Non-AFL chat thread

[immortalmike]

So from what I understand what you're saying, essentially it's ok to call out homophobia when you consider it to be (the example you gave was Westboro Baptist Church) but when you don't (BT) it's not ok to call it out. That is essentially what this discussion comes down to, our different opinion on what constitutes a homophobic comment. The thing is, we know that these words are hurtful to a lot of people (you are being disingenuous if you are going to claim otherwise) even if it isn't offensive to you personally. So to me, to defend them shows a total lack of empathy or at least sympathy to what oppressed/marginalised groups have been through historically and unfortunately what they are still subject to in today's society.

How have I assaulted free speech btw? I have never said people can't say those words. Sure you are free to say whatever offensive things you want, I mean no one is going to arrest you. But I just question why anyone would a) want to say things they know will hurt people/groups or b) defend people that do that. I have only said that when those comments are made, people can (and should) call them out if they find them offensive. You seem have an issue with people doing this. Do you see the contradiction in that you are championing free speech but have an issue with people speaking freely in calling something homophobic if they consider it so? You are contradicting your own argument.

No I'm saying there's a huge difference between real explicit homophobia and someone making a comment that wasn't intended to be offensive and that the response to each shouldn't be the same. It's all down to intent, I like to take people at there word, if they didn't intend offense I'd suggest maybe some understanding both ways is in order. If you'd prefer to try and read their mind as to what you think their intent was and ruin someone's life over it (by for example getting them fired or branding them a homophobe) then I'd suggest it's you that lacks empathy.

You do realise that the first two lines of your second paragraph applies perfectly to my argument. The only difference is you are branding people homophobes, racists, bigots and whatever else based on very little evidence and all I'm calling for is a more nuanced response. I'm unsure of how that makes me unempathetic, in fact I'd argue it's quite the opposite. The world isn't as black and white as you paint it and nor should we be in our responses.

One other thing, you continue to question why I would defend people who say often unintended offensive things. I've told you several times. Because your rhetoric hurts the side I've worked a third of my life trying to promote and aid. I've given you several examples of this. I used to be you, I used to think you have to call out everything that could offend others, but over the years came the slow realization that it was alienating friends and colleagues. It was hurting my cause and I was killing free expression. Now you can choose to disagree with my assessment but you can't continue to question why I'd continue to speak out against these reactions.

 

[BEaston]

Your first sentence is your opinion only. Again, just because you don't find a comment to be "explicit homophobia" doesn't mean a whole lot of other people do find it to be homobphobic. You are saying the response should fit your definition. It's kind of egocentric IMO.

Also I disagree that intent does not matter so much. Unintended homophobic comments can be just as, if not more, damaging than intended ones.

 

[immortalmike]

Your first sentence is your opinion only. Again, just because you don't find a comment to be "explicit homophobia" doesn't mean a whole lot of other people do find it to be homobphobic. You are saying the response should fit your definition. It's kind of egocentric IMO.

Also I disagree that intent does not matter so much. Unintended homophobic comments can be just as, if not more, damaging than intended ones.

Again you Greenwald my opinion.
I'm not saying intent doesn't matter I'm saying intent is the most important thing.
I'm saying there's a huge difference between someone trying to make a joke that may or may not be construed as offensive and someone who goes out to intentionally promote hatred. You are saying both are the same and deserve the same punishment of being branded a homophobe (or whatever). I'm saying your way hurts our cause. It's akin to the difference between murder and manslaughter, yes they both end up in a death but as a society we don't treat them the same. If you still can't see the difference I really can't help you.

This is not an egocentric position, I'm attempting to take people at their word. If someone says they weren't intending to be offensive I'll try to believe them. If you'd rather believe you understand their intent better than themselves, maybe you're the egocentrist.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Mike, not going over previous ground here, because it will become completely circular and fruitless (and I do apologise for making an assumption about you), but you seem to think it is everyone's role to be an educator to people who say hurtful comments of a certain type, and that we should wear kiddy gloves when dealing with what they have said.

The words 'homophobic' or 'racist', 'sexist' and so on are not things we should reserve only for those who have demonstrated truly reprehensible attitudes. They are words that describe everyday kinds of discrimination that need to be applied when these kinds of discrimination come up... BT made that comment on air, and as an established public figure he must be held responsible for it.

