November 17, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'm not going to see Borat
Humiliation doesn't entertain me. I don't like any form of entertainment that uses gullible people as props. And the self-congratulation of much of the commentary I've read (those people need to be exposed for the bigots they are) hasn'texactly endeared it to me. Plus, like many of the critics, I suspect that in most cases, all Mr Baron Cohen is exposing is that there is a tension between politeness and responding to outrageously wrong sentiments. This would be interesting . . . if Mr Baron Cohen seemed to have any inkling that this is the source of his comedy.
It does make me wonder though: how bad would something have to be before I would challenge it? I have, on occasion taken stands against bigotry that were potentially dangerous to myself--telling my project manager, for example, that his racist remarks were wrong, and that I wouldn't stand for hearing them. (When I thought about what I'd done, afterwards, I required several stiff scotches. But the PM, a welshman, took it well, and was actually quite nice to me until he quit 9 months later). But I've also let things slide, particularly with old people, or people I was never planning to meet again, or people who were themselves members of a minority--from the things my black nationalist college roommate used to say about the Irish, I swear to God she could have authored those cartoons you see from the 1950's. She once, upon observing me drinking a beer, said "Should you be drinking that?"
(I was, to be fair, not 21 . . . but I was in a private room, I was not drunk, and the owner of the beer had purchased it legally.) I stared at her in disbelief, whereupon she said, "I thought all Irish people were alchoholics."
I let a lot of misogyny slide, because, hey, it's not worth it, I won't change any minds, and besides, I'm frankly too arrogant to feel like it affects me.
At some point, like "I think we should herd all the Jews into camps and then kill them", you have to speak up. But what about the fellow who makes disparaging, abut only mildly culture-specific, remarks about people you know? What about the people who are not members of an ethnic group, but refer, in a not particularly opprobrious way, to cultural traits that are, on average, true? How about the guy who says he can't stand his Mexican neighbours because they play their music until all hours? Where do you get the courage to correct someone? Should Cohen's victims have been rude and expressed horror that had no chance of affecting his beliefs? Am I a wimp, or a person with manners?
Posted by Jane Galt at November 17, 2006 11:22 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>I had an unusual but uncomfortable experience at the gym a couple of weeks ago. I was at one of the two squat racks, and at the other rack a few feet away were three 20ish men from a racial group not my own. They were chatting away nonstop, and in the course of their conversation - and in a completely casual manner - they repeatedly used an extremely derogatory epithet to refer to members of their own racial group. Listening to them made me quite uncomfortable even though I was not of the group to which the word relates. I certainly don't use that word myself, and as far as I'm concerned even people of the group in question shouldn't be using it - especially when a member of a different group (me) was quite obviously within earshot.
Posted by: Peter on November 17, 2006 11:59 AMWhat we accept, "let slide", enjoys our tacit approval. While, to be obvious, we cannot fight every battle being waged about us; where we draw the line, colors our being
Past that, S.B. Cohen is a tool. Both in the way he chooses to act, and in the way his actions are used( as an affront common sense and decency ).
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 17, 2006 12:00 PMBorat is so last week. You should be posting something about Bond. You've got to have some angle on it, no?
Posted by: Middle Browser on November 17, 2006 12:07 PM"How about the guy who says he can't stand his Mexican neighbours because they play their music until all hours?"
How is this racist? The guy has neighbors (who happen to be mexican) that are inconsiderate. He has every right to complain about them.
Frankly, I've had pretty good luck with the mexicans in my neighborhood. I'd hope that this wouldn't be considered racist.
Posted by: Half Canadian on November 17, 2006 12:23 PMI for one am disappointed that even though the new Bond film is apparently an upgrade in grittiness, it's the same old Evil Capitalist Bigbad story.
Posted by: Jim Henley on November 17, 2006 12:26 PMI agree with Middle Browser. The new Bond movies looks great and I’m looking forward to seeing it on Thanksgiving.
Who’s Borat and why should we care?
"I suspect that in most cases, all Mr Baron Cohen is exposing is that there is a tension between politeness and responding to outrageously wrong sentiments. This would be interesting . . . if Mr Baron Cohen seemed to have any inkling that this is the source of his comedy."
I believe he is aware of this. Polite tension pretty much goes without saying in British humor. The prejudice angle is just for hype (and prabably also a bit of smug self-satisfaction as a perq). Monty Python could have made a movie that paralleled the life of Zoroaster that was every bit as funny as "Life of Brian", but only 37 people would go see it. You need the hype.
I see it more like "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg". He could have made "Borat" anywhere. If he did it in Norway he could probably have roused up a chorus of "Throw the Swede down the Well!", but who would care? I don't take it personally. Not that I'm going to go seee it, but that's only because I'm cheap.
Posted by: Njorl on November 17, 2006 12:54 PMChristopher Hitchen's review makes that point too.
Posted by: Mike Beversluis on November 17, 2006 1:01 PMI saw it as well. Very little of it, in fact, "justifies" itself by "exposing" bigotry. (Though there is some of that). Most of the humor is, in fact, based on the tension of uncomfortable politeness in the face of outrageous behavior.
This movie bothered me because I see it using it's instances of exposing bigotry as justifying and putting a veneer on what is little more than an updated Stepin Fetchit movie.
Posted by: alan on November 17, 2006 1:13 PM"Borat," which I do not plan to watch, sounds like a degraded hybrid of those unpleasant telly successes, "All in the Family" and "The Beverly Hillbillies."
Having seen the movie and being a fan of his shows, I must say this: it's not that people merely fail to correct him when he says something rude. He gets them to confide in him and reveal far worse sentiments - racist, anti-semitic, sexist, etc. And some of the situations that he creates are just absurdly hilarious - how do upper crust southerners react when a black prostitute arrives for their formal dinner?
However, I found the movie a little disappointing, and I prefer when his humor is directed at public figures.
Posted by: Andrew on November 17, 2006 1:31 PM"Humiliation doesn't entertain me. I don't like any form of entertainment that uses gullible people as props."
Totally agree. About 10 years ago, I had a job I had to drive to and I'd catch one of the local afternoon drive time radio shows (95.5 WPLJ in NY) on the way home. I used to laugh out loud at the genuine humor bits, but when they got to the "phoney phone call" segments, I'd switch to the news. I just couldn't listen to some poor, unsuspecting person be made a fool of in front of a couple hundred thousand listeners. It really would piss me off.
So, I wont be seeing Borat soon, either.
Posted by: Russ on November 17, 2006 1:51 PMI just rented Ali G on DVD, and the Ali G character is much funnier. It's fun watching him ask a former USAG (I forget which) if he's seen "Barely Legal 3" and getting back the response "Yes...No, I mean no, but I will now based on your recommendation."
Posted by: Rob Lyman on November 17, 2006 1:54 PMHis schtik is that of the clever Jew ridiculing the stupid goy. He's the most racist individual I see on the screen, yet people don't call him out for that hypocrisy.
Posted by: PSB on November 17, 2006 1:57 PMTo Jim Henley -- Where did you hear that? The Bad Guy here is a wealthy money launderer to terrorists. No big company CEO hoping to take over the world and force everyone to wear the same colored jumpsuits. (Even the Swiss banker, who could easily have been demonized, isn't.) And finally, a great Bond woman.
I actually saw the film at a benefit in Baltimore on Wednesday. It's terrific, even if 20 minutes too long. It helps, however, if you're a fan of early Bond films. Those who only ever liked Roger or Pierce will likely be disappointed.
Posted by: Middle Browser on November 17, 2006 2:07 PMBut this is British humor (and American, alas), where making fools out of people is screamingly funny. I can't abide The Office, which is essentially about a stupid man making other people uncomfortable. I wouldn't see Borat if the alternative was two hours of Disney Pop and a blank wall.
I contrast this (critically successful) dreck with the only comedy that is remotely similar, the absolutely marvelous Fawlty Towers, which was very occasionally about innocent people feeling uncomfortable, but much more often about one silly man's incredible contortions to prevent them from feeling that way (one could cite also Keeping Up Appearances, the Fawlty of the 90s).
Posted by: Chris Jones on November 17, 2006 2:16 PMJane,
Not confronting every single prejudice or bias doesn't make you a wimp. You have to pick your battles, and apparently you do.
I think the larger principle involved is what I call The Sacrificial Lamb: if you are reasonably certain you're not going to change the affront or anyone's mind on the subject, your response just hurts yourself -- and you're under no ethical obligation to do that. This would apply to, say, confronting a bigoted elder of your acquaintance (or relation): they won't change their opinion, but confrontation could likely strain your relationship with them, which you may not want. You've thereby compromised a value (a relationship which presumably you want) and gained nothing.
I find it a handy ethical concept. Note it also applies to things like paying taxes with which you disagree: rotting in jail helps no one -- especially you. You're better off fighting some other way.
In this circumstance I think wit -- skewering the bigots so effectively they can't tell they're being skewered -- is the ideal retort, but it's very hard and requires extensive courage and practice.
Borat, from what I can tell, is utterly witless.
Jane,
Re; "I'm frankly too arrogant to feel like it affects me.
Great line. I know the feeling. I think it is also an extremely relevant line in that a great deal of today's hypersensitivity is rooted in insecurity.
Posted by: Randy on November 17, 2006 2:48 PMHe's an awfully funny and sharp dude. His ability to think on his feet is quite something, and I spottily enjoyed Ali G a great deal.
I was pretty excited when I heard about Borat but now, passing the theater on Court Street every night at just about the right time to catch the 6:15 I think "eh, I'm not really that interested." and with all that's being said about it that ambivalence is sharpening into disgust pretty quickly.
Posted by: Mad William Flint on November 17, 2006 2:49 PMI honestly don't mind Borat. Some of it I find uncomfortable, but I also find myself laughing at a lot of it. I think humiliation is hilarious, and the audience can judge when it is fair or unfair. The instances where he does expose bigotry are great. And even if it may not change the mind of the participants, it throws a mirror on the audience, and we are left asking ourselves what we would do in a similar situation. Would we stand up for decency? Would we be the odd man out in the group and endure discomfort to call someone out? I know that in many cases I wouldn't, but asking that question is important. Just look at what it accomplished by making you ask these questions of yourself. While it may not change the participants, it does change us, however slightly.
