Pages

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Why Chris Rock Doesn't Do College Campuses Anymore

He had this exchange with Frank Rich a year ago.

"What do you make of the attempt to bar Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley for his riff on Muslims?"

"Well, I love Bill, but I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative."

"In their political views?"

"Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of “We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.” Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say “the black kid over there.” No, it’s “the guy with the red shoes.” You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive."

"When did you start to notice this?"

"About eight years ago. Probably a couple of tours ago. It was just like, This is not as much fun as it used to be. I remember talking to George Carlin before he died and him saying the exact same thing."

http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html?mid=twitter_nymag

If you count back eight years from 2014 that was around when Don Imus was drummed out for saying 'Nappy headed hoes.' Soon after it was declared that the word 'nigger' for black comics as well is no longer acceptable.

But some of Rock's old rifts used to be stuff like 'I love black people, but I hate niggers.' Jerry Seinfeld also has talked about the rise of militant PC at colleges. He got this response from a college student at Huffington Post writer:
"It isn't so much that college students are too politically correct (whatever your definition of that concept is), it's that comedy in our progressive society today can no longer afford to be crass, or provocative for the sake of being offensive. Sexist humor and racist humor can no longer exist in comedy because these concepts are based on archaic ideals that have perpetrated injustice against minorities in the past."
"Provocative humor, such as ones dealing with topics of race and gender politics, can be crass and vulgar, but underlying it must be a context that spurs social dialogue about these respective issues. There needs to be a message, a central truth behind comedy for it to work as humor."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-berteaux/jerry-seinfeld-politcally-correct-college-student_b_7540878.html

But this begs the question. Is comedy only justified if it provides such clear social value? Must it have a clearly delineated socially uplifting message to be legitimate?

I have gone into this digression thinking of Tom Brown's mentioning what happened to that Yale teacher. Somehow, she has lost her job at Yale for sending an email that I can't for the life of me understand as an grounds for termination. Ok, she 'resigned' but surely she resigned so she wouldn't be fired. 
Her husband, who a young woman screamed down in the campus square as being 'Disgusting! How do you sleep at night? This isn't about creating an intellectual space!' is taking a 'sabbatical' for a semester. 
So that young girl, Jerelyn Luther won. She must feel very powerful that she and her ultra fastidious friends can take anyone down they want, get anyone fired over very small beer. Woe to the person for whom she decides she doesn't' like their socks one day
http://turtleboysports.com/angry-privileged-yale-girl-who-screamed-at-professor-is-probably-the-antichrist/
The Jerelyn Luther angle is very enigmatic. 
"One of the most fascinating revelations regarding Luther’s identity, though, is the fact that she played a role in Christakis becoming master of Silliman College in the first place. In her tirade, Luther screams “Who the fuck hired you?” at Christakis. But further research reveals that Luther actually served on the search committee that chose Christakis as the master of Silliman College. So, when Luther screams “who the fuck hired you,” the answer is, in some part, herself,"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/meet-the-privileged-yale-student-who-shrieked-at-her-professor/#ixzz3tq7bHmwC

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/meet-the-privileged-yale-student-who-shrieked-at-her-professor/
What I don't get is when anyone gets to study at these colleges anymore. It seems that we're way beyond the age of PC where you worry about offending others for various sins. Now it's Emphatic Correctness where the focus is on being offended over everything an literally anything. Where the smallest speck of dust can make someone feel 'unsafe.'
Even some pretty radical feminists have gotten into trouble-there was a woman who wrote a joke about how there was a time when it was a student's dream to sleep with her professors-and she was investigated. 
But there was a complaint by a female student that a criminal justice class taught 'rape law'-sure, if we simply do away with the word 'rape' the act will also be gone. 
Twitter is a great vehicle for freedom-though you worry if the hysteria over ISIS will change that. But it also is a way of destroying someone if they send out one tweet that makes someone unhappy for a nanosecond. 
President Obama has also been very critical of this rise in EC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/15/obama-says-liberal-college-students-should-not-be-coddled-are-we-really-surprised/
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/05/empathetically-correct-is-the-new-politically-correct/371442/
It just seems that these students don't go to school with an interest in learning but sanitizing the world. It's a troubling development that I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more about. 





4 comments:

  1. You'd think this would be a self correcting problem: you get a degree in being maximally inoffensive and hyper-vigilance to 2rd and 3rd order evidence of offense outside yourself... and that get's you a job in what? Maybe that's the problem: it gets you a job as a college professor! Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, we'll see if and when there is a real backlash against all this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the spirit of being un-PC, I'm going to lay down a compliment here you probably won't read anyplace else, but I feel it has to be said: For all his faults (including almost certainly first degree murder, and probably racism), nobody can say that police officer Jason Van Dyke isn't an excellent shot! Pardon the pun, but shoot! I can guess what gun he used: probably a Glock 19: a mid-sized side arm with a 4" barrel (as opposed to the full sized Glock-17 with a 4.5" barrel, and two extra rounds in the standard sized magazine). 9mm. Double stack magazine with capacity of 15, plus 1 in the chamber (16 rounds total capacity). Van Dyke emptied the full magazine in what? 5 seconds? And he didn't miss once! And though McDonald was close (and McDonald clearly wasn't in any position to return fire), he wasn't point blank. Considering the excitement of the moment and all... that's not bad.

    OK, I know that sounds sick, and it is sick, but I haven't heard that anyplace else, and just felt it needed to be said. (And no, I didn't check stormfront.com ... I have a feeling they would have beat me to it).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow. I guess that's what happens-you ask for non PC and create a monster. LOL.

    My thing is that there was some truth to what Bill Cosby used to say. Ok, now that it turns out he's a serial rapist or something now it can be dismissed but you know, if you're not stealing a pound cake you stand less chance of being shot.

    The victim of Van Dyke was running away from the police after having broken into cars. It's hard to see him as a pure victim.

    Ok, I don't think this deserves to be followed by 22 shots but still, resisting arrest is never a good idea.

    I worry that criminal behaviour is almost being legitimized.

    ReplyDelete