Comedy is not an Excuse for Blasphemy
In defense of taking offense.
Like a maniac who shoots deadly firebrands and arrows, so is one who deceives a neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”
Proverbs 26:18-19 (NRSVCE)
Welcome back,
I will start with a personal anecdote. Back when I was in high school, I called a girl, a classmate of mine, fat. She took it personally, to the point of crying. Even worse for me, I did it in class, so I became the bad guy in the eyes of everyone. Rightfully so. I was forced to apologize. But being the shithead that I was in my youth, I didn’t give a sincere apology. Also, I added that “I was just joking”.
Of course, I was just joking. But that’s not the point.
Like a lot of people in my generation1, I grew up on “edgy” jokes. It’s even worse on younger people. We - as in those of us younger than the age of 40 by the writing of this article - have been raised by the Internet to think that saying the most offensive things possible is cool, and that it’s fine because it’s comedy. And you can get away with just about anything if it’s funny enough.
This cultural trend has been going on for a very long time. The earliest person I can think of who popularized this brand of “edgy comedy” is George Carlin. But I won’t be surprised if it goes further back than him.
But this is much more sinister than people making jokes. These things have been weaponized.
Draw Muhammad Day and the Weaponization of Comedy
“The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”
Polish proverb
Disclaimer: The above quote of a Polish proverb is NOT an endorsement of antisemitism on the part of this article, Indonesian and American, and Michael P. Marpaung. Rather, it is an illustration of how one party may provoke another to attack, then cry victim when that provoked party attacks as a result.2
One of the worst things about modern3 society is the weaponization of comedy. People will go out of their way to insult a group of people, then act the victim when that group strikes back.
This brings me to the infamous “Draw Muhammad Day” event.
.jpg){kind=link}
If you are a non-Muslim (like me, a Christian) living through the 2000s and 2010s, you will get the feeling that Muslims are this violent group of people who will fly off the handle at a moment’s notice before blowing up a mall. It certainly how I felt at the time living in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world.
Is this by design? I don’t know for sure. But if the American Empire was to intentionally railroad Islam to be the designated enemy for Da-West™ to fight against, then I don’t know what they would have done differently.
But I digress.
The point is that the West saw Islam as this exotic religion with its own strange practices. The taboo against any visual depiction of Muhammad their Prophet was one such practice. While iconoclasm had existed in Christendom, it hadn’t been relevant in Christianity since the Second Council of Nicaea on 787 AD.
Then 9/11 happened, turning Islam in the eyes of the West from an alien thing to an alien thing that is also an existential threat.
It was upon this backdrop known as the Global War on Terror that a group of anti-Muslim activists - with Jewess firebrand Pamela Geller as its face - thought that it would be a good idea to organize an event centered around insulting one of the largest religious groups in the world.
What could possibly go wrong?
So yes, Geller’s stupid stunt literally endangered people, led to the wounding of a security guard, and the all too real possibility of the deaths of many. In other words, this could have killed innocent people. Did you think about that huh, Pamela?
The answer, yes. Yes, she did. And here’s what she had to say:
Others would say that I was endangering others. That's like saying the rape victim is guilty because she wore a short skirt. I will not abridge my freedom so as not to offend savages. This is freedom of speech and these cartoons is political critique.
In other words, she doesn’t care. She will not “abridge her freedom” even if it means that people will get killed over her obsession with blaspheming another religion. She even referenced this cute little feminist simile about rape and short skirts4.
Well sorry, Pamela. But no amount of feminist virtue signaling will change the fact that people do get killed over this.
Some may think that I’m hating on Muslims right now. But truth be told, not really. I do not condone what these people did. But let’s step back for a second. The key word here is provocation. Idiots like Geller and Charlie Hebdo cried out in pain as they struck the Muslim. Sure, you might say that the followers of Muhammad need to develop thicker skin and not fly off the handle the moment their religious sensibilities are offended. And I would agree.
But there’s another side to this story. It’s called “fighting words”.
Fighting Words
Them’s fighting words
-American folk saying
“Fighting words” is a very simple concept. If you words were intended to provoke someone to hurt you, then you don’t get to have that legal protection that comes with free speech.
To illustrate, let’s remove this from the context of an exotic religion (like Islam from Western point-of-view). Imagine if someone insulted your father or your brother. Imagine that person calling your wife or your daughter or your mother a whore who sucks cock in hell.
Are you going to clock that person?
Perhaps not. But you certainly want to.
Now let’s return to religion. If you are a devout Christian of any stripe, then please consider this. Imagine someone held an event dedicated to blaspheming Jesus Christ. Imagine someone deliberately dropped a crucifix in a glass of urine and called it art5. Will you clock the asshole who did that?
I hope not. After all, I do not condone senseless violence and lawbreaking. So you shouldn’t be doing that. But do you want to? Well… yes. If you said no, then you’re either a Saint, a liar, or a coward.
Behind the concept of “fighting words” is the idea that some things are sacred, some things are off-limit. And some things are no laughing matter.