You say you would draw a clear line at "we should herd all the Jews into camps," and I know you are just defining an absolute limit, but by the time someone is saying that, there is an irreversible problem. Somewhere between meaningless jokes and serious bigotry people need to decide where their own line is and when they will call someone out.
Of course Borat isn't just in it to help us figure this out. He's in it to make money by making people laugh, so I can excuse the times when he makes me uncomfortable. And sometimes when I'm laughing at someone's humiliation, I am subconsciously asking myself: "why am I laughing, I know this is just stroking my own ego...do I really think I'm that much better?" And then I feel fine laughing some more.
Posted by: Jacob on November 17, 2006 2:56 PMOne wonders how many people Cohen had to edit out - those who told Borat he was off base, an asshole, or being inappropriate?
Posted by: Creech on November 17, 2006 3:12 PMLaughing at other people's humiliation is one of life's great pleasures. All three of SBC's characters are great at it. Fawlty Towers is another great form of this humor. Punk'd, Scare Tactics, AFV, and Japanese game shows are all various forms of this. We are living in a golden age of entertainment.
Posted by: sourcreamus on November 17, 2006 3:12 PM"And some of the situations that he creates are just absurdly hilarious - how do upper crust southerners react when a black prostitute arrives for their formal dinner?"
As opposed to anyone else holding a formal dinner when some clown brings a hooker? Can't say I would be all that thrilled about it myself.
Posted by: buzz on November 17, 2006 3:39 PMOne wonders how many people Cohen had to edit out - those who told Borat he was off base, an asshole, or being inappropriate?
Good point but showing those people in the movie wouldn’t fit with the narrative that “Americans are _______” (fill in negative attribute here).
The only sad part about this crap is that there actually will be people who take this seriously and think that there is something that we should “learn from Borat.”
Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 17, 2006 3:40 PMI agree with Thorley above. Why should Cohen come over to this country and pick on us? If he wants to expose anti-Semitism, he should stay in Europe, the heartland of anti-Semitism. Or he can go over to the Arab nations and humiliate and expose individual Arabs as anti-Semites. Ha ha ha. Oh wait, I don't think he'd survive that experience. It's much safer to trick and humiliate people in a civilized country.
Posted by: Kevin P. on November 17, 2006 3:58 PMAs opposed to anyone else holding a formal dinner when some clown brings a hooker? Can't say I would be all that thrilled about it myself.
Well, some of my friends once walked into the local pistol range on ladies' night (ladies shoot free!) and found that someone was teaching a middle-aged hooker to shot a .45.
They got the hell out of there fast.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on November 17, 2006 4:04 PMYes, I was disappointed to hear the directors commentary on the Ali G DVD.
I actually thought the point of the program was who sweet and understanding people really were. Even when Baron Cohen was acting like an idiot or ass most people were nice to him. People in positions of authority tolerated the Ali G character far more than I would have guess and seemed very sensitive to what they percieved as a voice of the youth.
Posted by: Karl Smith on November 17, 2006 4:33 PMKevin, sure he could have done the same thing in Europe. And on his show he often does make fun of Europeans. But America is the biggest movie market, so it is understandable that anything being played on the big screens here is going to be centered around our country. I don't take offense at that. If our cinema dominates the world, we shouldn't take offense when others try to make movies accessible to American audiences.
Can you imagine millions of viewers going to see a subtitled comedy because it was filmed in Europe or Iran?
Posted by: Jacob on November 17, 2006 4:35 PMRob - Well, some of my friends once walked into the local pistol range on ladies' night (ladies shoot free!) and found that someone was teaching a middle-aged hooker to shot a .45.
They got the hell out of there fast.
I gotta ask... how'd they know she was a prostitute just by looking at her?
Complaining about your Mexican neighbor's loud music is probably racist. It depends on your intent, I think. The complaint is not that they are Mexican - that would be overt racism. The complaint is that they play loud music at all hours.
Why identify them as Mexican? If merely descriptive - perhaps you only have one set of Mexican neighbors - then the statement is not racist. You're telling your listeners which neighbors are playing loud music, and perhaps that's relevant in context.
If not merely descriptive, then what? One option is a covert/unconscious type of racism. I believe we all carry these types of prejudices to varying degrees, and we like to ignore them. Humor helps identify these prejudices.
I watched Borat. The anti-semitism wasn't that funny to me, although I admit I laughed at the absurdity of having school children decimate a Jew-egg with their bare hands. The rodeo-racist cowboy was disgusting, but Borat's egging-on of the all-white crowd was funny. The frat-boys' racism and sexism was hilarious. What should I conclude about myself?
Posted by: Greg on November 17, 2006 4:58 PMOh, jeez, is that what all the fuss about this movie is? The old trick of putting people in a no-win and then mocking their less-than-perfect responses? LAME. Didn't that go out with Alan Funt? Tack on smug moral superiority? Didn't I know a few guys who played that schtick in high school?
Let's put it this way: How many people think that if someone were to pull the same stunt on Mr. Baron-Cohen, his lawyers wouldn't be out in full court press to make sure that they realized the error of their ways.
Posted by: Bill Dalasio on November 17, 2006 5:07 PM"One wonders how many people Cohen had to edit out - those who told Borat he was off base, an asshole, or being inappropriate? "
"Good point but showing those people in the movie wouldn’t fit with the narrative that “Americans are _______” (fill in negative attribute here)."
Creech and Thorley are bang on here. Up here in the great white north, we have our own 'official culture' version in one R1ck Mercer (spelling munged deliberately), who is famed for mocking Americans this way. I always figured that enough raw footage and editing could get you a couple of hours of mockery, no matter where it was filmed.
RGT
Posted by: RGT on November 17, 2006 5:08 PMWell, here's what really bugs me: Sasha Baron Cohn is an Oxbridge-educated, upper-middle class, faintly leftish Englishman of the type who love to sniff about how obnoxious and arrogantly insular the ugly American abroad is. (And don't Anglophilic Yankee snobs lap it up - but that's a whole other can of cultural pathology.)
And, from my experience, they're exactly the people who get extemely prickly about having their own pretensions and bigotry mocked. But I guess Baron Cohn isn't going to repeat Truman Capote's mistake, and bite the hands that write the fawning reviews.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia on November 17, 2006 5:10 PMOK, i will be the odd man out. I'm going to see Borat.
It's the cinematic equivalent of when you're at a corporate awards dinner, and someone emits a loud, greasy fart right in the middle of the pompous CEO's remarks.
I've had educated, middle class guilt about the fact that There Are Racists Out There Who Look Just Like Me ever since I went to University.
Since 9/11, I've had additional guilt over the fact that I Don't Know Enough About Countries With No Vowels In Their Name.
I'm going to Borat so that I can shed my Earnest Educated White Guy Guilt for two hours and watch someone else intentionally whack all the taboos I'm usually too uptight to even acknowledge.
Posted by: bristlecone on November 17, 2006 5:24 PMI agree with the earlier comment that you need to ask yourself what the goal of challenging any outrageous, or just dumb, remark is. A useful rule of thumb for me (I don't know if it applies to you) is that I don't want to say the right thing for the purpose of having been seen/heard to be right.
Racism is just one of thousands of sets of beliefs that are dumb and/or evil. But it's socially acceptable to unload on perceived racists where it wouldn't be for advocates of similarly dumb/evil ideas. At your next coctail party, Alice spouts off about how the military and the CIA invented AIDS to kill off gays and blacks and wipe out Africa. Bob spouts off about how Islamofacism is a looming threat to our civilization, and the only reasonable solution is to nuke the countries we can't invade and occupy. Carol spouts off about how blacks are sucking the country down the drain, lowering the culture, filling up the prisons and the welfare rolls, and should all go back to Africa.
My sense is that Carol is much more socially acceptable to flame than either Alice or Bob, thoguh either of them may be flamebait at the right party. But it's not too obvious to me that Carol's statements are noticeably dumber or more evil than Alice's or Bob's.
Even worse, the acceptability of flaming perceived racists extends to flaming people who aren't remotely racist, but who acknowledge inconvenient facts or discuss sensitive topics.
Posted by: albatross on November 17, 2006 6:39 PMI have not seen the movie, and can't say if I will or won't. But something bothers me about what I've been told; Americans have become too damned nice. In some places and times, some of the stuff "Borat" pulls would get some tar, feathers and a free ride out of town on a rail. The same for his cameramen, except with the camera in pieces around the neck.
I'm told that one scene involves "Borat" showing back up in the dining room with a bag of excrement, asking what to do with it. I've personally known some middle class people who would tell him exactly what to do with it, and then proceed to make him and his camera ops do it in the front yard before kicking their sorry selves into the street & calling the cops to come take what's left away.
There's a time to tell someone to take a long walk off of a short pier. I'm afraid Americans, in the rush to be nonjudgemental, accepting, etc. are losing the ability to know when "it's time".
Posted by: ellipsis on November 17, 2006 7:05 PMThe movie is much worse than the TV show, both on this point and others. The short skits are much subtler.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen on November 17, 2006 8:11 PMSEE BORAT!
Great comic timing - anti-PC - liberating, and the college kids in my college town can't get enough of SBC!
IF you liked "Dumb and Dumber," "Borat" is better!
Posted by: Orson on November 17, 2006 9:01 PMA prior comment noted that Baron Cohen wouldn't have dared trying to show Arab anti-Semitism in the Middle East. Somewhat apropos of this is the fact that Baron Cohen originally developed Borat as an Albanian. He decided, however, that might not be the safest idea - there are quite a few Albanian organized-crime types in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, who might not take kindly to seeing their homeland besmirched. So Borat's homeland turned into Kazahkstan, notwithstanding the racial inaccuracy. That country's far enough away that there probably wouldn't be any angry Kazahks out to get revenge.
