THE ONION MADE A CONTROVERSIAL TWEET AND IT GOT HULK THINKING ABOUT COMEDY, INTENT, PURPOSE, AND CONTEXT. AND WHY THEY ALL MATTER SO DAMN MUCH.
http://badassdigest.com/2013/02/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-the-context-of-comedy/
HULK VS. THE CONTEXT OF COMEDY
Published
FILM CRIT HULK! HULK BLOG! 
Great article, Hulk.
The tweet is disappointing. The outcry is shrill. Both share a tin-eared, tone-deaf immediacy that should ease when we pause to consider the origins of both.
From either side, the retraction and apology are disturbing. “The Onion” is not a paper of record; it is not a paper, full stop.
Whatever offense we take to an artifact, our aim should never be to eliminate it in its place of origin whilst propagating it across a much broader spectrum. It represents an astonishing appropriation of a victim by her supposed defenders. If we believe someone to be a victim, someone who has the ability and agency–personally or by proxy–to address the incident, we ought to wait to take our cues from her (or whoever acts on her behalf). We ought not crowd each other out attempting to take the lead on this issue and its larger implications.
TWO PART COMMENT. PART ONE:
Sorry to be blunt, but you sound profoundly pretentious. I do admire a beautiful piece of writing when I see one, but this wasn’t it. Your writing comes off incredibly forced and clunky.
Regardless, your thoughts on the matter got me thinking. And while one part of me agrees with you, another much larger part disagrees.
Firstly, Twitter is a tool for everyone to interact and engage. People have a right, and in fact are encouraged, to react. Suggesting that people just shouldn’t react is impractical and misses the entire point of “twittering”.
Secondly, it isn’t truly about this particular victim here. It almost never is. It’s a backlash against a public display of malice and implied sexism. The tweet was not only offensive to the little girl, but offensive to everyone who resents such displays. The people who are negatively reacting to it are also the “victims” here, the little girl has just become the poster child for it in this particular case.
For example, there is an ongoing debate among fans of superhero films about whether Shailene Woodley, who has been cast in the role, is “too ugly” to portray Mary Jane in the next Spider-Man film. Now, there’s people who, in less than civil ways, express that they feel she’s too ugly. And there are others, who are offended by objectification of women, and merely use Shailene Woodley as a poster child in this particular case, to express their disdain.
It isn’t about offending Shailene, it isn’t about offending the little girl, it’s about offending the people. And again, they have a right to voice their opinions if they feel they have been offended.
I never claim we haven’t the right. However, we can better exercise our right. An immediate, gut reaction often leads us down a more alarming path than the original. Restraint need not be a quality unbecoming of real-time social media; it needs to be foundational.
No serious article, commentary, or tweet downplays the role of Miss Wallis. To deny the importance of her station in this affair is to deny the inciting incident, the very reason for the outcry.
My objection to the outcry explicitly addresses the phenomenon of the poster child. As unfair as the original tweet may be, it is no more fair to make an unknowing, unassuming girl into a poster child without her consent or instruction (hopefully, by proxy). If our stated goal is to protect our youth, then all-but-assuring her exposure to the offending tweet works in opposition to the goal. Were we more measured, the tweet would not find headlines and endless reproduction elsewhere.
Had “The Onion” not deleted the tweet, they would address it in its place and assume all responsibility. Deleting it like it never happened disturbs me. In newspapers (not fake ones), the offender prints an explanation, a retraction, and an apology. It dedicates more print indelibly to its shame; it does not disappear the offending article at the sign of protest.
Rather than the last ten days of Ms. Woodley’s misfortune at the hands of the comic trolls, I’d sooner point out the last ten years of Ms. Dunst’s treatment at their keyboards. In any case–Wallis, Woodley, or Dunst–it is not our place to assume their mantles. Our appropriation of these women as cause célèbre–over that which offends us–serves to objectify them nearly as thoroughly as the original offenses. Our offense does not supersede their agency. If they prefer silence, we accommodate their wish and ignore the offender. If they want a backing army, we fall in rank. In either case, our reaction should not override or take for granted theirs.
TWO PART COMMENT. PART TWO:
Thirdly, and this is going to be my most subjective point, I believe such backlashes are frankly a good thing. While “stigma” is obviously a word associated “bad”, I think in cases like these it is a good thing. Public displays of racism, sexism, homophobia and other hate speech are stigmatized. That is, they are met with extreme backlash in today’s day and age. People expect it. And while you always have the few attention-seeking outliers (like this one seems to be), generally the stigmatization of public hate speech has only served to greatly reduce instances of it. You might bring up the “fighting fire with fire doesn’t solve the problem” argument, but I only see that as trite (I re-assert, this is my most subjective point).
You could sit here and comment about how everyone *should* be reacting. And while interesting food for thought, it really is just empty talk ultimately. It accomplishes nothing. Backlashes do. As “uncivilized” as this is going to sound, the fact is: outside of the attention-seeking outliers, stigmatization of and backlashes to hate speech are impactful.
So overall, I think what you suggest is impractical and misses the whole point of twittering. It isn’t about the particular “victim” in each case of offensive tweets, it’s about the people themselves feeling offended. And they have the freedom and the right to react to it. Lastly, pontificating about how people should react amounts to empty talk. Stigmatization of, and backlash against, public hate-speech serve to reduce instances of them.
Backlash serves no one, particularly in the extreme. Correction, discipline–sure, if necessary. Howling at an offender does little but cause him to entrench his position.
Forgoing whether this incident qualifies as hate-speech, let’s consider a shockingly well-publicized perpetrator of undeniable hate-speech: the Westboro Baptist Church. These individuals genuinely and thoroughly believe the bile they spew. In response, spewing back more bile accomplishes little; forming a human chain, often in silent solidarity, accomplishes much. We refuse to meet them at their level. Whenever we can model behavior, we ought to; correction and discipline are a last resort. Backlash rolls over too easily into groupthink, righteous or otherwise.
If we are to eliminate discussion of past actions and interactions and whether or not they were appropriate, I’m interested what will serve as the topic of drama, criticism, or just plain conversation. I cannot see how discussing our failures amounts to empty talk. Hell, Twitter serves as a primary culprit of such talk and look what it has wrought us today.
SPEAKING OF COEXISTENT STATES, HUGH BOTH LOVE HULK AND A LITTLE JEALOUS OF HULK. HULK CASUALLY WRITE WITH COMBINATION OF LUCIDITY AND GRANULARITY TO WHICH HUGH ONLY ASPIRE.
THANK YOU, HULK.
HULK THANK YOU!
Oh god Hulky, I love you so so much.
Reading your stuff makes me want to be a better alien and not be so critical of you humans all the time.
I don’t even have the twitter and never knew about this drama but I am so glad I was informed by you. You just saved your planet from invasion by our great lord for just a little longer.
Again, so many 4 chambered, blood pumping, and life (and joy) sustaining organs just for you.
T
Hulk, the link to Volume 1 tome on screenwriting seems to be broken. Coming up with Error. Cheers
Just this morning I noticed what foofighter noticed in March. What’s up with that broken link? This was one of my favorite articles. Please tell me it’s not gone for good.
Whoops. I was referring to *this* article, “HULK VS. THE CONTEXT OF COMEDY”, not the screenwriting one.