media as a whole as opposed to specifically youtube creators is something that can't be effectively addressed in any direct way. Pressuring media outlets to make it easier for parents/guardians to raise a child in the presence of media which doesn't take into account the child's limited cognition (nor could possibly do so without treating the rest of the audience like kids) appears to be the only way to go.
But who knows, maybe social media could be changing the scope of media criticism in places outside of youtube such that tastes for and tolerance of certain antiquated tropes will change too rapidly for producers/creators to rely on them in their works.
chaosvii For the most part I agree that being purposely deceptive can undermine a message, and I would also agree that it definitely undermines it when the producer has semi-obvious ulterior motives. That said, if Pepper's videos were a genuine attempt at social critisism (slim as that possibility may be), I'm not sure how he would gauge viewers responses without decieving them that what they were seeing was a real attempt at humor. If he would have uploaded the less inflamatory video first though then it wouldn't be seen as backpedaling and we might not be having this discussion, but even that would probably have been seen as an excuse to make the more inflamatory video.
Ultimately, I think it is children that people are really worried about being influenced, or at least I hope that's the case. While I'd like to argue that most children grow out of bad paradigms tought by any influence, and I believe most do, I do know that there are a significant minority that don't. That said, the responsibility for those children's views being scewed by media still falls on the parents/caretakers and not the producer. How the parents react to something is how the child will learn to react to it, and if the parents teach children how to react to bad influences, or to act sceptically to all influences, then their children can be better prepared than they may have been in a world of completely socially responsible media.
I totally agree. Well said.
Way to handle this issue Idea Channel. First criticism of this guy I've seen that hasn't been a sloppy, self-affirming cry fest. I always enjoy your careful and precise presentation of an argument. Well done.
I think responsible social criticism has a lot to do with how the media is digested.
When I first heard about ABC's show "Black-ish" was going to come out this fall, I was so angry and hurt. I have been told most of my life that I am “not a real black person”, “The whitest black guy”, or called an "Oreo", and a hand full of other micro-aggressions like that because of the way I talked and acted. The title of the show alone is saying "There is only one way to be black" and that upsets me. Don't get me wrong, I get what the show is about. There have been many shows featuring an African American family and what it means to be black in a predominately white neighborhood, and what it means for their culture (The Jeffersons, The Cosby Show, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Family Matters, just to name a few). However, all of these shows were about the families first, and they showed these black families as people, not just black roles. My major frustration with Black-ish is that it's an on going series that has a title that is enforcing a major micro-aggression that if you look and live like this, you're only kinda black.
If the show were instead a movie talking about race and what it means to be a black family in America and it were still called "Black-ish", I might not have a problem with it because the message and conversation about race would be clearly identified and taken in all at once.
I personally think that it's irresponsible social criticism because it's doing something harmful first in order to get to a message. I get the importance of culture, I get the importance of representation of race, I understand the importance of diving into the issue of race and what it means to be an ethnicity, but to me this is the wrong way to go about it.
I don't have anything meaningful or thoughtful to say but I do just want to thank you for this video. Also for using this platform to talk about things like the Sam Pepper incident which struck a very personal chord in me. It's so so SO important to talk about these things and understand how powerful media is. I don't know if people even realize it. We're so unaware of the influence that our media has on us. It influences us so subconsciously because of the way it's fed through us non-stop nowadays. It's almost impossible to get away from it all. So THANK YOU for this. It was so important to me to have you guys address this issue. I can hardly express it in words how important this was to me. Truly, from the bottom of my heart... thank you!!
As a creator, you should never fear going against popular opinion. Sometimes upsetting and offending the audience is precisely what is intended. It does not have to be displayed humorously. Showing REALITY, that there are heinous acts occurring today, may be the best method in expressing the problem. The reaction itself is all the commentary necessary. We are capable of drawing our own conclusions.
In this particular case, the social experiment was performed on the audience. If the audience knew of this beforehand, they would have reacted differently, thus ruining the results.
I agree. Real sexual harassment is bad. But if this truly was staged, nothing wrong has taken place. If not, the victims, RUclips and the legal system can handle it. Viewers of this video, however, should hold no power over it other than choosing not to watch it. Of course they are free to complain.
Tory Steller You seem to put a ton of faith in RUclips. Even if the author should not have fear of popular opinion, he/she should have fear of going against RUclips's wants. As was mentioned, YoutTube has the ultimate power, deciding what is acceptable or not acceptable to the population. The real concern is, what are the rules of acceptance. We can all agree that things like child pornography is something we don't want to come across in our feed. But what happens when youtube decides to censor a political candidates that they don't agree with, maybe someone fighting for privacy laws that go against the doubleclick model? Is hiding behind their terms of service good enough then? Legally, yes. Morally, well that's up to you.
As powerful as RUclips is, it is not omnipotent. We as a collective decide the strength of RUclips. It can make a mistake tomorrow and slip off the mountain top just as any number of its predecessors.
Usually this channel just brings up new lights in which to consider media, but man, this video is important, this video has substance. This video articulates an important statement I've never encountered anywhere else.
I actually think that these videos, who "cheat" the audience, are very important and the best way to show the gravity of the case.
If a video shows a "bad", or better, "unacceptable" behavior in a way, people might laugh at it or "think it's ok", and then show them "No, it's not ok.", it makes people think.
It makes them questioning themselves, and their own actions.
But if you only show "this is bad", "don't do it" - people only pay half of the attention, because they don't feel involved, they don't feel targeted.