These things are common sense. But on the Internet, common sense isn’t so common. The Internet is home to various terms that exist solely to silence objections. For the sake of convenience I will call them ‘STFU terms’6. I call them that because when people use these terms/words, you know they want to silence you. They might as well say “shut the fuck up” because that’s really what they mean when they throw these terms around.
Again, the Internet has millions (to round it down) of these terms running around, but for this article, I’ll focus on one: “pearl-clutching”.
“Pearl-Clutching”
According to dictionary.com, “pearl-clutching” is defined as
outrage or dramatic protest, especially from a woman, caused by something the person perceives as vulgar, in bad taste, or morally wrong but that does not elicit a similarly strong reaction from most other people.
A second definition goes as such:
noting or relating to someone, especially a woman, who is easily offended or shocked by things the person perceives as vulgar, in bad taste, or morally wrong.
As you can see, to call someone “pearl-clutching” is not a compliment. When someone says “pearl-clutching”, it implies that the fault is with the one who is offended.
You see, it’s your fault that you were offended. It’s not my fault that I went out of my way to be an asshole and offend you.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t people who will feign offense in order to silence speech/people they don’t like. This is true. But it’s also true that the term “pearl-clutching” is often used to silence people who rightfully took offense.
Chances are, when you see someone use the term “pearl-clutching”, what he’s really saying is “shut the fuck up”.
Now this brings me to the inspiration of this article:
I decided to censor the name and the publication of the original poster because I’m not looking for drama. In fact, I have nothing against this person. I just think he’s being a clown with this note. Which he shouldn’t be taking offense at since he thinks “jesters do oft prove prophets”.
Well this jester made me laugh, but not in the way he hoped for. In the immortal words of Miles Edgeworth: “you are not a clown, you are the entire circus”.
But to sum up the above note, the poster, who may or may not be a Catholic7, told Catholics that it’s okay to make light of the Pope and the Papacy. That it’s okay to laugh, “because the age of pearl-clutching is over”.
Afterwards, he had this pretentious piece of shit of a poem that’s the definition of cringe. Pass. Personally, I think he’s being way too wordy.
0/10 - see me after class.
I’m almost disappointed. I think his poetry could have been a bit more punchy. How about something like this instead?
Dear Catholics,
Are you offended that we made light of your faith?
Well too bad.
Now go fuck yourself.
Am I being uncharitable? No, I don’t think so. Because he used that term, “pearl-clutching”. That tells me that he’s not interested in a reasoned debate or discourse. The way I see it, he wants to own his opponents and collect Internet cookies. Furthermore, he wants to shame Catholics who had the gall to be offended that Donald Trump decided to photoshop himself as the Pope.
Now let’s step back a bit because I’m being way too heated right now.
To be fair, you can make the argument that Trump’s meme was neither blasphemous nor offensive. In fact, I’m sure that President Trump, as someone who is married to a Catholic woman, most likely did not intend to offend Catholic sensibilities with that meme.
Indeed if it wasn’t for the original poster talking about “pearl-clutching”, my original reaction to Trump’s meme would have been to roll my eyes at it. It’s a stupid thing that’s irreverent, but there are worse things out there.
As for the poster who is in my crosshairs (metaphorically speaking), he might not be a Catholic himself, meaning that his standards of what is offensive is different than that of Catholics like me.
I understand that.
But again, something tells me that he was not interested in a reasonable discourse. Something tells me that his real intention was to shame people who thought differently than him. And that something is the ‘STFU term’. If he was truly interested in a real dialogue, he wouldn’t have used that term. If he truly wanted to have a reasonable debate, he would have said something like this:
My Catholic friends.
My standard of what is offensive differs than yours
For me, this is just a meme
No offense intended
Tell me I’m wrong.
As a side note: if any poet happens to read this article, he or she is free to rewrite the above poem.
Coda
So what am I saying here? Simple, it’s okay to be offended. Being offended isn’t a sign that a person is weak, it’s a sign that he cares.
The poster who got me to write this article extolled jesters while saying that “the age of pearl-clutching is over”. I don’t know what this guy was on about. The “age of pearl-clutching” had been over for a while. It was killed by Howard Stern and buried by South Park. For so long, people are shamed for “pearl-clutching”. In the post-modern world where nothing is sacred, taking offense is the one mortal sin. If you are offended, then you have lost. You are simply not cool. Not even the liberals are exempt, as the increasing popularity of racial slurs8 show.
Also, fuck jesters. Personally, there is something weirdly satisfying about punching the clown. Go ask Batman.
Until next time,
Michael P. Marpaung
I was born in 1992.
Some of you may think that this disclaimer sticks out like a sore thumb. I would agree with that. So for that, I apologize. That said, in light a recent bill passed by the United States Congress, I want to CYA as much as possible. While I currently live in Indonesia, Substack is based in the United States. Furthermore, I still have personal connections to the United States.
Postmodern?
Cringe.
I didn’t make this up. This literally happened.
Real creative, I know (lol). If anyone has a better term for it, I’m all ears.
I haven’t done enough research to be confident one way or another. In my opinion, he doesn’t strike me as a Catholic. Certainly not from this note. But that’s just my opinion.
Like you know what.
Well said! Agreed.