What he said was homophobic, and this is clean cut (you arent seriously going to argue that calling someone a '****ter' on air isnt homophobic are you?). As a public figure, he needs to take the hit because of what he said in a public forum. I agree that he needs to be better educated, but not everyone is an educator, or should be. That is an issue for him and those he works for. People who are activists must be able to passionately argue against inequities and discrimination when they see them, and not for some reason have to be sensitive to the perpetrators of these.

An important quote in recent times: The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. I will not accept a public figure casually saying on television a word many people find hurtful as a joke without comment, or treat it as something of little consequence. Deconstructing what he said, he was inferring that there is a problem with being effeminate, and that this is connected to homosexuality, something also problematic. It isnt something to be reacted to as 'silly old BT'. If people do react that way, it will be considered as not a big deal to say hurtful things about those who act effeminately, or are gay, on TV. It is a big deal, it is hurtful, and I will not stand by or lessen it, when I know that it hurts people.

Do you think that 'homophobe' is a 'card' only to be applied to a person who is truly hateful and agressive towards gays? I dont, it should be applied to all kinds of casual discrimination, both conscious and implicit, because that is what it identifies and that is what we need to address to move forward, not the views of a minority of crackpots.

As a side note, you seem to think that the moment one of these 'ist, ic' etc. words is applied to someone that their life is ruined... Why? That isnt the case in our society, as we have seen in many instances. Nor should it be. It is sadly normal, and people return from it all the time (BT is a good case, Eddie is another).

You seem to have an almost emotional reaction to these words and think they describe a crime of great proportions (this reaction is so, so common). We are, almost all of us, guilty of saying something racist, sexist, homophobic etc. at some point intentionally or unintentionally. We make the problem worse by only discussing the issue in extreme cases, and perpetuate defensive reactions where people are literally afraid of talking about these things (i.e. white guilt - something I see in my work all the time). They shouldnt be, people should be exposed to this, and have a discussion about it, and reflect on why they might be defensive. We need to talk about it, basically, and not only apply the discussion to the extremes. We cant let comments like calling someone a 'big ****ter' derisively on television pass by as just a mistake but rather talk about it for what kind of mistake it is.

 

[BEaston]

Again you Greenwald my opinion.
I'm not saying intent doesn't matter I'm saying intent is the most important thing.
I'm saying there's a huge difference between someone trying to make a joke that may or may not be construed as offensive and someone who goes out to intentionally promote hatred. You are saying both are the same and deserve the same punishment of being branded a homophobe (or whatever). I'm saying your way hurts our cause. It's akin to the difference between murder and manslaughter, yes they both end up in a death but as a society we don't treat them the same. If you still can't see the difference I really can't help you.

This is not an egocentric position, I'm attempting to take people at their word. If someone says they weren't intending to be offensive I'll try to believe them. If you'd rather believe you understand their intent better than themselves, maybe you're the egocentrist.

Sorry, I mistyped in my previous message. I meant to say that I disagree with you that intent is the most important thing, as the outcome can be and often is the same. In this situation as that outcome is damaging to a lot of people it is more important than the intention. I too would beleive someone if they said they weren't trying to be offensive in something they've said but that does not change the fact that what they said was offensive and I beleive should be labelled as so.

If a gay person said to you they found BTs comment homophobic would you tell them it's not? That's seems to be your viewpoint, hence the egocentric comment. I haven't once said that I would disagree with a persons intent if they stated it so don't put words in my mouth. Intent does not change the fact that people would find his comment homophobic. You are not the authority on that (nobody is btw).

 

[immortalmike]

Mike, not going over previous ground here, because it will become completely circular and fruitless (and I do apologise for making an assumption about you), but you seem to think it is everyone's role to be an educator to people who say hurtful comments of a certain type, and that we should wear kiddy gloves when dealing with what they have said.

The words 'homophobic' or 'racist', 'sexist' and so on are not things we should reserve only for those who have demonstrated truly reprehensible attitudes. They are words that describe everyday kinds of discrimination that need to be applied when these kinds of discrimination come up... BT made that comment on air, and as an established public figure he must be held responsible for them.