It's very much like the example of a crowd watching an accident. Most people go there and just watch. But if you stand up and give orders ("You, call the police!" "Get me a blanket" "Help me moving the injured to the side", and so on) - they start to react because they're suddenly involved.
It might not a fair tactic, but it's effective. And it might be very necessary.
Atticus Edwards I think that's a given. If you harm people just to show that you shouldn't (instead of pretending with actors, who're aware of the situation), you're a big hypocrite and should be ashamed of yourself...
I seek out Idea Channel because I enjoy Mike Rugnetta's thoughts and opinions on a wide range of topics. Keep up the great work, Idea Channel.
You look tired man. Are you getting enough sleep and iron in your diet? I definitely agree that this is exactly the sort of thing idea channel was made for as you look at pop culture with a more serious light than what we normally get, and that's what we love about it. Remember we wanted you to do the episode on Ikea. Just take care of yourself and stay awesome.
you know, sitting in the place where you have opinions and values but actively engage in discussion without slandering the people you disagree with is hard. good on you and your team for doing this so well.
May I use your ideas for my TOK paper and presentation?
2:00 The implication of the argument "there's more important stuff to worry about" isn't that we only worry about/discus the end of the universe, it's that we start with the most important problem and work our way down the list.
This was a good episode after watching tonight's episode of South Park.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW!
In the episode, Cartman pretends to be a transgender girl to gain access to a private, single-person bathroom reserved exclusively for transgender students (which would only include him). Meanwhile, Randy Marsh feels more comfortable using the women's bathroom at work in his alter-ego, Lorde. Cartman doesn't want to use the girls' room while Randy/Lorde doesn't want to use a separate one. The episode ends criticizing "transgender exclusive" bathrooms as pointless separation while supporting the idea that transgender people should be able to use the bathroom that matches their identity. Being a transgender viewer, this was a pleasant surprise considering I still have to deal with "dolphin" comments. That's what we want and that's what we're fighting for. Inclusion, not exclusion.
Compare this episode with an episode of Glee where a transgender student "wins" by getting her own separate bathroom. Even the character's name, "Unique", was a sign that they were not well versed in trans stuff. South Park (now) has a better grasp on transgender rights than a show that prided itself on LGBT issues.
Glee only thinly did well with LGBT issues. Even the stuff they tackled for any topic was very stereotypical.
Can you please define what being called a 'dolphin' means exactly? I've never heard that term being used against transpeople before, so I'm genuinely curious.
Epic Ebi There was a pretty repellant episode of South Park that mocked transgender people and made a parallel between surgical gender reassignment and Randy Marsh wanting to surgically turn himself into a dolphin.
It was Kyle's dad that was surgically turned into a dolphin, but yeah, pretty much.
This episode doesn't completely make up for that one, but it's a step in a better direction. Journey of a thousand miles.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
Right on. Thank you for being a voice of thoughtful and compassionate reason on the internet. It's totally your right to speak your mind on your own show. That's why we all come here. We want to hear what you have to say because it's always well thought out and complex. Even if viewers don't always agree with everything you say, I hope they can at least appreciate the time you've put into developing your argument, and at the very least consider your points. Keep up the great work.
People are just upity about that "social experiment" because they felt messed with. People take things too seriously, and just give people or subjects crap because, who knows, most likely they are bored and its easy to lean negative, especially when it comes to crap on the internet.
tsuich00i Or maybe you should read "The Giver" before radical professors turn all of you college kids into cultural Marxists where everyone and everything is the same.
tsuich00i It's the internet and you're agreeing on the side of censorship. It's a fair assumption that you are probably a Leftist...
#gamergate
tsuich00i You're clearly not up-to-date on the videogame industry and how it's been hijacked by dishonest professional victims like Anita Sarkeesian. That's where the #gamergate comes into play in my comments.
Besides, Tumblr exists, the hotbed of perpetual victimhood and censorship on the internet.
It wasn't a social experiment. That's just naive. It's possible that he was trying for 'social-experiment-artsy-hipster-crap', but he failed at it miserably, and at that point all it presents is just 'assault'.
It isn't anyone's responsibility to have read his mind prior, or to believe him when he tries to cover his ass afterwards. That is all his own responsibility. He assaulted women no matter what purpose we want to give it. It doesn't matter how much truth was actually in his explanation, it's still naive to defend a total failure.
tsuich00i
My response was to the OP, not you. So don't worry about that.
Regarding the comments that it is not your place to address these things, no, this is what makes you relevant and powerful. It is what *I* at least come here for, challenging perspectives on a wide variety of subjects.
If someone makes a series of videos depicting something as a way of showing how reprehensible situations are handled in public - like that one show that was going around with actors acting like scumbags in public, seeing how normal people react to these situations, and then discussing it afterward - and it brings awareness to the big problem, it's not wrong. Just because the 'character' in the video frames it as a 'joke', it's a *serious* commentary on the situation. Just because YOU don't agree with how it's done does not make it wrong.
Nathan Hawks In your world, any sort of intelligent commentary on the issues of the day is dead. Oops, we can't make jokes about the government shutdown because a government employee who can't pay their rent might see it. Oops, we can't ridicule the government in a humorous way for their involvement in a war because a veteran might see it. Oops, Brass Eye can't make jokes about paedophilia scares because a victim might see it. Do you see what being afraid of offense would do to satire?
Sorry if I strawmanned you, but please explain and stop patronising.
'You literally just said you don't know the difference between social satire and sexual assault'
Since when is laughing at a video about sexual assault equivalent to sexual assault? Also, how do you define 'actual satire'? That's completely subjective.