Posted by: Peter on November 17, 2006 9:05 PMSince the critics are claiming that the Message of "Borat" is that you shouldn't be polite in the face of bigotry, let me point out exactly what kind of bigotry Sacha Baron Cohen is engaging: this is a blatant revival of the old tradition of Polish Jokes about how stupid and backward Slavs are. That's an old, old tradition. I'm sure Mr. Baron Cohen heard a lot about how Slavs were moronic brutes while growing up.
The movie has almost nothing to do with Kazakhstan -- that was just a safe placeholder they made up. The character of Borat was inspired by a Russian doctor, was first supposed to be a Moldovan, then an Albanian, and they finally decided Kazakhstan was far enough away to be misleading.
Oh, and you know that incredibly dilapidated village where the movie starts and ends, where everybody marries their sister and is viciously anti-Semitic and anti-Gypsy. That was filmed in Romania, and here's kicker: all those poor people in it are Gypsies.
The layers of irony are pretty thick here.
Posted by: Steve Sailer on November 17, 2006 10:18 PMIF you liked "Dumb and Dumber," "Borat" is better!
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 17, 2006 10:29 PMHumiliation doesn't entertain me either. And I liked Borat - e.g. the rodeo scene: He gets thousands of people to cheer at patriotic statements of increasing weirdness, culminating in "May George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq!", whereupon he sings the "Kazakh national anthem" to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner:
Kazakhstan is the Best
Nation in the World
All other nations
Are run by little girls
Kazakhstan is number one
Exporter of potassium
All other Central Asian Nations
Have inferior potassium
It's just brilliant in its bizarreness. I don't see anyone being humiliated.
Posted by: Martin on November 17, 2006 10:33 PMSaw it. Laughed. SBC is a comic genius. The most creative since Seinfeld, I think. Its up to you to decide what value, if any, to take from his act. I just know it makes me laugh my ass off.
Posted by: steve on November 17, 2006 11:06 PMOh come on. It's a funny film, at least for the first hour or so, after which it peters out a bit. And the funniest parts are NOT where he's eliciting latent bigotry on the part of hapless innocents, or procuring shit in a bag. [Although those are pretty funny. Some of the slapstick/gross-out humour is great; I say that as someone who sat stony-faced through 'Dumb and Dumber'.]
The funniest parts are where he riffs on the absurdity of bigoted attitudes without implicating others. I particularly liked the under-the-duvet speech to camera in the Jewish B&B, and his aborted attempt to secure the tears of the gypsy.
Posted by: ricardo on November 17, 2006 11:29 PMA good way for dealing with people who are over the top (say, Walter Cronkite with his theories of Bush having timed Hussein's capture to the elections...) is to gently ask one simple question.
"How would that work?"
And then be quiet for the fascinating answer. Often you can get someone to make themselves a complete tin hat fool without another word on your part. Or bring them to reason, when they admit that their idea actually *couldn't* work. Either way, good for you and no embarrassment on your own part.
Posted by: Twill00 on November 17, 2006 11:54 PMI'm in complete agreement with Jane on this one. Its rediculous to think, as Cohen states in a recent interview, that he's exposing the racist underbelly of American.
In reality, he's exposing an extremely polite and politically correct country. of course, europeans tend to look down at Americans for that too.
Posted by: JJones on November 17, 2006 11:57 PMI found the movie exactly as lame as Jane expects. There were a few smirks, but mostly it was painful to watch in much the same way as Candid Camera or its modern Japanese equivalent. I guess I just don't "get" Sasha Cohen, since I find Ali G equally annoying. There's a fine line between watching an actor /play/ a stupid racist character for comic effect and merely watching someone who happens to /be/ a stupid racist character.
John Cleese, this guy isn't. Many scenes were a little funny, but it was never funny /enough/ or /consistently/ and many jokes fell flat.
Though I did like the "drink the blood of our enemies" line.
Posted by: Glen Raphael on November 18, 2006 4:37 AMI think one of the reasons for the success of the movie is that it doesn't really cut very close to the bone. "You're too polite" is not considered harsh criticism here in red America, and it seems that's the the movie is being interpreted here.
Posted by: Bob_R on November 18, 2006 7:33 AMJesus, you guys are a bunch of stiffs. Since when did the anti-PC crowd get so PC?
Posted by: shecky on November 18, 2006 11:09 AMBaron Cohen thinks he's being edgy and revealing prejudices, but all he's doing is taking on the only acceptable targets in the liberal West: backward white Eastern Europeans, and Christian white southern Americans. The cheapest, easiest targets out there. Guaranteed to get guffaws from liberals who are, like everyone else, big fans of ethnic humor but have a bad conscience about any humor directed at anyone but whites and especially southerners.
If he wanted to be real edgy, he could have chosen to imitate, say, arab muslims. Plenty to mock there. Or blacks or hispanics. Or he could have put on big buck teeth and thick glasses and pretended to be Japanese. Obviously, his liberal peer group would have been horrified by this.
As it is, the only liberals he mocked were some rude New Yorkers - who wouldn't be bothered by it, they like their reputation for toughness - and some feminists.
The feminists' response was revealing. In an interview one of them said she could understand the humor and social usefulness in mocking whites, but she didn't understand what was funny about mocking feminists. See? It's not funny when done to a liberal - at least the liberal doesn't see the humor.
If Baron Cohen's idea was to somehow combat prejudice against Jews (and it wasn't, it was to make money and get fame), I'm sure the opinion of people he has mocked has not been improved - a Jew came and made them look foolish and by being sneaky with the release form is going to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of them. Yeah, that should combat the stereotype of the sneaky, grasping Jew.
Posted by: Mark on November 18, 2006 12:23 PMi agree with shecky 100% on this. i love irreverent humor--in fact it's my favorite type--and people need to pull the sticks out of their ass and just enjoy it. everybody gets to be the butt of a joke at some time in their life. savor it! it's harmless and it's only harmful if people freak out about a little bit of non-PCness. if it's not your type of humor that's one thing, put i personally enjoy pushing the limits of acceptability with my humor, including embarrassing myself...
Posted by: jacob on November 18, 2006 12:53 PMI gotta ask... how'd they know she was a prostitute just by looking at her?
Perhaps I should have said: a middle-aged woman who dressed more slutty than rap video back-up dancers and acted like the dumbest 15-year-old bimbo you've ever met, with a creepy looking and very ugly man with poor personal hygeine.
Maybe it was his wife. They didn't ask.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on November 18, 2006 1:33 PMAwful lot of tut-tutting from the peanut gallery about this film. It's surprising to see so many libertarians sniffing at a movie that The Market has deemed to be an unqualified commercial success, if the box office returns are any indication...
Posted by: Immoralist on November 18, 2006 3:43 PMLast time I checked, libertarianism was a political philosophy, not a religion; it's therefore ok to dislike a market success, be it Borat, Lincoln Navigators, Windoze, Home Despot, or what have you. Anyone can be a "heretic" to libertarianism and yet not get burned at the stake.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 18, 2006 4:48 PMCraig Ranapia,
Why do you presume so much? Cohen has been mocking British aritoscracy for years using the same Borat character. (So, you see, you are "really bugged" for nothing.)
He's just funny. That the studio publicists decided they have to come up with a stupid moral justification for the movie (or that the movie isn't as good as his TV shows), doesn't change that.
Posted by: Joe on November 18, 2006 5:14 PMIt's surprising to see so many libertarians sniffing at a movie that The Market has deemed to be an unqualified commercial success
Why? It'd only be surprising if libertarians wanted the movie banned. Or suggested that it wasn't worth the price being asked for it or somthing like that. Why do you think libertarianism (not that I am a libertarian) demands that people like what everyone else likes. If anything, it allows people to the freedom to choose what they want by not following the crowd or having the government tell people what they can or can't watch.
Posted by: Ryan on November 18, 2006 8:21 PMI am sure the Borat movie, which I haven't seen is hilarious, but I'm not interested in seeing it either. It is quite common now for comedians and satirists to juggle the "politically incorrect" and "politically correct" balls at the same time. When accused of being the first they claim they are really doing p.c. education via satire. Give me a break.
I don't think any of us is under any obligation to respond to any and every piece of bigotry we come across. Remember not all bigotry is racial, ethnic or sexual. Sure if it impacts you personally fine let it rip, apart from that it is hardly worth the time and effort.
One thing I don't like about a lot of modern satire of the Borat type is that it focuses almost exclusively on small town or 'Red State' America to the entertainment of urban Blue Staters. They rarely will attempt to expose the collosal bigotry found amongst the liberal left. Prejudices of all kinds, often more ignorant than the kind Borat exposes as their holders consider themselves 'cosmopolitan', lurk there too but for the media to expost them is still verbotten.
Posted by: tim on November 19, 2006 12:21 AMEllipsis wrote:
Last time I checked, libertarianism was a political philosophy, not a religion[...]
Oh, but I think it is a religion. Of sorts. Libertarianism doesn't demand that everyone like Market Outcomes, but it does demand that everyone accept Market Outcomes as the most efficient of all possible outcomes. Maybe Borat doesn't align with your aesthetic preferences, but how can you be justifiably outraged when The Market is telling you that Borat's success is the most efficient aggregated result of tens of millions of moviegoers exercising their economic liberty? Complaining about what the Invisible Hand tells you is a Market success seems pretty heretical when you worship the Hand itself.
(If you're not a libertarian, ellipsis, then you can pretty much ignore the above, which isn't directed at you personally so much as it is at those who are libertarians and who don't like Borat.)
And Ryan wrote:
It'd only be surprising if libertarians wanted the movie banned. Or suggested that it wasn't worth the price being asked for it or somthing like that. Why do you think libertarianism (not that I am a libertarian) demands that people like what everyone else likes. If anything, it allows people to the freedom to choose what they want by not following the crowd or having the government tell people what they can or can't watch.
