The Bedlamite's Greatest Hits: The Pearls Are Swine (No, That's An Insult To Swine)

A lot of people go around, saying things like "humorless PC SJWs can't take a joke" whenever those of us who care about things like racism point out that it isn't funny.

Now, I could write an extensive post detailing exactly why racism isn't funny, going into How Humor Works and the specifics of "punching up" and "punching down" and explaining why one makes you a comedian and the other makes you a bully (at this point the Bedlamite makes a note on a five-foot-long To Do list), but as an empiricist it would be better to provide a counterexample.

And so, I present one of my own jokes from elsewhere, tested in an SJW space and demonstrably SJW-approved!

A bit of context, first.

Michael and Debi Pearl are a pair of Christian conservatives (bordering on reactionaries), associated with a number of fundamentalist and evangelical movements including Quiverfull (known to the American public through the show 19 Kids And Counting). I know them through Libby Anne's blog, where she live-read several of their books: To Train Up A Child, Created to be His Helpmeet, and Created to Need a Helpmeet. In these books, which another commenter compared (unfavorably) to excrement, Michael and Debi describe their preferred way to raise children and Tame Shrews resolve marital disputes: devise rules, the more arbitrary the better; wait for the victim person to break a rule; hit the person with a stick; repeat as necessary.

Those of you who are reading this are probably thinking to yourselves: Bedlamite, that sounds like child and spousal abuse!

Yes. Yes it is. In fact, children have died as a result of the Pearls' teachings.

Now you are probably thinking: But you PC SJWs are supposed to be easily offended! How can you go making jokes about serious topics like that?

Wait for the joke; it's behind a bit more necessary context. Then, if you still don't understand how us "PC" SJWs can make jokes about serious and traumatic subjects, wait for the post about How Humor Works and I'll tell you how to make Holocaust jokes funny.

Back to the necessary context, before I was so rudely interrupted.

The Aristocrats is a common joke that comedians tell one another. The form is simple:

1. A guy walks into a talent agency, and he says "Have I got an act for you!"
2. He then demonstrates or describes the act, usually calling in his family to help.
3. The agent asks what he calls the act, and he responds, usually in a dramatic way, "The Aristocrats!"
4. In some tellings of the joke, the agent asks a question, such as "How much for season tickets?" or "Can you really get [famous performer]?"

Part 2 is almost always the longest part of the joke. It consists of the most vile thing the comedian can imagine. Murder, necrophilia, bodily waste, bestiality, blasphemy, and mocking of famous tragedies such as the Holocaust or 9/11 are common. As you might expect, this kind of joke is one of the reasons why some comedy clubs don't admit kids.

Since you can probably see where this is going, I now present the joke:

[SCENE: Room interior. A PUBLISHER sits at a desk. MICHAEL and DEBI enter.]
PUBLISHER: So, I hear the two of you want to write Christian advice books?
MICHAEL: Yeah. Underserved market and all that.
DEBI: Got to strike a blow for God in this fallen world.
PUBLISHER: Anything in particular?
MICHAEL: Well, I was thinking I'd start with a child-rearing book.
DEBI: And if that's a success, I'd write a marriage advice book.
PUBLISHER: Okay, that sounds good.
MICHAEL: So many unhappy children. They need to be beaten until they're happy!
PUBLISHER: (jaw drops, stunned silence)
DEBI: And so many couples just don't get along. You know the answer? Wifely obedience!
MICHAEL: Right. She's so much happier since she stopped having any will of her own.
DEBI: And our kids are much happier since we started hitting them with plumbing line.
MICHAEL: Yeah, that's going to be a big thing in my book. Hit your kids for disobedience.
DEBI: Hit them for being unhappy.
MICHAEL: Hit them for speaking when not spoken to.
DEBI: Hit them for not crying when hit.
MICHAEL: Hit them for crying too much when hit.
DEBI: Hit them for breaking rules.
MICHAEL: Oh, but the rules don't have to make sense. Or be ones that the kids have had a chance to learn. In fact, it's better if they're complete nonsense you made up five seconds ago.
DEBI: Yeah. Kids need to respect rules, and they can't learn respect for the rules if the rules aren't completely arbitrary.
MICHAEL: And of course, no one will ever take this too far.
DEBI: Not that we'll define what "too far" is. It's enough to not use the rod in anger.
MICHAEL: Of course, all of this is because all children are born full of sin, and rebel against rightful authority.
DEBI: Which is why their wills need to broken.
MICHAEL: Like I did with yours, honey?
DEBI: Yes, and that's what my book's about.
MICHAEL: She's been so much happier after I beat the shit out of her. Wasn't over anything important either. Just whose turn it was to take out the garbage.
DEBI: My book's about how God wants women to be quiet and submit themselves completely to their husbands.
MICHAEL: Even if it's about sex, and she doesn't want it. Especially then!
DEBI: Right. It's the wife's duty to do absolutely anything the husband wants.
MICHAEL: Aside from treating him like a woman.
DEBI: Right. No gay stuff. Anyway, the wife needs to keep all of her problems bottled up. Otherwise she'll drive him away.
MICHAEL: I was thinking I might write a companion book, where the husband's told that if his wife doesn't say anything, he should assume that everything's fine. Muahaha.
DEBI: Even if the husband's doing illegal things, she should just smile and help him bury the bodies. Unless he's pimping out their minor son.
MICHAEL: Right. No gay stuff.
DEBI: Even if he beats her, and breaks her bones, it's probably because she did something to deserve it. Like asking him to do something, or not being a perfect servant all the time.
MICHAEL: Or frowning. Or not being beautiful enough.
DEBI: Right, and if she really needs something from him, like enough money to buy food fit for human consumption, what she needs to do is submit harder and let God take care of it.
MICHAEL: Or else he'll leave her for a hot young girl, and leave her alone in a duplex.
DEBI: Where she gets tempted into the worst sin possible: gay stuff!
MICHAEL: Oh, and you forgot, it needs to be more focused on the man.
DEBI: Right, right. All women are meant to mold themselves into the shape that fits their man, but there's three types of men. There's the boring kind. There's the flighty kind. And there's the kind who loves you and shows you that he does.
MICHAEL: By beating the shit out of you.
DEBI: And if you're lucky enough to have that kind --
PUBLISHER: Who the hell are you two?!
MICHAEL & DEBI: The Aristocrats!

A Few Thoughts on Free Speech

So.

Apparently someone has made the news for suffering consequences for speech, or I've just gotten fed up with trolls claiming the same. So, to begin, what is freedom of speech?

For purposes of this post, let's call it the ability to say whatever you want without punishment.

But then, what is punishment?

Is being thrown in prison punishment?
Is being fired from your job punishment?
Is having your ability to speak taken away punishment?
Is losing your audience punishment?
Is being criticized punishment?
Is being thought of as "that dude who supports slavery" punishment?

Let's start with the first of these: is being thrown in prison punishment?

Well, intuitively, the answer would seem to be "yes". According to many people who have put a lot more thought into this than I have, the answer would also seem to be "yes". The exceptions made for things like slander or fraud or sedition are held to be limitations on the right rather than examples of where the right contradicts itself. If you get thrown in prison for what you say, you do not have free speech. That was easy!

Next, let's skip to the end. Is being thought of as "that dude who supports slavery" punishment?

Intuitively, the answer would seem to be "no". When you say things, you expect that people are going to form opinions based on it; one possible group of opinions they might form is opinions about you. Not allowing people to form opinions doesn't just protect you from being punished; it also keeps them from forming opinions. Another easy one! If this keeps up, the whole post will be over pretty quickly!

Is being criticized punishment?

Intuitively, the answer seems to be "no". Criticism tends to take the form of speech, so if free speech is a universal right, you can't restrict the right to criticize. Another quick one --

--hold up. Suppose the criticism isn't meant to counter speech, but instead to block it. Suppose that what someone actually said is being buried beneath out-of-context quotes or deliberate misinterpretations. Suppose that the "criticism" is actually a DDOS attack or a hack that knocks the original speech off the Internet. Suppose that the "criticism" is actually something like a threat to do unspeakable things to the speaker if they keep speaking. That seems like a pretty clear case of "criticism" that is not compatible with free speech.

Is losing your audience punishment?

Well, it's tempting not to rely on intuition after that last one, but the intuitive answer seems to be "yes". If a transmission is blocked, that's censorship even if no one goes after the actual broadcaster, right? If you can't be heard, you may as well have not spoken, right?

But what if your audience walks away on their own? Under most circumstances, no one has an obligation to listen to you. This is especially true if your audience would otherwise pay to listen to you, even indirectly; just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to paid speech.

Is having your ability to speak taken away punishment?

Intuition's batting 500 so far (or something, sports metaphors aren't my thing), so it's looking a bit sketchy. But let's give it a chance to turn this around. The answer seems to be "yes". If you lose your ability to speak, that's practically the definition of censorship, isn't it?