What he said was homophobic, and this is clean cut (you arent seriously going to argue that calling someone a '****ter' on air isnt homophobic are you?). As a public figure, he needs to take the hit because of what he said in a public forum. I agree that he needs to be better educated, but not everyone is an educator, or should be. That is an issue for him and those he works for, not everyone. People who are activists must be able to passionately argue against inequities and discrimination when they see them, and not for some reason have to be sensitive to the perpetrators of these.

An important quote in recent times: The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. I will not accept a public figure casually saying on television a word many people find hurtful as a joke without comment, or treat it as something of little consequence. Deconstructing what he said, he was inferring that there is a problem with being effeminate, and that this is connected to homosexuality, something also problematic. It isnt something to be reacted to as 'silly old BT'. If people do react that way, it will be considered as not a big deal to say hurtful things about those who act effeminately, or are gay, on TV. It is a big deal, it is hurtful, and I will not stand by or lessen it, when I know that it hurts people.

Do you think that 'homophobe' is a 'card' only to be applied to a person who is truly hateful and agressive towards gays? I dont, it should be applied to all kinds of casual discrimination, both conscious and implicit, because that is what it identifies and that is what we need to address to move forward, not the views of a minority of crackpots.

Firstly that isn't what I'm saying and I'm not sure how two otherwise intelligent people can keep missing my point. It's at the point that I'm questioning my written expression or whether or not either of you are actually reading my posts.
I'm simply stating that we should not punish manslaughter the same as we do murder. That understanding is a better response than vehement pig-headed name calling. I'm asking whether one ambiguous bit of evidence is enough to hang someone. And that call out culture like the one you're proposing is leading us to a time where either free expression is dead or calling out divisive behaviour and discrimination is meaningless (we have already seen and I have already given evidence of this).

And once again we differ on the power of those terms. Where I come from to be labeled a racist has dire consequences, you will lose your job, your friends and a shitload of social capital. Those terms have and should have power, to bandy them around as you have is just as insidious as what you purport to fight and it ruins people's lives often based on very ambiguous evidence.

Personally I am of the opinion that what BT said wasn't homophobic, because the intent wasn't to hurt gay people even if the consequences may have been just that. I have gay friends who agree, I have straight friends who disagree and so on. This is at the very least proof that the evidence is ambiguous enough not to form a lynch mob and maybe react less like an zealot and more like a nuanced human being. If not just for common decency but also because it's good for the cause you are fighting for. Yes he should've apologized, yes he should've been told that people were hurt and yes the network should've educated him. But should he still be branded a homophobe some 12 months later? **** no!

I invoked MLK for a reason in a previous post, because he achieved social justice not through force but through understanding. Demanding 100% idealogical purity is the counter to this.

Finally I want to address your quote. "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept". The way you interpret that is toxic to free expression and thought and will either lead to you having very few friends or your opinion being dismissed derisively. People say hurtful things every day, often unwittingly and often without the intent to hurt and often in an attempt at art or entertainment. You are making the world as flavourless as possible with the very best intentions (the road to where is paved by the btw?) Louie C.K. often uses the word ****** in his act, should we call him out? Despite the large amount of black people who love him? Many people are hurt and offended by the statue "David" being naked, should we call it out and make him wear some pants? Christian conservatives are offended by the teaching of evolution in classrooms, should we call it out?
Where does it end? Why are you the arbiter of what's hurtful and it's effects?

Sorry, I mistyped in my previous message. I meant to say that I disagree with you that intent is the most important thing, as the outcome can be and often is the same. In this situation as that outcome is damaging to a lot of people it is more important than the intention. I too would beleive someone if they said they weren't trying to be offensive in something they've said but that does not change the fact that what they said was offensive and I beleive should be labelled as so.

If a gay person said to you they found BTs comment homophobic would you tell them it's not? That's seems to be your viewpoint, hence the egocentric comment. I haven't once said that I would disagree with a persons intent if they stated it so don't put words in my mouth. Intent does not change the fact that people would find his comment homophobic. You are not the authority on that (nobody is btw).

At what stage did I say that people shouldn't label something offensive if the feel it is so? I'm just asking for nuance in the response.
You have no problem treating murder and manslaughter the same. I do.

I've been in that situation and have discussed that with them. I didn't feel it was homophobic but if you do that's your perogative. How is that an egocentric view?
Intent doesn't change that people would find it homophobic but I do believe it should change their response.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

You keep asking for nuance, but have continually conflated two things (as seen through your recourse to the words 'label' and 'branding').

