With regard to legacy media, I think that there is a rule (either explicit or unspoken) that that kind of vulgar ethnic humor can’t be depicted. Maybe it stems from I Love Lucy, which basically set the tone for TV, as Desi Arnaz said that there was to be no ethnic humor. Regardless, it’s just not shown. I remember during the Charlie Hebdo shooting aftermath that American legacy media refused to show some of the cartoons that used extremely racist imagery.
I personally don’t mind the cartoon not being shown because most Americans, regardless of race, are extremely ignorant on the history of racist imagery and the “debate” would hinge on a very tedious right-wing focused discussion on “free speech.” Because the right frames everything as a “joke” (why are you so mad bro, can’t you take a joke lol), it’s basically impossible to push back against these kinds of things in any meaningful way.
Speaking very generally (that is, not focusing on Hasan Piker's bad judgment), I think a lot could be said about this episode of the Trump Show. I think that, in a perverse way, this sideshow was an adjunct to the Good and Pretti murders in Minneapolis, in that the Trump administration demonstrated its brazen duplicity -- brazen in that it lacked the sophistication that in years past Trump probably could more ably deploy.
So, ICE executes Pretti and Good, immediately smearing them as engaged in domestic terror, but the video evidence directly contradicts this, and that disparity causes some Trump supporters finally to clue in. Similarly, Trump's own actions -- first, to release the video with the spliced "Lion King" footage at the end, then to give contradictory rebuttals to the release itself ("Get over it" to "A staffer posted this" and removal of the post) highlighted the *lack* of plausible deniability, which is required for racism to have its most enduring "success." Trump isn't nimble enough anymore to do the footwork needed to play this off, and so many observers finally saw plain as day that Trump really is a racist, racist man.
In terms of the "hate speech is free speech" debate, let me just say, yech. I think this feint is a rhetorical retreat only, one that provides the thinnest of fig leaves as justification for not just harmful but socially *un-useful* speech. The only "positive" is that hatred binds an in-group. There are other ways, of course, but hatred is a quick-and-dirty method. So hate speech serves that function; and, to preserve access to that function, racists retreat to the language of rights -- of civil liberties! That rankles. I think the hypocrisy of the Charlie Kirk clampdown against detractors bumping up against the brutal murders and assaults on nonviolent protesters has shaken some of these proponents of "free speech in all cases!" to take a step back and observe the double standards and bad faith employed by the political right.
The ironic thing about your caveat about how this AI video would be cast is that it really IS a joke. It's a form of ridicule set to music -- it's inherently humorous. I think this goes back to fascist humor that, number one, cherishes depictions of social hierarchy, but also utilizes subversive humor to radicalize its audience in a way where that audience is unaware of the radicalization process. To be blunt, therein lies the danger. So I agree that it's relatively futile to attempt to rebut material like this on a 1:1 basis; I daresay there aren't verbal arguments that can defuse what this meme sets off.
I completely agree with you. Strong outrage is the only decent response, and the image should not be re-posted. I remember seeing a horrific cartoon drawing of Michelle Obama, which I won't even describe. It left me shocked by the depth of racism that inspired the artist and the poster. They should be called out, but the image should not be disseminated. I actually can't imagine the feelings of POC in our society who are confronted with such vileness.
I obviously agree with what you’ve said here, but of course I then have to contrast that with my overall, socially libertarian belief that censorship should be rare. (For example, historically I’ve been against restrictions on the sale of pornography.) One of our greatest guarantees against tyranny is freedom of the press, so the issue in the abstract is a dear one to me.
There’s a classic American film, Birth of a Nation, that set industry standards for visual effects and was hugely popular when it was released, but it was essentially mothballed after the civil rights movement won many of its cultural goals. As a child of the ‘70s, I hadn’t even heard of it until I watched it in college, where it was included in a syllabus. My professor gave many caveats beforehand and as a group the class dissected the film with a critical lens.
I bring this up because I remember right before Obama won the presidency, Turner Classic Movies decided to broadcast Birth of a Nation, and it too spent time contextualizing the film beforehand for the audience, bringing in a film expert to explain the problematic nature of the film but also its technical achievements, of which there were many. (It has the first chase scene in cinematic history, for one.) The care TCM was painstaking. Then, I believe right after Trump eked out his electoral college victory in 2016, TCM broadcast the film again — but this time without any preparatory commentary. It just let it rip. That decision was really telling.
I think the least Hasan Piker could have done was place this incendiary racist propaganda in proper context for his audience, many of whom are not savvy in terms of the consumption of this type of material. If there’s one thing I’d say, it’s that Piker was extraordinarily negligent as a host and curator of his own audience.
As for that image of Michelle Obama that you witnessed, I can bet that no amount of careful commentary would have lessened the shockwave you received. Some things are just patently offensive.
I agree with all that you've said, brilliantly as always. Context is critical. I've seen Birth of a Nation. What to one person is a warning, to others is a call to arms. I admit to missing some old icons like Aunt Jemima, Little Black Sambo's restaurant, Br'er Rabbit. Born in '53 into a liberal white California family, I knew they were stereotypes, but sweet ones to me. Learning about slavery, segregation and watching the Civil Rights movement, I was and still am shocked and horrified by extreme racism. So tragic that they are trying to drag us back into darker times. I don't foresee any of this turning out well, either socially or environmentally. We're too lacking in empathy.