Nathan Hawks Again, this stupid patronising. I might seem like the biggest idiot in the world to you, but I did really mean it. Try to convince me of your argument.
I just wanted to say : the first (short) video you made about Sam Pepper, it was really professional. You told something had to be said, and also that you would take your time to do it properly. That is what you do in this week video. Yes, it changes from your original style but you already tried other things before. I'm proud to be one of your fans.
I didn't understand this video at all but it was cool
YES! Keep doing your thing! It IS your place!
So, wait. If the guy had stated that the two videos were actually a social experiment at the beginning, would that ruin the whole thing. because it wasn't those who were being violated that were the variable in the experiment, but the audience watching the videos. He wanted to see what the difference in reaction would be between the two videos, weather it would be more socially acceptable for women to violate the personal space of men rather than the other way around.
there are many debates going on in the comments about whether or not he was actually experimenting, or if it was just a cover up. But, as no one can read minds, it will be forever some upset nerd's word against the guy who did it.
The question is whether or not he was telling the truth. It might be true that people reacted more to one video than they did to the other, and that it's something worth noting, but the idea is that Sam Pepper only said that in order to clear himself of the guilt. The people who showed up in the video said they weren't aware of anything, and he has other videos about harassing women and men.
That new intro elicited an audible gasp from both myself, and my roommate when i showed it to him.
I think you guys really nailed this one. Quality episode
Regardless of whether you want to call it censorship, I do think the RUclips community harms itself when it silences offensive content like they did by removing the Sam Pepper videos. There is no doubt that Sam's video was offensive and should be criticized for all the reasons that Mike mentions (e.g. normalizing bad behaviors). However...
by removing the video from its site, it will now be harder for future RUclipsrs to have the exact same conversation we're having now about Pepper's videos. How can those future RUclipsrs discuss why the Pepper videos are so bad if they have never seen them? This is exactly why John Stuart Mill argued that Freedom of Discussion was so important in On Liberty. Even if the person you silence is wrong, the community is still worse off for not having the opportunity to discuss why they are wrong.
Is it not made a bit more iffy though if those videos are generating money and brand recognition for him?
How so?
Just want to say that I think this video is great and is exactly what I criticized your last video on the topic for not being. I hope you didn't interpret my comment as 'Idea Channel shouldn't talk about certain issues'. It was less WHAT you were talking about and more HOW you were talking about it. I'm super happy to see you return to the topic in a more formal, thought-out video.
yeah pretty much this, it was a release the hounds on the internet video
I have a question. It seems like the idea that the video maker's intention cannot be separated from the audience's perception or interpretation of the video. But when we read a novel, I am/was often told in literary criticism classes, that what the author intended was irrelevant and the only thing that matters is how the reader interprets the text. So, is that different in other forms of media, e.g. videos? or did I miss part of the point here.... Or once the media is published as a book the rules are different?
Author intention matters less than context, language, dialect. If I'm reading a novel set in 1910's England, I need to prepare for vocabulary that differs from my own.
Yes, the author's goal of "Hey look at this big idea over here" matters alot. However, if a large group of people read a book and none of them notice that idea at all, that's a failure on the author's part.
In video media, the same responsibility applies. If a crap ton of people miss your point or upon hearing it go *cricket noise" "that didn't work". That was a failure of the creator.
Author intention matters if the audience receives it. If they don't, but gain other things from the book, the book has aspects of success and failure.
what you take away from a piece of art is all that matters to YOU. Whether that lines up with the author's intentions is entirely up to the quality and skill of the author. In other words, the quality of the author is how well they can convey their ideas to the audience, the quality of the piece of art is how impactful of an idea it can provide to its audience. Terrible artists produce amazing art all the time *coughmodernartcough*
It depends on the school of criticism. Reader-response criticism (or, in this case, viewer-response criticism I suppose) is one school of thought, but it's not the only one.
I agree with Seth Waters in that creator failure is something that needs to be considered. If people haven't the skill to articulate what they want to articulate and give it necessary context, that's their problem. Their intention, in that case, does have to take the back seat.
uilregit *contemporary art
The issue is also finding out true intent in the first place, as audiences can (and have) pulled out a completely different meaning than what was intended.
For example, Fahrenheit 451 is about how much Ray Bradbury hates TV. He's said so himself, multiple times, however every English class in the US will insist (even to Bradbury!) that it's about censorship.
This is a case of either covering his tracks (he's a perverted troll and, once he caught heat on the internet decided to make it a "social experiment") or he's just incompetent in portraying his true intent (it really was a social experiment but he just did a terrible job of making that fact clear).
Typically I'm of the mindset that you shouldn't assume malice when stupidity is just as valid, but here I'm leaning to him just being a pervert. If he's not, though, it was his job as a content producer (of any kind, be it music, literature, art, etc) to convey his ideas and beliefs through his chosen medium and he just failed so utterly terribly that it's actually turned into a learning experience.
While watching your video, I thought of the series 'What would you do'... a social experiment series which uses actors to create a public event centered around a social concern like racism, prejudice, violence, poverty, etc. I love this series because it not only casts a light on the social concern, but it ALSO encourages people to interfere and become pro-active in 'righting' whatever injustice they might be witnessing. The show gives us some amazing heartwarming moments, but it's also sometimes fascinating seeing what kind of social injustices are more 'ignored' than others. And sometimes it's downright chilling seeing certain injustices being not only ignored by the witnesses, but sometimes even encouraged, supported and facilitated (e.g an actress pretending to be drunk at a bar, while an actor, who is clearly taking advantage of her inability to properly refuse his advances, is dragging her away to a hotel room and is actually cheered on by other people at the bar for his opportunism).