Sure, sure, all well taken. Libertarianism doesn't force anyone to like anything, which is generally all for the good. You have the freedom to convince tens of millions of moviegoers that they're wrong. But, really, what moral or aesthetic force would that argument have? The Market has spoken. And Adam Smith help you if you dare suggest that The Market is wrong.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 19, 2006 3:31 AMImmoralist, I don't see why something popular that sells well requires that libertarians silently like it. Odd argument. There's no accounting for taste.
I hated Fawlty Towers and Keeping Up Appearances; that Bucket woman reminded me of my mother a tad too much, who put on airs but also had a sense of humor about her putting on airs. I have no plans to see Borat. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Re: calling out racists/etc., well, I let most things pass because I don't have an influential relationship with the person offending me. Why should I presume that my opinion should be so influential in their lives, when the entire educational establishment and employment opportunity structure has failed to do so? Flipside of coin: I had longstanding, heated, earnest, desperate arguments with my mother and my best friend about some racist attitudes they had, because I loved them and had influential relationships with them, had a chance of being heard and respected, and I loved these people too much to let them stay stinkin' racists. Sure they had a right to their opinions, live and let live, and all that, but they were far better people with bigger hearts and minds to stay in the pigsty of racist attitudes.
Speaking of which...while SBC is trying to show up others' racism, to what extent is he revealing his own racism? I mean, he's acting racist and enthusiastically seeking a racist response from others. To me, that makes him a racist despite any protestations he may have about the matter. To profit so massively from the encouragement of racism makes him a racist.
Re: the kernel of truth in racist attitudes, like Irish alcoholics.
Should black folk quit eating watermelon and fried chicken, and dancing well, and succeeding at basketball?
Should Asians back off their math and science success?
After all, these things just confirm stereotypes.
The error in a lot of racist thinking is mistaking the categorical for the general. To say that all Irish are alcoholics is a categorical statement; to acknowledge that there might be a distilled grain of truth in the stereotype, but also acknowledge that not all Irish are alcoholics, and not jump to presume any individual Irish person is automatically an alcoholic or highly suspect in that regard, is the general approach.
Americans are also lacking in any nuance in understanding Irish/British/European alcohol beliefs and behaviors...Puritan dualistic Temperance movement influenced thinking, not understanding the Bible's praise of moderate drinking and condemnation of drunkenness--excessive drinking. I can't remember when I had my first drink; I grew up drinking wine with dinner routinely. English parents. The Bible beaters among whom I live are scandalized by that. However, it's the Baptist/fundamentalist kids who turn into huge drunks at the first opportunity; they have no mind map for responsible, social, healthy consumption, so must necessarily go whole hog into staggering and puking and getting date raped. Since alcohol is itself evil, and they have fallen into the clutches of evil, then all sin is justified since it can be blamed on the alcohol and the assumed demon possession that goes with it. It's really quite sick. Give me a happy Irishman any day.
Posted by: kentuckyliz on November 19, 2006 7:50 AMI saw Borat - I laughed during the movie, although I just covered my face in horror during several scenes, but just felt gross afterwards.
I think Hitchens was about right. That women at the dinner party was unbelievably patient, showing him how to use the toilet and clearly wanting to believe the best despite everything.
I saw an unattributed claim that the scene at the Rodeo was actually edited to make it appear that the audience clapped at the more outrageous comments.
It may be a passing amusement to paint this movie as ideological or anti-American. Cohen is basically a shock-jock, however. I think there is little or no coherence behind the desire to be outrageous and annihilate the little niceties and pretenses of most human interaction.
For people like me (and apparently Megan - see this entry: http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005845.html) a pass is probably the wise choice.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on November 19, 2006 12:34 PMOne thing I don't like about a lot of modern satire of the Borat type is that it focuses almost exclusively on small town or 'Red State' America to the entertainment of urban Blue Staters. They rarely will attempt to expose the collosal bigotry found amongst the liberal left. Prejudices of all kinds, often more ignorant than the kind Borat exposes as their holders consider themselves 'cosmopolitan', lurk there too but for the media to expost them is still verbotten.
Such as?
Posted by: purple on November 19, 2006 12:41 PMI need to step away for a moment to wrap my mind around Kentucky Liz's contention that English youth have somehow developed a sense of responsibility with alcohol that American youth lack.
Posted by: alan on November 19, 2006 2:02 PMI agree with those who have already surmised that SBC, and Borat, are not about simply exposing prejudice and intolerance. They are about exposing the underlying irrationality that social graces, politeness, and various other coping mechanisms have buried in order for rational society to function.
Cohen's comedy is about watching him rip away the veil of civilization and rationality that human beings hide behind in social situations. SBC's true comedy is about seeing how quickly he can tear away the pleasant, calm, rational facade we all put on when we go about our daily lives in public.
The truth is that we are all Borat inside; we have an animalistic creature with dark, id-like desires and emotions, and we hide that creature in order to get along with our fellow man. Borat simply lets that creature out. Those of us who appear rational and well adjusted have simply been tamed (usually through some combination of social reinforcment and self-interested complicity).
This uninhibited creature is the core of the Borat act: Borat publically masturbating to lingerie mannequins in a shop window; carrying feces in a plastic bag, unsure how to dispose of it; wrestling naked with an obscenely overweight hairy naked man in the middle of a black-tie banquet; trying to kidnapp a movie starlet so he can marry her; asking urban black teens to show him how to dress hip; proudly showing off (explicit) pictures of his son's development at puberty; commenting immediately and blatantly on whether or not he finds a woman attractive . . .
The racist facets of Borat are just one example of that creature. His racism is always based on incredibly irrational fear. He never tries to justify his racism with any sort of argument as to why Jews are bad -- he's simply irrationally afraid of them.
For example, take his terrifying night with the jewish bed & breakfast owners. This scene was funny because Borat was so truly terrified of two people who were possibly the most harmless he'd ever confronted. His response -- again completely irrational -- was to purchase a bear for protection.
The people who get caught up in this maelstrom of ignorance and irrationality only look like fools to the extent that they struggle to hold on to the veil of rationality between human beings -- and this includes the viewer. The viewer will uncomfortable to the extent that he is uncomfortable with this irrationality being exposed. Reasoning with Borat is impossible. Treating him like a rational being is impossible. You have to let go, and accept him as a thing, a beast.
If a viewer is willing to let go, and simply laugh at the absurdity of the underlying animal fears and desires being exposed, then - "success!" -- the film is funny. But to the extent you want to cling to that rational veil, and keep it from being torn away, you will be very uncomfortable, and won't laugh. After all, what is rational about laughter?
Posted by: Phil on November 19, 2006 4:36 PMPhil,
I think you just described the ~New Age~ "Two-Minutes Hate".
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 19, 2006 6:05 PMSo now we have Phil saying that Borat and other SBC characters are basically nihilistic, and that makes them funny? I sure hope that I've misunderstood...
Immoralist, whether I'm a libertarian or not isn't relevent. I'm not required to like something just because 10 million other people do; look up the argumentum ad populum fallacy in your spare time.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 19, 2006 6:29 PMThis movie is amazingly funny. It is not a noble movie or a humane movie. It is better than that. It is hilarious. The movie is about a character with an alien value system and how he observes our world it is also about how people respond to him. About man absent respectability and the veneer of civilization.
There scene in which Borat is instructed by the comedy coach that a particularly tasteless joke about teasing a mentally retarded person with promises of sex is not funny after the audience of the film has spent the last 90 seconds howling with laughter at the same joke.
I think the point of the film to the extent that it has one is that for all our high-mindedness and civility will not protect us from the reality of what man is. Full of fears and appetites and only the flimsiest protection from the looming madness of the animal universe. Monkeys in tuxedos.
Posted by: Michael Foody on November 19, 2006 7:12 PMThe truth is that we are all Borat inside; we have an animalistic creature with dark, id-like desires and emotions, and we hide that creature in order to get along with our fellow man. Borat simply lets that creature out.
And this is a good thing because?
The people who get caught up in this maelstrom of ignorance and irrationality only look like fools to the extent that they struggle to hold on to the veil of rationality between human beings -- and this includes the viewer. The viewer will uncomfortable to the extent that he is uncomfortable with this irrationality being exposed. Reasoning with Borat is impossible. Treating him like a rational being is impossible. You have to let go, and accept him as a thing, a beast.
So, if confronted by someone behaving as badly as Borat, you should accept him as a thing, and not try to understand him as a human being?
(I will not say as a beast, most beasts are more rational than whatever dark urges you are talking about, and amongst mammals are far better socialised).
This seems like a nasty approach to another human being. Okay, obviously in the case of Borat it would be the only possible response, as he is determined to come up with something that will disgust you. But remember the people meeting Borat in the movie don't know he's an actor, as far as they know he is another human being.
I think the point of the film to the extent that it has one is that for all our high-mindedness and civility will not protect us from the reality of what man is. Full of fears and appetites and only the flimsiest protection from the looming madness of the animal universe. Monkeys in tuxedos.
What a weird view of humanity. And animals. I have to say that no personal observation of animals of mine, no nature show, no study I have seen of mammalian behaviour indicates they are "mad" as a culture. Within context, animal behaviour is rational (eg find food, avoid being eaten, have sex).
Nor is it all clear to me why you regard the inner-thing as "the reality". If it is only the outside behaviour that is rational, that is still equally real. If I behave in a rational, calm, civlised manner, then that is real. When I am thinking about art, or doing a mathematical calculation, that is real. Why do you think the inner-thing to be "the reality" and not also my behaviour?