There is a distinction between someone who is a racist, homophobe, etc. and an action that displays these characteristics by an individual who may in most respects be highly tolerant and conscientious.

In sum, on the one hand we have people who have, as a major part of their character discriminatory attitudes and beliefs. To these people we can apply the term homophobe, racist etc (your Bernardis and your Hansons). On the other we have people who's actions, in certain contexts, may be racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Fp and I have been arguing that what BT said was homophobic - now I am aware that you disagree and I will come to that. However, we have not been attempting to brand him as a deeply seated homophobe. I do think his comment says some things about his character, but not fundamentally too many. I do believe it says more about the environment though, a point to which we can return.

The issue we have been arguing is that people who act poorly in one instance should be called out for it, and that their behaviour should be called out for what it is.

Calling someone a 'big ****ter' as a negative comment is acting in a way that is homophobic. Arguing otherwise isn't an appeal to nuance, it is just inaccurate. It is a homophobic term, that is used to deride someone for effeminate behaviour, and suggests that it is behaviour expressive of a certain sexuality, also derided. This is just how BT used it.

Do I think he hates gay people for saying it? Obviously not. Nor do I think he should lose his job and be branded for all time. But I do think the behaviour required some punishment, and that there be a discussion about why it is a problem.

I'm in no way a zealot (funny that you gave me that status, given the nature of the discussion), and it is odd that you feel so threatened by labelling an action as discriminatory in some way. I think the defensiveness comes from the attitude that it is saying something intrinsic or unchangeable about a person by labelling their action. This obviously isn't true. It is correctly identifying the discrimination that people are responsible for and making them take responsibility for that. Public recognition of how hurtful these comments are is an important step forward. It is also helpful when people who are responsible for these actions express what their actual set of beliefs are, and that their behaviour in the instance in question was at odds with that.

I don't know what 'flavour' you want to maintain by leaving a space for hurtful comments like these, but let me tell you, I don't like the taste and I will say so every time.

Going back to your 'manslaughter murder' analogy, can you please explain the distinction here for us? I'll agree you haven't done a good job, so if you could, please characterise the exact distinction (you can draw on previous quotes, as you please, but I would like to understand). I'd like you to take note of the distinction between labelling an action, and labelling a person in doing so as you have conflated the two expansively in this discussion.

 

[BEaston]

Firstly that isn't what I'm saying and I'm not sure how two otherwise intelligent people can keep missing my point. It's at the point that I'm questioning my written expression or whether or not either of you are actually reading my posts.

Haha classic. Nothing to do with it being fairly contradictory.

Personally I am of the opinion that what BT said wasn't homophobic, because the intent wasn't to hurt gay people even if the consequences may have been just that. I have gay friends who agree, I have straight friends who disagree and so on. This is at the very least proof that the evidence is ambiguous enough not to form a lynch mob and maybe react less like an zealot and more like a nuanced human being.

This is the crux of it. You just don't think it wasn't homophobic. I personally don't think that calling out a comment as homophobic is forming a lynch mob. Agree to disagree I guess.

Why are you the arbiter of what's hurtful and it's effects?

If anyone is doing this in this discussion it's you.
Are you going to deny that comments such as BTs can be hurtful to people? Not even you would be so disingenuous. That's what I'm acknowledging. That these comments are known to widely hurt and damage certain groups and that should probably be considered before someone speaks. Or you can just not care. Or what seems worse to me, defend it. Seems kind of heartless though.

At what stage did I say that people shouldn't label something offensive if the feel it is so?

Throughout this conversation. Do you think people call a comment homophobic if they don't think it's offensive? You are saying people should not do that.

I'm just asking for nuance in the response.
You have no problem treating murder and manslaughter the same. I do.

If systematic/targeted/intended homophobia is "murder" in this case, you don't know what my response is as I haven't stated what it is. So again, don't put words in my mouth please. In this instance of "manslaughter" being BTs homophobic comment, my response is to call it such (note: not label him a homophobe if you haven't picked that up yet). Trust me, my response to systematic homophobia (for example, targeted violence again homosexuals) is much much stronger. You've assumed that people's response to BTs comment isn't already nuanced. Again, this is just based on your opinion of what constitutes a homophobic comment and what you deem the appropriate response to be.