I think its funny to see you talk about something this controversial, I've gotta say, you are good at dodging bullets!
Thats an unironic compliment btw
This is one of the best videos you've done yet. Thank you Mike. This is indeed your place.
I feel like the ideas in this video are a slippery slope. It's like the episode of South Park where they pull an episode of Family Guy because they thought Muslims would get upset over it and then everyone started complaining so the show went off the air. To me, either everything is okay or nothing is okay. And in a way, shouldn't good art offend? The point of art is to make us see the world in a different way and for some people that's going to offend them. If your an artist, your goal shouldn't be to make art that pleases and is safe for everyone, you should make art that you want to make, something that shows how you view the world or something to express your feels. Hell, many films like Fight Club and Bonnie and Clyde were conspired trash, offensive and irresponsible, but today they're classics. I'm not saying be shocking and offensive for the sake of being shocking and offensive, but I don't think artist or film makers or whatever should make videos in mind of what their audience would like, because then it's no longer art. It's a product. Artist should make what they want to make and if it gains an audience, great! But don't hold back on your vision just because you think it might offend someone.
Perhaps a lot of art works as social criticism, but does most social criticism work as art? I don't know, I tend to think not.
As much as I agree with what you said, I think its important to remember what your channel is about. This is the PBS IDEA channel, and is a place for you to present your ideas and thoughts and discuss those ideas with the audience. In this video you presented your feelings as a fact, and unlike every other video on this channel you did not ask a question, you simply told people what you consider to be correct.
It's interesting to see how, in the wake of polarising new media happenings like Gamergate and the Sam Pepper video, there have been a flood of commentators who try very hard to explain what the 'underlying principles' of the controversy are. (Gamergate is about corruption! No it's about the absence of standards in gaming media! No it's about the rampant sexism in gaming and the promotion and normalisation of deeply sexist attitudes in pop culture!... etc.)
This is particularly weird because no one quite comments on HOW people go about exploring the implications of these 'underlying principles' - whatever they may be. What kind of reactions are in good taste and which aren't?
So far as I can see, new media debates seem doomed to a lack of resolution or rapprochement, because each side is guilty of the things they lay at the door of the other. Whether one sees Sam Pepper as a victim or violator, the debate that follows lacks ALL decorum. Maybe that's why those who engage in it feel no obligation to adhere to the results of the debate. A who-cares-if-he's-right-he's-an-asshole approach to the truth.
Is it time for the Internet to evolve it's own pervasive code of ethical behaviour?
And Idea Channel is a rare exception to this trend. The notion that consideration should temper the creative impulse is, logical, reasonable, and very complicated in a world where we still give a very privileged place to creators and the vaguely numinous aura that surrounds their act of creation.
It is a beginning. A first axiom in the new Internet Ethic, perhaps?
Alright, this is one of the reasons why I love idea channel. Everyone involved in the show sticks to their guns regardless of what blowback may happen. Brave. I'll give my opinion on the subject of the video later when I'm more awake.
Also, if people are made uncomfortable by certain media, can they not simply.. not watch it? And in theory, if it makes enough people uncomfortable would business/creators not take that as meaning their content is not acceptable and thus change it?
^^This.
Capitalism is the only reason a creator should need to change their own work. In this video you talk about the "consequences" of fictitious media, but if the only consequences you can relate to that are the distraught that Sam faced when he presented that media as an actual scenario than your whole argument falls apart.
Here I'll summarize:
Don't pretend to do something illegal without specifically giving context that it is fictitious.
There that's the only legitimate point you made in this video.
There are some propaganda shows which I don't watch, but their very existance make me extremely uncomfortable.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to not watch then for it not to be made? Hell wouldn't trying to silence or shame them just draw them more attention?
Two things. One, I want to commend IdeaChannel for taking positions sometimes, even when controversial. I'm sick to death of the fear that people have about tackling controversial issues just because it's controversy. The whole point is that sometimes people do things that cause a disagreement among people and I'd love to see MORE people who have a forum use it to take a position about what's wrong and what's right. That's how we, as a whole society, ought to work out these issues, rather than tiptoe around them.
Secondly, I think that the biggest problem with these kinds of issues is that conversation around them shuts down because people get hurt and offended. I appreciate that saying and doing hurtful things can cause people real pain. But if that pain means that the subject is so unapproachable, so sensitive, that nobody else is allowed to talk about it without being offended, then it becomes nearly impossible to work through these issues and try to make policy that improves them in the future. I'd like a world with a lot less reactionary anger and a lot more opportunity to discuss issues like sexual assault in detail and figure out the best ways to prevent it in the future.
I don't fully agree with you. Criticism coming after the reproduction is extremely common in most media that depicts these social ills.
For example, in most gangster films, you see the gangster-to-be protagonist be very successful at being a gangster and the unpleasant consequences slowly unfold throughout the movie. True, it's still the same piece of media that is being consumed, but there is quite a long period where the gangster life is going _extremely_ well for the protagonist.
In fact, this same pattern is present in ancient tragedies as well. A person of high prestige committs some heinous act very early in the tragedy and it comes back to bite them fairly late in the tragedy. The deed stays unpunished for the longest time.
Whether these tragedies were meant to be social criticism is another discussion entirely, but this pattern is certainly used very often, even in pieces of media that critique social ills.