Posted by: Tracy W on November 19, 2006 9:52 PMI agree with Phil and Michael Foody on this. I find the posts on this so irritating. It is just a comedy that seeks to elicit humor by putting people in a ridiculous situation. Why do we find it funny? Read Phil's post: it makes us deal with the conflicting nature of human society. Since the beginning of time, classic humor has been about taking people out of their natural context and imagining how they would act if, say, the poor guy trades places with the rich guy, the guy is reborn in a woman's body, someone goes back in time. The point is to make us laugh at ourselves because we know we are just "monkies in tuxedos" playing the roles that we are used to in life. Heck, even Shakespeare's comedies played with this notion of upsetting traditional behavior roles. Here we just have another version of that classic version of humor: instead of taking normal people out of context (which is hard to do in a documentary, real-world format), SBC brings in Borat, an outsider capable of provoking these people, upsetting their ideas of the normal standards of conduct, and in the process making us laugh at ourselves.
I think it's genius and I think the people whose knee-jerk impulse is to attack the film because it defiles some sacred notion of what it is to be human (political correctness, Tracy W's humanity, Red or Blue state-ness, American-ness, etc.) need to look at themselves and ask why they feel so sensitive about it. If it's the painting in the museum that you just don't get so you move on, well that's one thing, but don't attack the artist because you don't get it. I don't even see why this is being discussed.
And so what if he edited the movie to make it more entertaining or thought-provoking. He's not calling it a documentary...it's a movie!
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 12:19 AMThere was an obituary for an anthropologist in the NYT a couple of years ago wherein it was noted that he did his field study for his PhD among Irish farmers upon coming home from which he complained about the amount of alcohol he had to consume. In personal situations, I have always found comments about Irish and drinking to be a pleasant metaphor for libido. Racist comments are a subclass of insults which is verbal combat to determine dominance. It sounds like your roommate landed a punch which is still leaving you beaten. In a fight, I think you want to counter not necessarily to win but to keep in the game or keep the relationship alive. That may involve responding in kind.
Posted by: Brophy on November 20, 2006 2:09 AMAnd so what if he edited the movie to make it more entertaining or thought-provoking. He's not calling it a documentary...it's a movie!
Realism adds to comedy. Personally, I've never kined the whole "prank phone call" type of comedy. But do you think those 'prank phone calls' would ammuse anyone at all if they didn't think a real live human being was being humiliated? Would people watch "Candid Camera" if they found out it was staged. Realism is crucial to the comedy.
Posted by: Ryan on November 20, 2006 3:31 AMI think it's genius and I think the people whose knee-jerk impulse is to attack the film because it defiles some sacred notion of what it is to be human
More like practical knowledge of what it is to be human.
I don't see how it's a sacred knowledge to assume that how people behave is as much "the reality" as whatever drives they feel on the inside. Or to have spent a bit of time observing things like how dogs or cows behave, and not to have noticed any looming madness.
It's not Borat the movie that annoyed me - I haven't seen it yet. It's Phil's weird idea that the "inner self" is "the reality" and Phil's lack of thinking about how animals - at least mammals - behave, that annoys me. Unthinking cliches always do.
SBC brings in Borat, an outsider capable of provoking these people, upsetting their ideas of the normal standards of conduct, and in the process making us laugh at ourselves.
I think what makes this sort of work difficult for many people to watch is that these people are not volunteers for this change. Also there is a feeling that Borat is not expecting us to laugh at ourselves, but at them.
If it's the painting in the museum that you just don't get so you move on, well that's one thing, but don't attack the artist because you don't get it.
Why not? This is the sort of art that depends on attacking other people - insulting them, etc. Why not metaphorically attack the artist if I don't get it - or, alternatively if I get it but don't like it? Borat's gone around trying to be critical of Americans, he's hardly in a position to complain if people are critical of him back.
And, on the other side, it only strikes me as fair that if I can't metaphorically attack a piece of art that I don't like, then you can't praise a piece of art you like. Personally I think it is much more interesting if we wander around praising and metaphorically attacking art, rather than receiving all pieces of art in dutiful, unthinking silence.
"Personally I think it is much more interesting if we wander around praising and metaphorically attacking art, rather than receiving all pieces of art in dutiful, unthinking silence."
Well said, Tracy.
Somehow, that last bit reminds me of the tempests we had in New York about Piss-Christ and the Madonna with elephant dung at the Brooklyn Art Museum. Except in some of those cases we were told we had to FUND all pieces of art in dutiful, unthinking silence.
Of course BAM never had it so good as when they could wind up Rudy to provide front page publicity for their latest show.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on November 20, 2006 6:08 AMWell, people are free to "metaphorically attack" art they dislike, but when they do it with a lot of politically correct whining that shows their "born fighting" egos to be fragile hothouse flowers, they shouldn't be surprised with the response they get. LOL.
No one should expect silence in response to art that upsets or challenges them. Perhaps we can all agree that SBC should undergo sensitivity training in order to produce art that wouldn't generate such criticism?
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 7:52 AMI think there is little or no coherence behind the desire to be outrageous and annihilate the little niceties and pretenses of most human interaction.
But that's a key point. The "little niceties and pretenses" of ordinary human interaction often mask prejudices, both casual and vicious, that only manifest themselves when the black person, or Jew, or gay person is gone and the "nice" person is back among equals. Or making a decision on his own whom to hire, or whom to socialize with or snub, or whom to mentor at work or let sink or swim.
It's certainly helpful for me to see a friendly southerner who would be perfectly polite when he meets me then turn around and AGREE with Borat that they're trying to round up and hang all the queers in his country, too, with a smile and a laugh. Not just be polite, but to actually share his affirmation.
Some people here would argue that his politeness toward me means more in his defense than his agreement with Borat demeans him, because he was set up/it's unfair/the movie is mean. Well, I can't agree. The politeness is the shield behind which the injustice takes place. People who aren't affected by this aren't going to get it. And that's a common story in America.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 8:01 AMPersonally I think it is much more interesting if we wander around praising and metaphorically attacking art, rather than receiving all pieces of art in dutiful, unthinking silence.
But it does get tiresome to listen to people complain that the de Kooning painting is stupid because women doesn't really look like that, or what was Picasso thinking when no one has two eyes on the same side of his head.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 8:16 AMTelling people to not express their racists sentiments around you does nothing to combat the racism: it simply drivew the opinion into silence and makes unracist YOU feel better about yourself.
Posted by: Brett on November 20, 2006 8:40 AMI'm not advocating viewing art in unthinking silence. I'm saying that we shouldn't question an artist's right to call his work art, which seems to be what's going on here. Instead of saying, "well this doesn't seem to be the kind of art that I appreciate for such and such a reason", some people seem to be saying, "well the artist clearly had a hidden agenda in producing this and it is a direct affront on our culture or philosophy."
It does remind me of the elephant dung exhibit. But I didn't like the whole debate surrounding that art either because people kept arguing that the exhibit really couldn't be considered art, as if there were some objective definition of art that we all knew. The definition of art is subjective, and clearly a large percentage of people appreciate Borat as art. The question is not, do I recognize this as art, but why don't I appreciate it?
At some point, you should question his right to use other people as props in his art, but I don't think this qualifies because he is not causing lasting damage to the people involved. To me it's like any performance where members of the audience become props in the show.
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 9:04 AMBrett, I disagree. Calling out racism does combat it. It may not change the nature of the racist, but it may prevent him from spreading his views. You don't want to be the thought police, but with something that is so clearly morally repugnant, it is sometimes good to call him out, because that forces racists and everyone else to consider the rationality of what they are saying. They probably won't change their minds, but they will all think twice the next time they try to inject racism into a conversation with strangers.
Seriously, people don't communicate by telepathy, only with words. The holocaust started with words. As that famous quote says, All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing, and this is an everyday case of that. Within limits, such as some mentioned above, I think you have a duty to speak up against things that are morally wrong. And if they can defend their views, they should have that right, but it can't happen without debate and confrontation. I see this non-confrontational outlook as just another manifestation of the American culture of political correctness.
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 9:17 AMI think what makes this sort of work difficult for many people to watch is that these people are not volunteers for this change.
The rest of us aren't volunteers for living along with their screwed up sense of lazy privilege protected by insincere propriety, and the costs are a lot higher than simply being mocked in a movie.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 9:56 AMTracy W. said:
"most beasts are more rational than whatever dark urges you are talking about, and amongst mammals are far better socialised"
and
"I have to say that no personal observation of animals of mine, no nature show, no study I have seen of mammalian behaviour indicates they are "mad" as a culture. Within context, animal behaviour is rational (eg find food, avoid being eaten, have sex)."
and
"It's not Borat the movie that annoyed me - I haven't seen it yet. It's Phil's weird idea that the "inner self" is "the reality" and Phil's lack of thinking about how animals - at least mammals - behave, that annoys me. Unthinking cliches always do."
Tracy, I'm surprised that you are able to see rationality in the behavior of animals, but call my point of view simply "unthinking cliches." At the very least, I'd think you could recognize a rationality in my behaviour equivalent to that of the rationality you see in animals. Have I managed to be less rational even than an animal?
And anyway, I'd like to know what behavior of Borat's was less rational than, say, your average bear, or dog. In fact, "find food, avoid being eaten, have sex" pretty well describes Borat's primary motivations -- it's his bumbling attempts to do so in the face of our society's many obscure rules, customs and taboos that gets him into trouble.
Finally, do you think that the reason humans are generally able to get along better with animals than with Borat is that humans are able to *reason* with these animals, whereas Borat cannot be reasoned with?
Posted by: Phil on November 20, 2006 10:14 AMBrittain33,
you stated: "But that's a key point. The "little niceties and pretenses" of ordinary human interaction often mask prejudices, both casual and vicious, that only manifest themselves when the black person, or Jew, or gay person is gone and the "nice" person is back among equals. Or making a decision on his own whom to hire, or whom to socialize with or snub, or whom to mentor at work or let sink or swim.
It's certainly helpful for me to see a friendly southerner who would be perfectly polite when he meets me then turn around..."
How, in fact, is it "helpful" for you to see that? Was it revelatory for you, per chance?
And, seriously, if people took the responsibility, that comes with whatever level of economic Liberty, they have and coupled it with some simple cognizance of Economics, would not the market clear out those actors that were deemed to vitiate propriety?