I've been in that situation and have discussed that with them. I didn't feel it was homophobic but if you do that's your perogative. How is that an egocentric view?

It's an egocentric view because you are saying people should respond in line with your own beliefs.


Anyway, I'm not going to say any more as the conversation was always going to be fairly pointless in achieving anything. I'll await your last say on the matter though

 

[immortalmike]

Haha classic. Nothing to do with it being fairly contradictory.



This is the crux of it. You just don't think it wasn't homophobic. I personally don't think that calling out a comment as homophobic is forming a lynch mob. Agree to disagree I guess.



If anyone is doing this in this discussion it's you.
Are you going to deny that comments such as BTs can be hurtful to people? Not even you would be so disingenuous. That's what I'm acknowledging. That these comments are known to widely hurt and damage certain groups and that should probably be considered before someone speaks. Or you can just not care. Or what seems worse to me, defend it. Seems kind of heartless though.


Throughout this conversation. Do you think people call a comment homophobic if they don't think it's offensive? You are saying people should not do that.


If systematic/targeted/intended homophobia is "murder" in this case, you don't know what my response is as I haven't stated what it is. So again, don't put words in my mouth please. In this instance of "manslaughter" being BTs homophobic comment, my response is to call it such (note: not label him a homophobe if you haven't picked that up yet). Trust me, my response to systematic homophobia (for example, targeted violence again homosexuals) is much much stronger. You've assumed that people's response to BTs comment isn't already nuanced. Again, this is just based on your opinion of what constitutes a homophobic comment and what you deem the appropriate response to be.


It's an egocentric view because you are saying people should respond in line with your own beliefs.


Anyway, I'm not going to say any more as the conversation was always going to be fairly pointless in achieving anything. I'll await your last say on the matter though

So you agree with me? My issue was always that we shouldn't hand out the same punishment for an unintended offensive comment as a systematic explicit one. Glad we could come to an agreement, despite you arguing with a viewpoint I never expressed. If you didn't notice my first comment was taking umbrage at someone calling BT a homophobe. The rest of your post is nonsense made up in your own mind arguing with an opinion you think I have along with an immature dose of snark and derision.
You'd do well to find out what Greenwalding is if you don't already know as you're a master of it.

You keep asking for nuance, but have continually conflated two things (as seen through your recourse to the words 'label' and 'branding').

There is a distinction between someone who is a racist, homophobe, etc. and an action that displays these characteristics by an individual who may in most respects be highly tolerant and conscientious.

In sum, on the one hand we have people who have, as a major part of their character discriminatory attitudes and beliefs. To these people we can apply the term homophobe, racist etc (your Bernardis and your Hansons). On the other we have people who's actions, in certain contexts, may be racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Fp and I have been arguing that what BT said was homophobic - now I am aware that you disagree and I will come to that. However, we have not been attempting to brand him as a deeply seated homophobe. I do think his comment says some things about his character, but not fundamentally too many. I do believe it says more about the environment though, a point to which we can return.

The issue we have been arguing is that people who act poorly in one instance should be called out for it, and that their behaviour should be called out for what it is.

Calling someone a 'big ****ter' as a negative comment is acting in a way that is homophobic. Arguing otherwise isn't an appeal to nuance, it is just inaccurate. It is a homophobic term, that is used to deride someone for effeminate behaviour, and suggests that it is behaviour expressive of a certain sexuality, also derided. This is just how BT used it.

Do I think he hates gay people for saying it? Obviously not. Nor do I think he should lose his job and be branded for all time. But I do think the behaviour required some punishment, and that there be a discussion about why it is a problem.

I'm in no way a zealot (funny that you gave me that status, given the nature of the discussion), and it is odd that you feel so threatened by labelling an action as discriminatory in some way. I think the defensiveness comes from the attitude that it is saying something intrinsic or unchangeable about a person by labelling their action. This obviously isn't true. It is correctly identifying the discrimination that people are responsible for and making them take responsibility for that. Public recognition of how hurtful these comments are is an important step forward. It is also helpful when people who are responsible for these actions express what their actual set of beliefs are, and that their behaviour in the instance in question was at odds with that.

I don't know what 'flavour' you want to maintain by leaving a space for hurtful comments like these, but let me tell you, I don't like the taste and I will say so every time.