You're missing his point. Imagine Scarface ended with Tony Montana on top of the world, and you only saw a clip after the credits where Al Pacino told you crime was bad. That is what he is talking about.
I think you're conflating reenactment and repetition. It is one thing to tell a story in two hours, but within which the time spans throughout years. It is another thing to try and make that story play out in real life, with real time-spans, real costs, real people. It is always good if we can learn our lessons without subjecting ourselves or others to real life suffering and loss.
People in the movies are actors. We'll never know for sure whether or not the people in Pepper's RUclips videos were actors, even though in my opinion they don't seem to be actors at all, but victims of sexual assault. Anyhow there have been many instances in which the people in prank videos are sexually assaulted without their legal consent and it's a problem.
*****
and your opinion is based on your own personal feelings, and nothing else, making them irrelevant.
The thing is, in gangster movies, there is usually more narrative focus that social commentary. This is because they usually show scenes without explaining that they are doing wrong and letting the audience figure it out themselves. However, the videos about assault were suppose to be viewed as bad just because he said so later. This differs from the movies since he shot them in a comedic light that was suppose to be seen as bad without his audience knowing his complete intentions.
Late on the commenting here by like weeks, but thank you SO MUCH for taking the situation seriously. I'm really amazed that you managed to make this a well-thought-out and reasonable piece and like you said you wanted to, handled it with nuance, because this is a very important issue and it deserves to be talked about. Thanks so much for not just letting this situation pass without comment.
Shouldn't any kind of social experiment pass through an ethics committee?
You mean like lab experiments do? That's an interesting suggestion... I guess maybe someone could say that ethics committees are there to make sure the institution doesn't fund anything unethical, whereas a "social experiment" like a person-in-the-street thing is usually funded by the person setting it up so it doesn't need to answer to a committee? But then if that reply worked it would mean you could set up science experiments that you funded yourself in your basement without going through an ethics committee, so something must be wrong there.
I don't know about lab experiments but if I want to test a piece of software and testing it involved people trying it and giving feedback I would need to run my plan by an ethics committee. As an individual I probably don't need to but if I want anyone to accept the results of my testing I kinda do.
Daniel Bech
"but if I want to test a piece of software and testing it involved people trying it and giving feedback I would need to run my plan by an ethics committee."
.
This struck me as odd.
I live a techy city with lots of computer companies, and I can't imagine a scrappy little start-up even *having* an ethics committee, much less put a project on hold while their philosophers contemplate the morality of their intentions.
I *can* imagine larger established companies having some sort of "ethics committee," to consider issues of legal liability, regulatory compliance, best practice, public relations, and things like those...
Applied to Pepper, such a committee would say don't do that because you will look bad, you'll hurt your brand - not because it's wrong, which is what a lot of the people offended by the videos want to say...
No, because ethics are entirely subjective and to have one standardized government entity to judge any ethical action that acts as media would be a restriction of free speech because ethics vary from person to person and they are mostly based on opinion.. However, this should only go as far as the law.
it's generally not a government entity. They are usually specific to the area you're working in. They don't actually have any say weather you do what you want to do or not it's more of a recommendation thingo.
Thank you so much for actually talking, and explaining, the situation in a proper and mature way, unlike most of the other videos out there.
What if you make up some injustice? Like, say, domestic abuse is more likely to come from the dog than the owner. And then, (somehow) get everyone to believe it? Making a false claim that everybody believes, is what I'm trying to say. Would that be a fictional reproduction, or maybe false criticism? Just a thought that fell out of my brain holes
Shows like South Park and Family Guy really get on my nerves because of their brand of 'satirical' humour. Maybe it's meant to be purely offensive for shock value. I don't know. Either way, there's a massive disconnect between the audience and the creators, and if satire is intended, a lot of the audience don't realise it's there. A good example would be 'Borat' exposing the anti-semitism rife in America, but getting Americans to join in with his anti-semitic song. This is satire - it's just that many people read it as 'anti-semitism is funny'. In my opinion, creators need to be more conscious of the gap between them and their audience. If you have a point of view you're trying to express, make 100% sure that it can only be read correctly one way. Leaving room for interpretation, especially with sensitive subjects, ends up perpetuating awful things.
I disagree with this video but I almost don't know how to respond to it. It was just assertions. You say showing something and making people laugh at it makes it seem normal and that's something you need to support beyond just saying it is so.
003dylan That's one possibility. However it's also possible that people don't respect Hitler because his ideas are demonstrably wrong - and are not defensible without resorting to fallacy after fallacy.
I suspect there may be some truth to what you're saying but I don't want to jump to the pessimism of thinking of people as glassy eyed automotons whose beliefs are based on blind conformation to the percieved norm rather than the reasons for and against the beliefs themselves.
I would agree on that point. I've never quite thought having super powers was normal no matter how many times I laughed at those...but that's probably an extreme example that has no relevance in this argument. Well, I don't see programming as particularly "normal" or typical, though, likely growing in popularity, despite all that I research on it. But, again, this is not a study but ....some word meaning it's a personal example...what's that word? Ok that's going to irritate me.
Danny Duchamp
Valid argument. I don't think the masses are swayed that easily either. I'm just saying that if someone is in a place of democratic power then the norm will be that they deserved to be there. Sure people can put the wrong man or woman in charge and then they deserve some of the blame for that, but the norm should still keep in mind the effort they put in to get there.
Did you even watch the video?
8jb65 Yes.