As Jane states,the people in this movie are just unwittingly being overpolite. They are in an awkward situation are are just going with the flow so to speak. For anyone to assume this represents some kind of deeper, darker undertone of the average American is overreacting. For someone to assume society has a right to mock these people for its own "improvement" has a lot to learn. Interesting these same people arguing for public humiliation of those thoughts and people they disagree with wouldn't feel the same right to do so if the mocking was being done to gays, muslims, umarried mothers, etc. etc.
But hey, I'm just an ugly American so what do I know.
Posted by: uglyamerican on November 20, 2006 10:22 AMHow, in fact, is it "helpful" for you to see that? Was it revelatory for you, per chance?
No, but it's helpful for me that other people will see that and recognize those views aren't only held by monsters they can safely pretend aren't part of society. Like how people say "everyone opposes David Duke" and that means that racism is completely quarantined, while ignoring the broad sweep of effects that fall short of what Duke said and did.
I'm quite aware of the distinction between the professionalism I encounter at work and the casual politeness I experience elsewhere, and what some people think they're hiding when they talk to me.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 10:32 AMUA,
to your point: "For someone to assume society has a right to mock these people for its own "improvement" has a lot to learn. Interesting these same people arguing for public humiliation of those thoughts and people they disagree with wouldn't feel the same right to do so if the mocking was being done to gays, muslims, umarried mothers, etc. etc.
But hey, I'm just an ugly American so what do I know."
I think you know that it's:
"doublethink - Reality Control. The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. An excellent example of doublethink in modern society is the war on drugs. If you ask people their opinion on alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, most people would agree that it was a complete failure. People agree that it only caused more crime, it made gangsters rich, it corrupted politicians, and most importantly ... it didn't keep people from drinking.
"Yet, we have almost the exact same situation today with war on drugs, yet most people think that our modern prohibition is a good idea ... and more than that, they believe that anybody that thinks that the war on drugs isn't a good idea must be completely out of their minds. In order for a person to be effective at doublethink, they must master the art of crimestop.
"This word has made its way into the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"dou•ble•think ('d&-b&l-"thi[ng]k), noun, Date: 1949 : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.
"Here is how Winston Smith described doublethink in the novel [1984]:
"'To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'"
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 20, 2006 10:32 AMwouldn't feel the same right to do so if the mocking was being done to gays, muslims, umarried mothers, etc. etc.
Nah, bring it on! I'm surely not the only person here old enough to remember Men on Film from In Living Color, which didn't even have the excuse of using real people.
Also, there certainly is a large group of people who believe gays should be mocked, degraded, and publicly humiliated in order for us to see the error of our ways and correct our lives. It's being done out of love for our souls. Exhibit A: see Ted Haggard's abasement before his church for the evilness of being gay, not just his infidelity, lying, and meth use. And certainly in the 1990s, Newt Gingrich spoke about the healing power of shame to get unmarried women to fix their mistakes, a theme that continues through government initiatives to pressure them into getting married for their economic benefit.
"Interesting these same people arguing for public humiliation of those thoughts and people they disagree with wouldn't feel the same right to do so if the mocking was being done to gays, muslims, umarried mothers, etc. etc."
I'm really confused now. Are you saying that we wouldn't want to mock gays for being gays, or muslims for being muslims? Well, you are right about that. But I am all for mockery of gays or Muslims if they hold ridiculous views. On what basis would you think that "these same people" wouldn't want to mock those views that they disagree with, regardless of the person holding them? Have you sufficiently categorized people that you are qualified to make that statement?
Why do you think people love to laugh at the hypocrisy of fundamentalists like Ted Haggard?
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 10:51 AMI saw an unattributed claim that the scene at the Rodeo was actually edited to make it appear that the audience clapped at the more outrageous comments.
Sacha Baron Cohen and Michael Moore, separated at birth?
Come on...mainstream media is not practically endorsing the mocking of muslims, gays, etc. like they are with this tool borat.
The last time anyone even mocked a muslim on the back page of a newspaper, the media was so afraid to handle the situation many outlets refused to even repeat the incredibly benign "offensive" cartoons. But that's jumping into a different debate. I don't think we should use mocking of any group as a tool to achieve some sort of "good" especially when you've got a group of people at the other end making millions off this claimed "good" they're doing. If they want to make money fine doing what they're doing they're subject to our criticism. The fact that some people seem to be claiming some kind of moral high ground that absolves them from criticsim because what they're doing is for society's good is what I disagree with.
Oh and on double think, for the record I also think repealing the prohibition laws were a mistake. But then again I live in Utah (which ironically, was the deciding vote in prohibition's repeal and voted to lift the restrictions)
Posted by: uglyamerican on November 20, 2006 11:17 AMBrittain33,
Would you care to answer the other Q: "And, seriously, if people took the responsibility, that comes with whatever level of economic Liberty, they have and coupled it with some simple cognizance of Economics, would not the market clear out those actors that were deemed to vitiate propriety?"
I haven't noticed the media endorsing Borat. Far from it. He is the object of a lot of controversy and lawsuits.
And you are confusing mocking views with mocking people. Borat doesn't mock the person, he mocks their views, and the views of his own character. Again, the equivalent of that would be to mock Muslims or gays for their views. But then why do you even bother referring to them as Muslims or gays because their religion or sexual orientation have nothing to do with your question?
On the cases where Borat does stereotype groups irrespective of their views, I find fault. One of the only possible examples of this is his depiction of Kazakhs. But even that is more a mockery of Western notions of the developing world than it is of Kazakhstan. What makes it so ridiculous is that Borat is an amalgamation of all Western stereotypes about the developing world. He doesn't really look like any particular ethnicity, he throws in a few words that are actually Polish, Russian and Hebrew, he doesn't know anything about Kazakh culture, and he exaggerates every Western notion of backwardness. Not sure he put that much thought into it, but that is my (possibly naive) interpretation of his intentions.
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 11:55 AMAw, hell. Ok: no, it wouldn't. The market won't clear because of networking effects and the value employees get from their perceived social value to those already at the top. Perceived value is tied in with race, gender, and sexual orientation. Objective valuations of people's worth to an organization--or I should say, more objective valuations, because true objectivity is elusive--are only one of several factors.
To analogize this in terms people will understand, many parents would prefer their child bring home a fiancé of the correct race with a $20,000/year job over the fiancé of the wrong race who makes $100,000. And it has everything to do with how that person will be seen to "fit in" with the parents and their priorities.
Irrational? Superficially yes, practically no.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 12:03 PMI think we should mock people who think that SBC would never dare to target gays, given that his next project is based on his third major character from Da Ali G show, Brüno.
Posted by: Brittain33 on November 20, 2006 12:06 PMGood post, and while I understand the concerns, I saw and liked Borat.
The film made fun of nearly everyone, and Baron Cohen (whom I'd never seen nor heard of before the film) reminds me of Howard Stern and Candid Camera. I always loved Howard Stern and I enjoyed the film, although I felt sorry for the people at the dinner. I try to be polite to everyone, avoid ad hominem attacks and always use logic and reason, and while I would never treat people as Cohen treated them, I laughed and laughed. Which means I'm probably a hypocrite or have a double standard or something, or I don't care enough to honor my principles. I guess I'm inconsistent, but then, this was humor, broadly applied.
Honestly, I think this country is losing its sense of humor, and I have a lot of trouble seeing people who signed releases as victims. (Especially the feminist artist who lists her Borat role and her TV appearances complaining about it at the same web site where she promotes her art.)
Posted by: Eric Scheie on November 20, 2006 12:43 PMBrittain33,
I appreciate your answering, though I'm not quite sure I'm getting the full import of it.
With this: "many parents would prefer their child bring home a fiancé of the correct race with a $20,000/year job over the fiancé of the wrong race who makes $100,000. And it has everything to do with how that person will be seen to "fit in" with the parents and their priorities."
If I may rephrase, are you saying: Many would gladly accept a dearth of financial remuneration in exchange for (perceived or real) harmony? If so, how does that square with one of the central "givens" re: Economic Man--That he is a Financial profit maximizing creature?
That would seem to uproot the Financial incentives(+ & -) tied to the "Color of Skin" taxonomy underlying Affirmative Action, EEOC, et al., no? Those 'programs' run for us b/c the 'market' will not?
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 20, 2006 2:26 PMMark,
By using the marriage analogy, I got away from my point. To put it another way, a white salesman might be worth more than a black salesman to a company, even if by objective measures he's clumsier or doesn't work as hard, if the market is more receptive to a white salesman. Even a Grade B white salesman would make more money for the company than a Grade A black salesman. The salesman's race has value because of what might be termed "affinity", "comfort level", or "prejudice" of the market.
For a variety of reasons, largely historical but with a great deal of inertia, the top positions in corporate America are manned by white men who in turn define the culture that new people are measured by.
Another angle:
If I make my boss uncomfortable because of my race, gender, or sexual orientation, then our working relationship is going to be less than ideal, and I'm going to be worth less to him. And so someone who he has an affinity for because he's like him will have a bonus. Again, "bosses" in this country are disproportionately white, male, and straight. Everyone's inclination is to go with what's most comfortable, but inertia carries forward past practices.
Phil - can I suggest "Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson for some evidence on rationality and socialisation amongst non-human mammals? (It's also a very interesting read in its own right.) In this book they talk about details like how stallions raised in the wild know how to 'court' a mare and win her affections, stallions raised in solitude do not learn this, and effectively rape the mare (the stablehands will tie mares up so they can't run away in that situation).
As for "unthinking cliches" - I think it's easy for all of us to fall into them. They still irritate me though. Rationality and civilisation are a hard thing to achieve, and it's important to keep working on it.
Reasoning - I think lack of language is a deep barrier to reasoning. I recently learnt to scuba-dive, and since I don't know sign language I couldn't have a rational argument down there with someone as the set of signals I did know was too limited. All we could do was exchange signals and decide whether to agree with them or not. (Obviously one would never disagree with the "I'm out of air" signal). I have seen the family dog however figure out solutions to novel problems, such as coming and fetching me when the rest of my family had locked themselves out and I was studying far from the front door.
