You know that I wont hurt you
so open up and let me in
we love each other way to much
for it to be a sin
some people use the front door
but that's never been my way
just cuz I slip in back doors,
well, that doesn't make me, hey!
This is just like that time Maury Povich forced me to lie during that lie detector test about how he made me cheat on my girl right after he made me try to make out with a skank in his green room.
If I were to sit down with President Obama, I would insist that we each get our own beer, because I would not be satisfied sharing a crappy Bud Light. I want a full glass of good beer.
I've told funny jokes, given a queen an ipod, and calmed a baby just this past Saturday, Why aren't you in love with me? Is it because you find me less than handsome?
He did say that he thought Morgan's offensive statements were funny. That wasn't all he said, but perhaps I am unfairly projecting meaning onto his tweets based on what I know about him and how I feel about the situation. Indeed, perhaps that bolsters your point about twitter being a poor medium for such a discussion.
Still, words have meanings, and there is a huge difference between being imprecise with them, and being reckless. Louis C.K. is a brilliant comic. Calling him stupid because you don't agree with some of his tweets isn't starting a thoughtful conversation.
It really wasn't very thoughtful. If I told you an anecdote about what someone did, it doesn't matter how much you discuss it with other third-parties; you still weren't there. The notion that all of the attention this has received has somehow clarified the context of the statement is illogical. Most people can agree that Morgan's act was ill-advised. Almost everybody discussing can agree that it was damaging to him. But very few people actually heard what he said, and only Tracy Morgan knows whether it reflects his actual beliefs.
Louis C.K. isn't arguing that Tracy Morgan should or should not have said those things, he's arguing that the context in which they were said is important in making a judgment. That context is missing from this discussion, because none of us really know what we are talking about. If this fit into a Mel Gibson-style pattern of behavior, we'd have a better idea, but even then, we'd be trying to separate the person from the persona without really knowing the person at all.
More specifically, Louis is making a professional appeal that people not make a casual and uninformed connection between the words they found offensive and the person who said them. His thrust is that comedians need the freedom to be outrageous and take those kind of risks. Tracy Morgan crossed a line, but if crossing such a line is an unforgivable sin, artists will take fewer risks, and our culture will suffer. It isn't so reductive as "It's a joke; get over it." Perhaps it's more like "It was raw and untested material; don't crucify him."
The statements you are referencing aren't really contradictory in context. And unless you are completely unaware of the definitions of words like "stupid" and "idiot", all of your professed opinions are really just abusive, ad hominem statements meant to bolster your position without real logic.
The first time I told you to calm down, it was because you needed to calm down. The second time, I was being a dick because I thought it would be funny. I still think it was funny, and I still think you need to calm down. It isn't healthy to get so worked up about people you don't know.
You seem to have embraced the demagogue's position that strong emotion is a valid and proper substitute for reasoned thought. So long as you are properly outraged, it doesn't matter how thoughtless and ridiculous your statements are.
The problem is that no matter how angry you might be (or how wrong he might be, although I don't think he is), Louis C.K. is still brilliant. I don't often endorse the dismissive, "calm down" tactic in these arguments, but I think it is appropriate here.
Now, for serious, take a fucking breath.
I think the premise of his joke was that those are the beliefs of a ridiculous person, like the one that he is playing on stage. Again, I could be wrong about that.
I can't defend what Tracy Morgan said because 1) I didn't actually hear what he said. and 2) What I've been told that he said is horrible and unfunny.
However, I will say that Tracy Morgan's persona is a satirical creation that says and does horrible things constantly. The character he plays is an outlandish caricature that embodies and mocks many of society's ills and misguided beliefs. That is the thing he has been doing this whole time.
Now, that isn't to say that he should be given reign to say whatever he wants without criticism, but it does mean that when he breaks character to apologize for an offensive act, perhaps we should be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that his horrible statements were said in character, and that he never intended then to be taken seriously. I might be wrong about that, but I'm not going to start hating him just in case.
I don't have a problem with the man's politics, as I am also staunchly against cats on leashes. That said, the best litmus test for a Kelsey Grammer show is this one simple question: "Is he playing Frasier?"
Comments