I ran across a video on TikTok that is part of a weekly series called “The New Orleans Method”. Her series shares her thoughts about this seminar or class she is taking at Stanford.
She discusses the fact that “there are images that we can reproduce that can recapitulate harm even if you are claiming you just want to bring light to it”. She says a lot of interesting things but one comment made me think about the point you are making - refusing easy consumption. Also the ethical responsibility to restrain. Unlike what Piker has done. She also mentions developing lazy conclusions. Ha. That one hit home with me.
I will link to her video. But in case the link does not work her handle is ShaleseElsewhere. Her profile shows that she is on instagram. I do not have an instagram account so not sure if her content series, The New Orleans Method, is there.
Hey, FC! Thanks for the link. Shalese’s perspective is alluringly thoughtful. She definitely speaks the language of the academic, which I find refreshing, and she explores nuance purposefully.
Inevitably, when someone brings up consumption, I’m as likely to think of capitalism and how that system thrives on consumption as I am other aspects. I don’t think Shalese was speaking about capitalism in that moment but rather the absorption of information without a critical lens. In a food metaphor, it’s the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates. The simple has a rapid boom-and-bust cycle, whereas complexity sustains, producing a long, steady burn. (In that vein, don’t we want complex thought structures? They sustain us better in the long run.)
So that’s a tangential consideration, not really addressing either her overall point or my own essay here. Just a response of some of the dimension of what she was saying.
In terms of the ethical responsibility to weigh what should be shared and what should be held back, that spoke to me in a very particular way — again, not w/r/t my essay here about Piker but about the editorial process. Good editors not only nip & tuck; they reject. The most prestigious poetry magazines tend to have ~99% rejection rate. There’s a rigorous process of winnowing, in order to elevate quality. So that was my first reaction, not really applicable to Piker. In fact, I don’t think he even remotely approaches his work that way, because he’s constantly on the lookout for content, which is something different entirely. He’s looking for quantity. And his is a visual medium: he wants to show.
Certainly, though, he has a responsibility as a curator of images to present dangerous material with exquisite care, and he did not do that here. And, because he doesn’t understand this perspective, he will mishandle such material again.
Thanks again for the video, and for reading this little piece.
With regard to legacy media, I think that there is a rule (either explicit or unspoken) that that kind of vulgar ethnic humor can’t be depicted. Maybe it stems from I Love Lucy, which basically set the tone for TV, as Desi Arnaz said that there was to be no ethnic humor. Regardless, it’s just not shown. I remember during the Charlie Hebdo shooting aftermath that American legacy media refused to show some of the cartoons that used extremely racist imagery.
I personally don’t mind the cartoon not being shown because most Americans, regardless of race, are extremely ignorant on the history of racist imagery and the “debate” would hinge on a very tedious right-wing focused discussion on “free speech.” Because the right frames everything as a “joke” (why are you so mad bro, can’t you take a joke lol), it’s basically impossible to push back against these kinds of things in any meaningful way.
Hi, LM :) Good to see you.
Speaking very generally (that is, not focusing on Hasan Piker's bad judgment), I think a lot could be said about this episode of the Trump Show. I think that, in a perverse way, this sideshow was an adjunct to the Good and Pretti murders in Minneapolis, in that the Trump administration demonstrated its brazen duplicity -- brazen in that it lacked the sophistication that in years past Trump probably could more ably deploy.
So, ICE executes Pretti and Good, immediately smearing them as engaged in domestic terror, but the video evidence directly contradicts this, and that disparity causes some Trump supporters finally to clue in. Similarly, Trump's own actions -- first, to release the video with the spliced "Lion King" footage at the end, then to give contradictory rebuttals to the release itself ("Get over it" to "A staffer posted this" and removal of the post) highlighted the *lack* of plausible deniability, which is required for racism to have its most enduring "success." Trump isn't nimble enough anymore to do the footwork needed to play this off, and so many observers finally saw plain as day that Trump really is a racist, racist man.
In terms of the "hate speech is free speech" debate, let me just say, yech. I think this feint is a rhetorical retreat only, one that provides the thinnest of fig leaves as justification for not just harmful but socially *un-useful* speech. The only "positive" is that hatred binds an in-group. There are other ways, of course, but hatred is a quick-and-dirty method. So hate speech serves that function; and, to preserve access to that function, racists retreat to the language of rights -- of civil liberties! That rankles. I think the hypocrisy of the Charlie Kirk clampdown against detractors bumping up against the brutal murders and assaults on nonviolent protesters has shaken some of these proponents of "free speech in all cases!" to take a step back and observe the double standards and bad faith employed by the political right.