And, coming back to my other point - assuming we have this inner boiling of instincts and fears - why is that "the reality", and not also the times when we are logical, thoughtful and civilised? Why is the me who was sitting there studying maths not equally as much "the reality" as some person revealing foul prejudices on candid camera?
Posted by: Tracy W on November 20, 2006 3:03 PMImmoralist, whether I'm a libertarian or not isn't relevent. I'm not required to like something just because 10 million other people do; look up the argumentum ad populum fallacy in your spare time.
I know what argumentum ad populum fallacy is. I wasn't making that argument. In fact, I specifically wrote:
Libertarianism doesn't force anyone to like anything, which is generally all for the good.
What I was saying is that a libertarian's criticism of a Free Market Outcome isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you worship the process, then arguing with the outcome is exceedingly difficult.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 20, 2006 3:44 PMBrittain33,
Ok, I hear ya, that seems much more clear. Though, why would that be a problem?
I mean, one would assume that the co., in your example, is intersted in maximizing sales, why wouldn't they put a salesman that was more effective in that role? I'm sure that if the co. was interested in expanding its opportunities it would place the "Grade A" salesman in those districts where he would have the greatest likelihood of success, no?
It's near impossible to drive by a car dealer that isn't, no matter the creed of the owner, advertising "Se habla espanol". Why? They understand that ignoring that growing wedge of the pie may leave them permanently hungry.
Alternatively, these "ol' boys", that you give rise to, that can't calculate the "content of character", are being as rapidly forgotten as chimerical notions like: "mass market", by prospective employees and game entrepreneurs, alike. The "market", itself, may be unitary, though, to the contrary, its true fruit, it participants, are polymorphic. One needs to go no further than to the "Pink Pages" to see, that the market, left unfettered, and stimulated by mere choice, will respond with myriad satisfactions--certainly one, of which, to delight any.
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 20, 2006 3:53 PMImmoralist
What I was saying is that a libertarian's criticism of a Free Market Outcome isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you worship the process, then arguing with the outcome is exceedingly difficult.
The purpose of markets is specifically to;
1. set a fair price and
2. determine what should be produced.
I haven't heard any libertarians criticising these specific points. Because no libertarian has criticised these things, how do you maintian that they are criticising a free market outcome?
Posted by: Ryan on November 20, 2006 4:16 PMRyan wrote:
The purpose of markets is specifically to;
1. set a fair price and
2. determine what should be produced.
I haven't heard any libertarians criticising these specific points. Because no libertarian has criticised these things, how do you maintian that they are criticising a free market outcome?
First off, I see the market purpose of "determin[ing] what should be produced" as having an intrinsic normative component. It is good to produce those things which the Market says should be produced, and it is not good to produce those things which the Market says should not be produced. This is important to what follows below:
Now consider the libertarian who attacks Borat on the grounds that it is not funny, that it is self-righteous, that it is snobbish, etc. No one can deny him his right to call any film he dislikes a bad film. But what the libertarian cannot do is say that Borat doesn't deserve the commercial success it enjoys. After all, isn't the fact of Borat's success an absolute indication that the Market has determined that a film of Borat's particular and eccentric qualities "should be produced" for mass consumption? Isn't the Market fulfilling your second stipulated econo-normative purpose by giving the public what it wants? And if so, how can that be a bad thing? The Market has spoken. It has determined that films of Borat's caliber should be produced.
Once again, nothing about libertarianism precludes its adherents from criticizing the aesthetic quality of aesthetic things. But it's hard to take such criticism very seriously when the libertarian is so beholden to the process which deems a market success of the very thing he criticizes. Why, it's almost as if he's railing against the second purpose of the market by saying that a film like Borat should not have been produced. But, of course, he can't really be saying that, because that would be suggesting that the Market erred. And the Market is never wrong.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 20, 2006 4:56 PMImmoralist,
The "market" is neither right nor wrong. It is simply the result of the numerous choices of numerous individuals. To assign a value of right or wrong to the result, we would have to assume a standard by which to judge - and there is no such standard. But I don't have to tell you this - you're the immoralist.
Posted by: Randy on November 20, 2006 5:11 PMI do not think that Borat relies on exposing racism. The Borat shorts from Da Ali G show would just as often have the humiliated one politely correcting him. Letting him know that that line of questioning/commentary is considered rude and that they would appreciate it if he stopped. For some reason this seemed just as funny as the times they agreed.
Posted by: Debbie on November 20, 2006 5:16 PMImmoralist wrote:
What I was saying is that a libertarian's criticism of a Free Market Outcome isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you worship the process, then arguing with the outcome is exceedingly difficult.
Can you show libertarians who worship the free market? I don't know of any, frankly, any more than I know any liberals or conservatives who worship the democratic process (some neoconservatives have come close to this in the last few years, it is true). Certain arrangements of markets, or political economy, have shown that they are better...or sometimes "less bad"...than the alternatives, and thus to be preferable. Being processes run by humans, they will produce results from time to time that some group of humans, maybe even a majority, will find displeasurable, or even repugnant. By analogy, do you command all supporters of representative government to remain silent when a candidate they oppose is nevertheless elected to office, because they have no right to oppose the outcome of a process they "worship"?
I now suggest that you look up the "straw man" fallacy in your spare time...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 20, 2006 5:57 PMRandy wrote:
The "market" is neither right nor wrong. It is simply the result of the numerous choices of numerous individuals. To assign a value of right or wrong to the result, we would have to assume a standard by which to judge - and there is no such standard. But I don't have to tell you this - you're the immoralist.
I agree completely. My quibble is not with the "market" itself, but rather with those who fervently belive that it is the Market, and only the Market, which produces the most efficient and desirable outcomes for all mankind. I'm sure you wouldn't be suprised at the level of frothing outrage that seizes libertarians when someone proposes public policy that "interferes" with the market. Just look at the Cato Institute's position papers or read the columns of Steve Chapman.
Libertarians often like to pretend that they don't care about what's "right" or "wrong" so long as everyone's free to do whatever they please, assuming no contract exists and nobody gets physically hurt. But the minute somebody suggests that the state get involved in certain affairs, my God, it's like being at a conference of mullahs where someone submits to the floor a depiction of Mohammed by crayon. You won't hear such morally loaded language in your life.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 20, 2006 6:01 PM
Monkeys in tuxedos
Sheesh, I don't have to go all the way to the multiscreen cineplex to find that out. On a bad day, all I have to do is look in the mirror...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 20, 2006 6:04 PMI wonder if "Borat" would have been as screamingly well received if he'd spent time trotting black prostitutes into dinner parties in parts of Manhattan, emulating the famous Lenny Bernstein party for the Black Panthers, getting nice people in the Hamptons to admit they want the riffraff moved off of Long Island, getting college professors at an Ivy to admit they really want Christians barred from voting & re-educated if possible, by any means necessary.
Would it be such a hugely funny film, if it took on liberal shibboliths? I don't think so.
PS: I still wouldn't go see it, nay, even if Cohen managed to get Edward Kennedy to go to an AA meeting...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 20, 2006 6:10 PMCan you show libertarians who worship the free market? I don't know of any, frankly[...]
You're a regular reader of this website. You read the comments page. You know what the discourse boils down to. It's *buzz buzz buzz Free Markets Free Markets buzz buzz optimal outcomes rational choice theory buzz buzz utility maximization buzz Social Security Ponzi Scheme buzz decouple medical costs buzz big government bad down with welfare state buzzzzzzzzz*
Okay, that's unfair. But I read a lot of libertarian minded stuff. TCSDaily, Cato, Heritage, AEI, Policy Review, City-Journal, etc. You won't find many who describe free markets with anything less than complete approbation, save for the occasional cranky conservative complaining about "vulgarization" and "least-common denominatorianism." And that's almost always in the realm of cultural markets, tv shows, stuff like that. Not a word about the potentially negative consequences of abolishing Social Security.
As a side note, I think libertarians should start their own religion. Hell, look at the Randians. They're libertarians on steroids, and they make the reading of Atlas Shrugged their own sacrament. Throw in enough ritual and solemn dogma, erect a few phallic buildings, make your altar the pneumatic drill from The Fountainhead, and bingo! Your very own market-based religion, with your very own snappy slogan: "What are your premises?" And best of all, it's tax-free.
By analogy, do you command all supporters of representative government to remain silent when a candidate they oppose is nevertheless elected to office, because they have no right to oppose the outcome of a process they "worship"?
I think the government we get is basically the government we deserve.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 20, 2006 6:26 PMMark wrote:
"And, seriously, if people took the responsibility, that comes with whatever level of economic Liberty, they have and coupled it with some simple cognizance of Economics, would not the market clear out those actors that were deemed to vitiate propriety?"
I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with the Borat discussion. I hope you aren't suggesting that the market sphere is the only sphere of human interaction that matters. If your basic point is that markets will clear out bigots, first I think that is only usually true. Second even if it were always true, markets are only one way in which humans interact. What about politics, what about religion, what about everyday conversation, what about a whole host of other forms of human interaction? Genocide, slavery, crime, violence have no bearing on markets, and cannot be rectified by the invisible hand of markets, because they happen outside of markets. It is up to people to rectify these things on their own and not rely on markets to solve them.
Did I misunderstand your point?
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 8:12 PMImmoralist-
It is good to produce those things which the Market says should be produced,
and it is not good to produce those things which the Market says should not be produced.
Because producing things which the market says should not be produced requires subsidization and preventing the production of things the market wants requires coercion. And NOONE here has suggested either of these things. It's not that a free market is good unto itself. It's that you have to do some horrid or stupid things to derail one. Criticizing a popular film will not make a free market any less free. If anything, providing information to people before they see the film will improve the market by allowing decisions to be made with more complete information.