Going back to your 'manslaughter murder' analogy, can you please explain the distinction here for us? I'll agree you haven't done a good job, so if you could, please characterise the exact distinction (you can draw on previous quotes, as you please, but I would like to understand). I'd like you to take note of the distinction between labelling an action, and labelling a person in doing so as you have conflated the two expansively in this discussion.

Once again the discussion started with a post labeling BT as a homophobe not his comment, I disagreed based on the power argument I elucidated earlier. It is both you and cookie who conflated the two in my argument. I never argued against punishment or that those offended shouldn't be able to call it what they like. My simple point was as advocates for social justice we need to be better and more nuanced when the situation calls for it and that be based on the intent of the commenter. I don't see that as the ultimatum fp seems to think it is.
As to the comment itself, the mere fact that there are homosexuals who don't believe it was homophobic indicates it's not as clear cut as you perceive it. Unless you propose that you know better than them how they should feel? I don't think you do and neither do I.

Hurtful expression will always be part of society so long as people have feelings. It is not your job (nor mine) to be arbiter of what is hurtful or not because it's literally impossible to judge what may be hurtful in any given situation. Case in point was my Louie C.K. example where overtly racist language is used to make a genuine point and bring joy. At the end of the day you can only signal boost/listen to those that are hurt and try to understand the full context, without resorting to censorship. Call out culture is the enemy of nuance. If you disagree please try to read some Jonathan Haidt or Jon Ronson's "so you've been publicly shamed" and come back to me.

One thing I did want to discuss was that your response initially was to dismiss my opinion based on your percieved assessment of my privilege and the colour of my skin and my sexual preference. With this you became an explicit classist, racist bigot to my eye, because you repeated it twice and offered no apology or qualification. You hurt your own and my opinion when you do this. Assuming that an individual doesn't understand and hasn't experienced discrimination or oppression based on being a member of a group is not only hurtful but it makes that person feel helpless and silenced. Now do I still believe you are those things? No, not after reading your more recent posts and you (albeit qualified) apology but in the spirit of nuance and understanding I think it poignant to point out.

 

[immortalmike]

Are you going to deny that comments such as BTs can be hurtful to people? Not even you would be so disingenuous. That's what I'm acknowledging. That these comments are known to widely hurt and damage certain groups and that should probably be considered before someone speaks. Or you can just not care. Or what seems worse to me, defend it. Seems kind of heartless though.

That awkward moment when you sound exactly like a far right conservative complaining about why liberals are always defending criminals rather than the victim. You sir are the idealogue you hate.

 

[Freshwater]

Interesting discussion fellas, but I have to agree with mike, my private study for the last 20 years has been about democratic ideals, with heroes Jefferson and Lincoln and Ghandi and MLK and Mandela. Free expression, free speech, freedom of the press must be valued but sometimes it's a rough ride. People acusing people all the time of so-called micro-aggressions doesn't help anything and it puts off many. If we haven't noticed society is becoming much, much more tolerant, but people don't need to be pushed they'll move at their own pace. The dinosaurs will fall away, but not from self appointed guardians of the culture.

 

[immortalmike]

Interesting discussion fellas, but I have to agree with mike, my private study for the last 20 years has been about democratic ideals, with heroes Jefferson and Lincoln and Ghandi and MLK and Mandela. Free expression, free speech, freedom of the press must be valued but sometimes it's a rough ride. People acusing people all the time of so-called micro-aggressions doesn't help anything and it puts off many. If we haven't noticed society is becoming much, much more tolerant, but people don't need to be pushed they'll move at their own pace. The dinosaurs will fall away, but not from self appointed guardians of the culture.

It genuinely frightens me when I read a report that 40% of millenials in the US support restrictions on free expression. Do they not prescribe John Stuart Mill anymore?

 

[Yianni]

Hi Bigfooty Dogs,

My name’s Yianni. I’m a Roos supporter, I’ve been here on Bigfooty since 2001 and I’m also a professional stand up comedian. With Comedy Festival coming up, I asked the mods if I could let you guys know about the two shows I’m doing this coming month and offer a discount to anyone from your board who wants to come along.

COMEDIANS AGAINST HUMANITY
An interactive, improvised hour of chaos and fun.