Completely agree with you, plain and simple. There is no possible situation in which harmful behavior should become acceptable - if not to show us dread instead of laughter
your point about reproduction vs criticism really makes no sense to me. when i think about film for example, many scenes that simply reproduce a vicious act in a stark, realistic way are in my eyes especially strong forms of criticism of said act. so the distinction you tried to make between those two is extremely vague, i think. it depends on what the viewer, or consumer of media in general, is already thinking. also i'm pretty sure, that you wouldn't want explicit moralizing in every work of art, that displays terrible things that humans do. but this also means, that different viewers will interpret the "message" differently, and what one person may consider an "anti-war"-film another person may consider simply exciting entertainment. an especially grotesque example of this is, that i've heard that some racists enjoy the film "american history x" because it displays extreme acts of violence against black people, even though the movie itself has a clear anti-racism message...
I think the distinction is between the earnestness of a film portrayal, aka reproduction, and the levity in criticism, which prompts to healing as he's mentioned.
I love Idea channel because of videos like these.
This whole episode(And the vast majority of them, I'd say,) is expertly written and I loved every second of it. Just wanted to share my love. Keep on rockin Mike.
Ok, honestly this was grinding me the wrong way, but I can at least respect your point in this-- the whole notion of responsibility to a community/audience is a very hot-button topic as of late, ESPECIALLY within editorial and critique-only pieces. holy shit is it hot button, but ultimately its very much a question of cultural ethic I find. one can not simply walk into a cannibalistic tribe, tell them that their culture is wrong and forcibly change their culture to suit the morals of their own culture because at the end of the day we can not empirically denote what is absolute evil and absolute good. it is a moot argument to begin with and something best left to philosophy students to pontificate over. assertion is a color most ill suited for the critic and sadly has become quite the popular choice of ensemble for many of them to date. in some respects perhaps the recent rise in such might be due to the sudden proliferation of popularity in the field of critique for media consumers (I.E. us) and by such we create a cult of celebrity around the critics and therefore breeding a sort of confirmation bias that spirals out of control. I of course am referring to notions put forth by actor Jack Gleeson in his Oxford speech 'I hate celebrity culture'[1] (who does an infinitely better job of explaining the concept than I ever will) We see this sort of confirmation bias and pumped up self-bias-esque "I obviously know better because I have all these wonderful people telling me I am and so I must be" type attitude prevalent in Hollywood culture for decades now-- Movie Stars and Television Icons becoming outspoken activists for one cause of another to the point of being blind to any contrary points put forth. I really think this has made its jump from the Hollywood stage, to that of lesser celebrity activists and major editorial columnists. While I can agree some things are best left (tastefully) unperturbed by media creators, I can not abide an idea of meddling with another's creative vision or simple right to do what they do. I as a content creator (my day job is a commissioned illustrator) have seen so many of my friends pitched into a seething mob of outrage for the silliest of infractions due to catching the attention of these whistle-blowing critics (professional AND internet-amateur) simply chewing though a piece of work with little thought of the creator or creators of such and how much work goes into such. Ultimately it is expression and whether it is right or wrong for your personal culture, we do live in a massively multicultural world and we'd be fool to believe ourselves to be a supreme authority on really anything.
Perhaps its because I do have a personal stake in such, but I really do agree that people attempting to shame and lead a pitchfork wielding mob after content creators is actually a bad thing. its breeding a toxic environment that discourages any discourse that doesn't toe the line for the current dominant social structure, and by extension might as well be, quite simply put, *censorship*. Yes I do agree that these website owners (like RUclips/Google) reserve the right to police their sites for what they think is culturally acceptable, but as you put it, they are not beyond the reproach for reaping the effects of their actions--
THOUGH, it does bring up a very powerful question; in a digital age of what could be quintessentially be considered the 90's Virtuality come to fruition, at what point do we consider sites being large enough that they are to be considered public virtual domain? should these sites traffic be the ones to dictate the content of said sites and supersede those whom hold ownership? (because hey, its their views and patronage that pay to keep the owners in business and the lights on)
food for thought. hopefully someone reads this
[1]: tune.pk/video/1985071/i-hate-celebrity-culture-jack-gleeson-oxford-union (note: seriously give this a listen to, brilliant stuff. would have linked on youtube, but oxford union seems to have swapped it out)
I have to say you handle events much better than a lot of other shows thank you for how you handled this. :)
Yes, that is censorship. It's censorship in one place.
No, it's not. You're writing this on the internet, the most pervasive, accessible, and democratic publishing platform in human history. Equating the removal of a video from RUclips with governmental threats of execution or imprisonment should make you feel embarrassed.
Nowhere in the definition of censorship does it imply legal action. Learn what words mean.
Rockoman100 Given the size and scope of the internet, one website failing to allow you to say whatever you want on that one website, while leaving THE ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET open for you does not in any meaningful way restrict your ability to create or share content.
You should still be embarrassed.
The effect of a single website, or a handful of websites "banning" certain discussions is actually a very effective way to make sure that discussion stays suppressed depending on the influence of the website(s). Anybody can go anywhere on the internet and say what they want, but some websites are orders of magnitude louder and more populated than others. For large websites to censor common discussions, points, attitudes, or arguments (within reason) only leaves small obscure communities left to discuss these things, which, in the scope of the internet, is to make them almost entirely disappear.
The internet cannot restrict what you can say, but it can restrict where you can say it, and when discussions are banished to obscure locations where nobody can hear you screaming, you feel, well, censored.
Rockoman100 By the same premise, Hachette is a censor because they don't publish my book. Barnes & Noble is a censor because they don't carry my book.