The ironic thing about your caveat about how this AI video would be cast is that it really IS a joke. It's a form of ridicule set to music -- it's inherently humorous. I think this goes back to fascist humor that, number one, cherishes depictions of social hierarchy, but also utilizes subversive humor to radicalize its audience in a way where that audience is unaware of the radicalization process. To be blunt, therein lies the danger. So I agree that it's relatively futile to attempt to rebut material like this on a 1:1 basis; I daresay there aren't verbal arguments that can defuse what this meme sets off.
I completely agree with you. Strong outrage is the only decent response, and the image should not be re-posted. I remember seeing a horrific cartoon drawing of Michelle Obama, which I won't even describe. It left me shocked by the depth of racism that inspired the artist and the poster. They should be called out, but the image should not be disseminated. I actually can't imagine the feelings of POC in our society who are confronted with such vileness.
Hi, Francis/Clare :) Thanks for stopping in.
I obviously agree with what you’ve said here, but of course I then have to contrast that with my overall, socially libertarian belief that censorship should be rare. (For example, historically I’ve been against restrictions on the sale of pornography.) One of our greatest guarantees against tyranny is freedom of the press, so the issue in the abstract is a dear one to me.
There’s a classic American film, Birth of a Nation, that set industry standards for visual effects and was hugely popular when it was released, but it was essentially mothballed after the civil rights movement won many of its cultural goals. As a child of the ‘70s, I hadn’t even heard of it until I watched it in college, where it was included in a syllabus. My professor gave many caveats beforehand and as a group the class dissected the film with a critical lens.
I bring this up because I remember right before Obama won the presidency, Turner Classic Movies decided to broadcast Birth of a Nation, and it too spent time contextualizing the film beforehand for the audience, bringing in a film expert to explain the problematic nature of the film but also its technical achievements, of which there were many. (It has the first chase scene in cinematic history, for one.) The care TCM was painstaking. Then, I believe right after Trump eked out his electoral college victory in 2016, TCM broadcast the film again — but this time without any preparatory commentary. It just let it rip. That decision was really telling.
I think the least Hasan Piker could have done was place this incendiary racist propaganda in proper context for his audience, many of whom are not savvy in terms of the consumption of this type of material. If there’s one thing I’d say, it’s that Piker was extraordinarily negligent as a host and curator of his own audience.
As for that image of Michelle Obama that you witnessed, I can bet that no amount of careful commentary would have lessened the shockwave you received. Some things are just patently offensive.
I agree with all that you've said, brilliantly as always. Context is critical. I've seen Birth of a Nation. What to one person is a warning, to others is a call to arms. I admit to missing some old icons like Aunt Jemima, Little Black Sambo's restaurant, Br'er Rabbit. Born in '53 into a liberal white California family, I knew they were stereotypes, but sweet ones to me. Learning about slavery, segregation and watching the Civil Rights movement, I was and still am shocked and horrified by extreme racism. So tragic that they are trying to drag us back into darker times. I don't foresee any of this turning out well, either socially or environmentally. We're too lacking in empathy.
I ran across a video on TikTok that is part of a weekly series called “The New Orleans Method”. Her series shares her thoughts about this seminar or class she is taking at Stanford.
She discusses the fact that “there are images that we can reproduce that can recapitulate harm even if you are claiming you just want to bring light to it”. She says a lot of interesting things but one comment made me think about the point you are making - refusing easy consumption. Also the ethical responsibility to restrain. Unlike what Piker has done. She also mentions developing lazy conclusions. Ha. That one hit home with me.
I will link to her video. But in case the link does not work her handle is ShaleseElsewhere. Her profile shows that she is on instagram. I do not have an instagram account so not sure if her content series, The New Orleans Method, is there.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP89T8ftH/
Thanks for your post. I always learn something valuable from your writings.
Hey, FC! Thanks for the link. Shalese’s perspective is alluringly thoughtful. She definitely speaks the language of the academic, which I find refreshing, and she explores nuance purposefully.
Inevitably, when someone brings up consumption, I’m as likely to think of capitalism and how that system thrives on consumption as I am other aspects. I don’t think Shalese was speaking about capitalism in that moment but rather the absorption of information without a critical lens. In a food metaphor, it’s the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates. The simple has a rapid boom-and-bust cycle, whereas complexity sustains, producing a long, steady burn. (In that vein, don’t we want complex thought structures? They sustain us better in the long run.)
So that’s a tangential consideration, not really addressing either her overall point or my own essay here. Just a response of some of the dimension of what she was saying.
In terms of the ethical responsibility to weigh what should be shared and what should be held back, that spoke to me in a very particular way — again, not w/r/t my essay here about Piker but about the editorial process. Good editors not only nip & tuck; they reject. The most prestigious poetry magazines tend to have ~99% rejection rate. There’s a rigorous process of winnowing, in order to elevate quality. So that was my first reaction, not really applicable to Piker. In fact, I don’t think he even remotely approaches his work that way, because he’s constantly on the lookout for content, which is something different entirely. He’s looking for quantity. And his is a visual medium: he wants to show.
Certainly, though, he has a responsibility as a curator of images to present dangerous material with exquisite care, and he did not do that here. And, because he doesn’t understand this perspective, he will mishandle such material again.
Thanks again for the video, and for reading this little piece.