Every audience member gets three white Cards Against Humanity cards. Each night, I host three guest comedians. We use the audience cards to generate topics then challenge our guest comedians to create material on the spot.

If you want an idea of what it's like, here's a clip from one of the shows we did in Fremantle.



THE SIMPSONS TAUGHT ME EVERYTHING I KNOW
A hilarious and cromulent look at a lifetime spent quoting, referencing and learning from The Simpsons. Can an obsessive knowledge of the world's longest running cartoon embiggen one's understanding or is that unpossible?

Contains impersonations, stories, jokes and videos about one of the best TV shows of all time.

Here's a one minute clip from when I did the show in Perth



If anyone’s interested, there are other clips on my Youtube page

I’m happy to offer discounts if any of you wanted to come along.

The usual Wed, Thu and Sun price for Comedians Against Humanity is $23 but if you enter the codeword ‘OHTHEHUMANITY’ you can get tickets for $20.

The codewords only work when booking through Trybooking (i.e not through Ticketmaster. Don't book through them anyway, both punter and producer pay higher fees)

I can’t offer a discount on Simpsons, but tickets to that are only $22. Alternatively, all Tuesday or group (5 or more people) tickets are either $20 (Comedians Against Humanity) or $18 (Simpsons) so if a few of you want to come you could save a bit. It’s always fun to meet some people from BF in real life too!

Thanks for your time and thanks to the mods for indulging me. Best of luck to the Dogs this year, except against North!. You guys have some scary young players, Stringer and Bont are quality plus Wood, Dalhaus and Boyd started to look good this pre-season too.

If I don’t see any of you at Comedy Festival, have a great 2016 AFL season.

 

[Pugz89]

England 6/57 against Afghanistan is a laugh. Afghanistan now need 41 off 18 to complete the downfall of English cricket. Can we call it Ashes mkII?

 

[Ozil]

So far in 2016, music has lost Bowie, film has lost Rickman and now football has lost Cruyff.

A terrible shame. Well past contributing, but he changed the beautiful game forever on the field and was one of the sport's great thinkers off it.

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

So far in 2016, music has lost Bowie, film has lost Rickman and now football has lost Cruyff.

A terrible shame. Well past contributing, but he changed the beautiful game forever on the field and was one of the sport's great thinkers off it.

I'm sure he did Saint Peter with a beautiful turn at the pearly white gates.

 

[JEDi 44]

free to a good bulldogs home!
bunk bed with stairs (drawers in stairs)
wardrobe, desk, book shelf.
2 pac finish (very durable), comes apart.
cost about $900 new 4 years ago.
in good nick. Collingwood pickup.
I have 2 of them, my girls are a bit old for bunk beds now
msg me if interested.

 

[Dav1d]

I'd still sleep in a bunk bed if I could

 

[JEDi 44]

I'd still sleep in a bunk bed if I could

I'm getting used to spending my sleeping hours in the dog house these days

 

[Dav1d]

I'm getting used to spending my sleeping hours in the dog house these days

I was nearly sleeping in a bed of fire the other day when I fell asleep with my laptop in bed & it exploded
& then saw on the news that I wasn't the only person that happened to

 

[JEDi 44]

I was nearly sleeping in a bed of fire the other day when I fell asleep with my laptop in bed & it exploded
& then saw on the news that I wasn't the only person that happened to

Frig! U ok bruv? Those sorts of stories freaks me out!

 

[Dav1d]

Frig! U ok bruv? Those sorts of stories freaks me out!

Yeah
I just grabbed the screen, because the base was on fire & rushed it outside
And it went out on its own
I was more freaked out because of seeing it happened on the news

Lucky that I'm such a light sleeper

 

[JEDi 44]

Yeah
I just grabbed the screen, because the base was on fire & rushed it outside
And it went out on its own
I was more freaked out because of seeing it happened on the news

Lucky that I'm such a light sleeper

You might have to give redtube a break for a while buddy

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

I was nearly sleeping in a bed of fire the other day when I fell asleep with my laptop in bed & it exploded
& then saw on the news that I wasn't the only person that happened to

Holy crap man, that's no good. Jesus that's scary.

 

[Dav1d]

You might have to give redtube a break for a while buddy

I wasn't on it ...
At that moment

Holy crap man, that's no good. Jesus that's scary.

I was thinking of replacing it that week actually because it runs slow after having it for 5 years