Private entities refusing to broadcast your creations is, itself, a form of free speech: these private entites get to decide for themselves which creations to share through their platform.
You know what? Whatever other people may say about the liberties you're taking with the Idea Channel format, I think you seem more authentic. You're talking about things that interest you and things that you care about. I like this. Carry on.
I kinda hate the shallow and obvious sarcasm of The Colbert Report sometimes to be honest.
To be honest some people need sarcasm to be obvious in order to understand it. You can't blame a show for wanting to appeal to more viewers... well sometimes you can but I don't think that time is now.
I suppose
Over the summer while preparing to lead teenagers I was told by my teacher a very important way to look at human interaction and emotion. He gave us the situation of stubbing someone else's toe. In this situation you may not have ever wanted to stub that person's toe but you did and they're hurt. Your intent was not to hurt them and you may make that very clear to them but they are still hurting because of what you did. I think if you're going to create social criticism you need to be very careful because you may never want to hurt your audience but it can easily happen.
I disagree with what you said about the bigger threat. Consider the principle of Medical Triage for a second. Some problems should have priority over others, we just justify not taking that route because it is politically easier. But it doesn't make it right. Sam Pepper sexually assaulting a woman is really not as important as children dying of extreme poverty, famine or diseases that can be prevented.
We forget about the bigger picture because it's too broad or too far away to handle, so we go for a smaller focus on an easier and closer-to-home problem. But easier is not better. And closer is not necessarily more important. We just pretend it is.
I disagree with the implied assumption that caring about or talking about issues is a zero sum game, I think we have the energy as people to care as intensely about huge issues like global warming, global famine, economic disparity, and political inequality as we do about "small" problems like sexual inequality and sexual assault. Slowing down progress in some areas doesn't speed it up in others.
Denver B All of that almost sounds "right", but it still carries the same basic mistake if you look closely. Having progress in areas that are less important than others while leaving those others in a critical state is ethically inneficient, no matter how you slice it. And caring intensely about smaller problems, while not wrong, still doesn't make them a priority.
Danoriel (Vast Blue) A couple of things you're forgetting: firstly, knowing about a worse situation does not equal being able to help or aid in that situation. If a person is able to help in a smaller issue but not a larger, then it's important all issues are broadcasted so everyone can help where they can. Secondly, larger issues frequently (sensibly) have a lot more people who know and are actively fighting for it. Often your personal contribution to some world wide problem is so tiny as to be meaningless.
Personally, I think people do a good job helping everywhere, with a variety of people thinking of the big picture, and some people thinking in their personal area of expertise, we end up helping a wide array of those in trouble. And no issue is left unturned.
KKlawm "not being able to help or aid in that situation". That sounds like rationalizing to me. "larger issues frequently have a lot more people who know and are actively fighting for it". Uh.. not really. "personal contribution to some world wide problem is so tiny as to be meaningless". Yeah... definitely rationalizing. But that's ok, I'm not here to teach ideology. Believe what you want.
Thank you, came to the comment section searching for this comment.
October 9th's episode of South Park, "The Cissy", definitely deserves a mention in this conversation. They did a lot of interesting things in the episode. They explored contemporary gender issues in a respectful, balanced, and entertaining manner that I can't imagine any other show pulling off as well as they did except for Adventure Time. They showed the perspective of a person taking advantage of the issue, the person genuinely confused and feeling what I would consider neutral on the issue because of that confusion, and the perspective of a person who was following their feelings and dealing with the pushback that non gender conforming individuals can face. The episode had incredibly touching moments and overall I feel the South Park team was using their platform to create the most responsible social criticism we've seen from them yet and some of the most responsible social criticism of any fictional television show that I can think of.
I'm going to address a thought I had that is sort of contrary to the thesis you put forward here. Full disclosure, I haven't seen any of the aforementioned Sam Pepper videos, so I may be off the mark here, but I'm going to say it anyways: Would Sam still be in the wrong if the social commentary he was making was pertaining to the *reactions* to the prank videos? In essence, would people be as outraged (or what have you) at a prank video of a woman groping a man, as they would be to a prank video of a man groping a woman (or vice versa). In that case, one would need to release both videos, and give time for them to be seen and reacted to before announcing the intention, and the subsequent criticism or commentary, would they not? The same idea as a blind experiment. If the people in the video were indeed actors, I would see no problem with that. Just my two cents.
Also, I'm well aware that Sam has a history and reputation of being a misogynist that started well before the prank video fiasco, so I doubt that it was indeed his intention. More, I would think, that he was trying to mask his misogyny in the guise of social commentary after the outrage began. But I still stand by my above comment.
Late reply, but yes, that's what was happening, and I totally agree that as long as the victims were actors it was completely justifiable, what I don't agree though, is that even if the guy is a complete misogynist (I don't know whether he is one or not BTW), that doesn't make him incapable of "social commentary", specially considering that he was pointing out at what could be construed as sexism *against men*
This was a pretty serious episode about responsible social criticism. In today's age of the Internet it's much faster and easier to relay information towards others, and sending certain critical messages can be met with much controversy. It's a fine line between successfully critiquing something and gaining acceptance and failing and being attacked with critiques based on an initial critique. It is indeed possible to make strong critiques and get people to agree with the critique, but the potential backlash that may occur can get really messy in light of recent controversies that have risen.
It was kind of subtle in the beginning, but the slight tweak in the intro looked very nice. Good to see some credits to PBS and some snazzy visual effects before the actual video.
You kinda loose me in the responses to the comments where you seem to imply that it's harder/less responsible to talk about sexual assault in a "comedic" performance way than it is to talk about homeless people being robbed.