Well, suppose you're speaking using a platform someone else owns. Other people aren't obligated to let you use their microphones to speak to their audiences, no matter how much you beg them. Said audiences certainly aren't obligated to listen. Other people have a right to filter out noise and misinformation from their channels, and ultimately it's the owner of the channel who decides what counts as "noise" or "misinformation".

Is being fired from your job punishment?

So far, intuition's lost more than it's won. But this is pretty obvious. Being fired, that's the sort of thing that happens for incompetence, insubordination, mutiny, and so forth (or so I've heard). It's reprehensible that someone should be fired simply for voicing a particular belief! Even members of the Klan have a right to work!

So what happens when the speaker's job is to speak using the employer's platform? What happens when the speaker's job is to represent the employer? What happens when the speaker's job is to lend the employer their good name? In other words, what happens when an obligation to retain this person would interfere with the employer's free speech?
(These might seem like a distant hypothetical, but this is the era of the professional celebrity. Athletes and actors acquire assets by associating artifacts with their appellations. When you get paid to have a reputation and show up in an ad, saying something that damages your reputation, or even just having a relative who damages it, interferes with your ability to do your job.)

Blasphemy!

The Kim family are humans, and bad ones at that. A flag is just a symbol of an arbitrary division within humanity, and rallying behind a flag a way to keep the sheeple masses from rising against their masters. The invisible hand of the market is fully capable of punching people in the face, but $ECONOMIC_SYSTEM doesn't work any better. $POLITICIAN is the same as any other jerk out to fleece you, xe just repeats the words that you like; ditto $PUNDIT. $SELF_HELP_GURU doesn't have any more answers than you do, and is flogging something xe made up in xir basement. $ALTERNATIVE_MEDICAL_TREATMENT has no hard evidence supporting it and its proposed mechanism of action is, scientifically speaking, pure nonsense; this goes double for things like "Law of Attraction".

Oh, and no religion invented by mankind has contained a deity or a deity's adversary who was even a decent being, let alone a moral example worth following or obeying. And despite what your "Word of Faith" preacher or that one exiled Nigerian royal might tell you, no god will reward you for giving someone money.

One day, we will all be able to speak loudly the truth that "the fool hath said [only] in his heart". One day, the offense caused by a statement will be proportional to its harm. Until then, happy Blasphemy Rights Day.

An Open Letter To People Who Think "Man Coulter" is a Funny Joke

Dear [insert form of address],

It has come to my attention that, when discussing a certain conservative pundit, you think it is a valid criticism, or funny, or in any way appropriate, to make "jokes" to the effect of "she has an Adam's apple" or "she's a man" or the like. I would like to disabuse you of this notion.

To begin, I believe you identify as liberal, correct? You believe in equality, and standing with he oppressed against their oppressors, and the rights of the downtrodden, correct? You believe that membership in a class, even or especially an unprivileged class, is not cause for shame?

Furthermore, you believe, as I do, that Ms. Coulter is a throughly vile human being, correct? You agree that she is a hateful, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, poverty-bashing, genocide-advocating, torture-apologist, victim-blaming, idiotic, willfully ignorant, talentless, unfunny, Christian-supremacist, jingoistic, warmongering, self-loathing, self-absorbed, arrogant, narrow-minded, dichotomously thinking, hypocritical, violent mouthpiece for some of the most disgusting ideologies in mainstream political discourse?

Why then is it, that the best insult for her you can manage amounts to "ha ha ugly t****y"? There is much to criticize: her idea that Christianity should be brought to the Middle East with a sword, her defenses of people who are actively trying to bring about the End of Days, her inability to distinguish between nuance and treason, and all of the things listed in the previous paragraph; so why are you going with something fundamentally irrelevant to her opinions?

For that matter, why are you using "ha ha ugly t****y" as an insult? Why are you choosing to criticize a woman pundit with "ugly", implying that her looks are at all relevant to the validity of her opinions? Why are you criticizing anyone with "t****y", implying that being trans* is fundamentally a bad thing; much less criticizing a pundit with it, and implying that trans* people's opinions are fundamentally invalid?

In conclusion, you should engage with ideas you don't like, instead of dismissing them by claiming that the person who has them is a member of an unprivileged class.

Signed,
A Liberal Who's Tired Of You Undermining The Cause

(Note: This letter is also addressed to people who think "I wouldn't sleep with [name]" is a valid criticism of a conservative politician.)