Given the fact that the sexual assault in question is ass grabbing, which, while yes, is wrong, and was a pretty bad idea on the guys part to do a bit on without outlining the gag first... the idea that some homeless person being assaulted being "less important" or "easier to joke about" than someone's ass being grabbed literally turned my stomach.
I do not think he was comparing the severities of the crimes directly, but the parameters of the 'experiments' that were performed. In the video about assaulting a homeless man he used as an example, the homeless man was an actor, and the audience was given that information right away. The experiment was not how the homeless man actor responded, but how random passers-by would react. Whereas, in the Sam Pepper video, so far as the audience knew, the women being groped or pinched were not in on the experiment: they were the targets/victims. This turned out not to be the case, however the audience is not made aware of the fact.
Had Sam Pepper's video had the same structure as the one with the homeless man, it would have probably been okay. If he introduced it as, "I am going to be an assaulter, and this actress here is going to get groped, and we are going to see how people respond", I suspect there would be a lot less outrage about the video.
Had the structure of the homeless person being assaulted had the structure of Sam Pepper's video - where the so-called pranksters randomly attacked actual, unwitting homeless people, then of course there would (or should) be outrage from the audience. I think that is one of the major points he was trying to make in the video - it's not the subject matter, but the structure in which the content is framed.
thetallaslint
See, you read differently into what he said than I did. I see what he said as "If you were to make a video of this type (the one about the fake homeless people) about sexual assault, it wouldn't work well, because it's bad". Watching it again. That's the exact message I still get.
He was saying that the homeless person video, while a better concept over-all, would still NOT WORK. Because it's "Worse" to pinch a woman's ass than it is to rob a homeless person.
I loved the "Do the Right Thing" reference, perfect example of critique and meditation on important social issues
I think this is a bad premise, presented eloquently. Yes, I understand that PBS-guy strives for criticism perfection, and humor perfection.
What I take away from this though, is that behavior is regulated to Level: Thought-Police. That makes me kind of wary. PBS-guy's intentions are good I'm sure, but much humor has Barbs, needs barbs even, to be funny. Also any Criticism levelled at any topic, that has to be chewed over for long enough to be entirely inoffensive would become ineffective, is what I think.
First, I respect you immensely and I feel very strongly that this platform is yours to use so long as your agreement with RUclips, PBS, and whoever is kosher.
Second, I concur. I learned a long time ago that how you intend something is not always as important as how it is perceived. Communication by default relies more on reception than transmission.
Think of the Telephone game. Most of us have played it in our youth, and seen how every misconception along the way can completely change the message. And to those who say "so what" I offer this; if the end message is not important, what's the point of sending the message at all.
So you want criticism to be spoon-fed and never rely on the audience figuring it out by themselves? Why? Sam Pepper's reproduction seems to have done its intended job admirably - it provoked widespread discussion about harassment and sexism.
Imho you make the mistake of viewing the video as a work of art (for lack of a better word) in itself, while indeed it is just one part of a larger work that actually includes not only the videos, but also the discussion it provoked and the final statement. That final statement is the whole point of it - you make people do something and then you hold up a mirror showing them what they are doing.
Sam Pepper is British and in Europe, there is indeed a tradition of this specific sort of social criticism using a figurative mirror, dating back to the character of Till Eulenspiegel (who is partially named for this method of social criticism) from medieval Germany.
That is not to say you can do no wrong with this method. What happened with HeForShe is a clear case of that going wrong by directly damaging somebody else's work.
shadaik because something is provoking it doesn't make it good or justifies the harm it created.
Because of the Nazis and second world war, nationalism and hating jews is not as popular anymore, so you say it was worth it?
we can say, okay that is one good thing that came out of it, but still the harm it created is written on another page.
( i know this is an extreme example but the point stands)
shadaik when someone tells his little sister that her dog is dead, and then she cries for an hour and he tells her, it was just a joke. that is horrible but controllable.
If you do something like that where hundred thousand of people watch it only a tiny amount of people who hear about this or are offended will see the video where he explains it later.
you can't crontrol it and can't tell everyone it was just a joke. the harm is done!
jonas samuel A social experiment is not a joke. It's not supposed to be funny, it's supposed to make you think. It may or may not be funny, but that is not the point of it. The point is to make you do something and then get you to think about what you've just done and reconsider if maybe you can find a flaw in your own actions. Using the example of Sam Pepper, that flaw was everyday sexism influencing our perceptions of sexual harassment as being bad only when done to women.
You would have a point if those harassed in the videos would not have been actors. Such things should not harm people, and this one didn't.
Did it do harm to the discussion at large? I don't think so, it broadened its scope and pointed to a problem in the discussion, so that those participating could recognize the flaw and thus improve their actions and/or perception and/or thinking.
jonas samuel
You've stepped in the MRA trap! Run! :D
I highly doubt Sam Pepper was trying to prove anything..I think Sam Pepper thinks sexual assault IS funny. I think he gets off on assaulting people.
I might not contribute to anything, but I think that the use of humor to make social criticism it's the best way: humor helps relieve tension in matters people are not willing or afraid to change. Though it's important to distinct between mocking and using real humor, since mocking it's no real criticism, it just stays at pointing something "is bad" but doesn't "explain" why. I really think this way of social criticism is really powerful because of Colombian's political humorist Jaime Garzon who won a lot of acceptance and affection from the people in general and even after 15 years of his murder people recognize him as someone brilliant and who helped a lot people realize what was happening in the country in the 90's.