There's a reason why the term "strawman" keeps popping up in relation to your posts. NOONE here is doing what you're accusing them of. NOONE. Not a SINGLE PERSON in this chat room is advocating either subsidization or coercion.
you wouldn't be suprised at the level of frothing outrage that seizes libertarians when someone proposes public policy
Show me a quote from anyone in this chat room who is "proposing public policy" of any kind.
Posted by: Ryan on November 20, 2006 8:13 PMImmoralist,
Well, its hard to discuss the good and the bad without tossing in an opinion about morality. The arguments against free markets are always based on some concept of morality, so the response must be likewise. Personally, I favor the free market side of the argument because I'm a pragmatist and free markets have a proven track record of making people's lives better - of making "progress" possible, if you will. And yes, I am aware that there are exceptions. I believe these should be treated as exceptions.
Posted by: Randy on November 20, 2006 8:17 PMI was kind of amused to find the huffy outrage at racial humour on this blog-- what's next, pop-up ads for Birkenstocks and cloth shopping bags? Always love it when braniacs try to parse humour, and end up setting out things that are ethcially or morally desirable, as if that had anything to do with it. I imagine some commenters' Reader's Digests tend fall right open to Life's Like That (he said with a glint in his eye without missing a beat).
I'd agree with Immoralist on the overall tone of the comments. [*buzz buzz buzz big government bad down with welfare state buzzzzzzzzz*]. Can I point to specific comments? Sigh, no. An impossible chore. AHA you say! Well, fine. Pedants chalk up another one.
Ryan's take, as a case in point, is soooooo value laden: "horrid or stupid" -- that it really does smack of the moral outrage and dogmatism that stalks this blog. Yet aren't markets FOR something, and not a pure good unto themselves? Attaching a drive shaft, wheels and a car body to an engine does impair the efficiency of the engine. Yet, the point is to have a desired outcome -- the ability to go places -- rather than a purely efficient engine. Markets are a means, not an end. Surely there's some prospect for some decision making in the aggregate on the ends we want? I can't imagine that the optimal overall good is simply the satisfaction of the greatest number of individual wants.
Posted by: gloriosky on November 20, 2006 9:05 PM
actually, markets ARE NOT a means to an end other than the fulfillment of the greatest number of individual wants. why should they be more?
the "ends" you speak of are for politics and individuals, not markets, and more often than not, when people try to assert their "ends" on a community, things get f_cked up. the beauty of markets, in my opinion, is that they are "end" neutral.
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 9:20 PMThis thread has gone off topic, but I have to add this. I think the goal is to reach a point at which there are no longer any "ends" left.
Once all rights to life, choice and property are guaranteed, everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed in life, and free markets are assured, I don't see any need for further ends. At that point, I don't see that you need the drive shaft or the car body, because then where would this allegorical car go?
The government should try to avoid interfering with the free market in an attempt to engineer some end, because in doing so, they are destroying one necessary component of that end state. Obvious exceptions when the market fails, like on the environment, but those are rare exceptions and we shouldn't assume that the government has a general purpose of designing ends. (plus correcting for market failure is not an end in itself...it is like oiling the engine, not attaching a drive shaft)
Posted by: Jake on November 20, 2006 9:49 PMJake,
Briefly, that snippet you identified was part of a post, found in more fullness, below.
The whole context should allow you to see the answer to: "I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with the Borat discussion.", inasmuch as it was related to her take that was certainly about an aspect of the movie.
"Brittain33,
you stated: "But that's a key point. The "little niceties and pretenses" of ordinary human interaction often mask prejudices, both casual and vicious, that only manifest themselves when the black person, or Jew, or gay person is gone and the "nice" person is back among equals. Or making a decision on his own whom to hire, or whom to socialize with or snub, or whom to mentor at work or let sink or swim.
It's certainly helpful for me to see a friendly southerner who would be perfectly polite when he meets me then turn around..."
How, in fact, is it "helpful" for you to see that? Was it revelatory for you, per chance?
And, seriously, if people took the responsibility, that comes with whatever level of economic Liberty, they have and coupled it with some simple cognizance of Economics, would not the market clear out those actors that were deemed to vitiate propriety?"
For your other Q:'s, I'll try to get to them later on. Though, for the time being, remember that Economics properly addresses concerns that stretch beyond the constraints of Finance.
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 20, 2006 10:14 PMgloriosky - If I oversimplified (I did) it was because a seemingly simple concept was being misrepresented. I don't claim to be a libertarian. But that doesn't mean it's right for me to stand by and see the viewpoint misrepresented.
Yet aren't markets FOR something, and not a pure good unto themselves
I said exactly that. They are for determining the price of goods and the profitability of producing those goods. This is typically the most efficient way to allocate resources. This is their direct purpose, while the purpose of an engine is to produce directed work and not just spin efficiently.
Surely there's some prospect for some decision making in the aggregate on the ends we want?
Could you give me an example of what you mean? Drug regulation? Control of externalities? Luxury taxes? Funding of public education? What, specifically, are you arguing for? I agree there are exceptions to free markets, but as was mentioned, a free market is the best default. Deviations require strong and specific justification.
I can't imagine that the optimal overall good is simply the satisfaction of the greatest number of individual wants.
It'd be easier if you'd give some concrete examples. I'll agree that there are exceptions, but until the basics are agreed upon, it seems pointless to discuss the nuances. And immoralist and the board seemed to be having a disagreement on the basics.
Posted by: Ryan on November 20, 2006 10:47 PMJake,
You were asking: "If your basic point is that markets will clear out bigots(?)" Yes. That was my basic point. Bigots are inefficient(in many ways). Though, simply, for example, they arbitrarily choose to ignore, at least, some of the information available from the marketplace, thus they impair their ability to calculate.
Then: "What about politics, what about religion, what about everyday conversation, what about a whole host of other forms of human interaction?"
What about them? Past that, for the enumerated topics, anyway, broadly speaking, they are but sets of information. The idea that the "market" is one of Goods & Ideas(information) shouldn't be new to you.
This: "Genocide, slavery, crime, violence have no bearing on markets.." is patently wrong. Just think about Real Estate valuation(s), for one, and the multiple inputs that go into the sum thereof.
And, finally: "and cannot be rectified by the invisible hand of markets,...It is up to people to rectify these things on their own and not rely on markets to solve them." Again, I'll disagree.
"People", each and every, Are the market. You give rise to the idea of Genocide, arguably that is occuring in Sudan. Now it is unlikely that you are a direct consumer of any goods and/or services from Sudan, though are you boycotting Chinese goods? Why not? China, through its oil deals, is one of the main props of the regime responsible for the atrocities. I hope that gets close enough to the point. Quite simply, if there are actions that we choose not to be a part of, the "market", as unfettered as possible, is our best resort. We can, through our Actions, inform our today and shape the very 'morrow we trod.
Back to the topic, Cohen should know better, if he can't know better, he should at least Act like he knows better, if he can't Act like he knows better, he should, at least, Act better, barring any, and or all, of the above? I find scant evidence that his schtick, as it has been, is at all redeeming.
Guess what, others are Free to Choose (thanks MF), and so am I. It's a movie ticket I'll look forward to not buying.
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 21, 2006 12:07 AMWhatever SBC meant by it, "Borat" seems to be a device that allows people to project the ignorance and contempt they feel for the butts of his 'jokes' onto those being duped, so that they are justified in assuming that they wouldn't fall into the very same trap.
Posted by: Der Hahn on November 21, 2006 9:42 AMImmoralist wrote:
But I read a lot of libertarian minded stuff. TCSDaily, Cato, Heritage, AEI, Policy Review, City-Journal, etc. You won't find many who describe free markets with anything less than complete approbation, save for the occasional cranky conservative complaining about "vulgarization" and "least-common denominatorianism." And that's almost always in the realm of cultural markets, tv shows, stuff like that. Not a word about the potentially negative consequences of abolishing Social Security.
So how does this map to "worship"?
As a side note, I think libertarians should start their own religion. Hell, look at the Randians. They're libertarians on steroids, and they make the reading of Atlas Shrugged their own sacrament. Throw in enough ritual and solemn dogma, erect a few phallic buildings, make your altar the pneumatic drill from The Fountainhead, and bingo! Your very own market-based religion, with your very own snappy slogan: "What are your premises?" And best of all, it's tax-free.
Ok, so you have a personal problem with Randians. How does that prove that libertarians worship the free market, again?
I asked:
By analogy, do you command all supporters of representative government to remain silent when a candidate they oppose is nevertheless elected to office, because they have no right to oppose the outcome of a process they "worship"?
I think the government we get is basically the government we deserve.
Can you answer the question, instead of evading it?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 21, 2006 10:27 AMImmoralist wrote:
But I read a lot of libertarian minded stuff. TCSDaily, Cato, Heritage, AEI, Policy Review, City-Journal, etc. You won't find many who describe free markets with anything less than complete approbation, save for the occasional cranky conservative complaining about "vulgarization" and "least-common denominatorianism." And that's almost always in the realm of cultural markets, tv shows, stuff like that. Not a word about the potentially negative consequences of abolishing Social Security.
So how does this map to "worship"?
As a side note, I think libertarians should start their own religion. Hell, look at the Randians. They're libertarians on steroids, and they make the reading of Atlas Shrugged their own sacrament. Throw in enough ritual and solemn dogma, erect a few phallic buildings, make your altar the pneumatic drill from The Fountainhead, and bingo! Your very own market-based religion, with your very own snappy slogan: "What are your premises?" And best of all, it's tax-free.
Ok, so you have a personal problem with Randians. How does that prove that libertarians worship the free market, again?
I asked:
By analogy, do you command all supporters of representative government to remain silent when a candidate they oppose is nevertheless elected to office, because they have no right to oppose the outcome of a process they "worship"?
Immoralist replied:
I think the government we get is basically the government we deserve.
Can you answer the question, instead of evading it? Did you look up "straw man" yet?
Posted by: ellipsis on November 21, 2006 10:29 AMNuts. Thought I was previewing, when I was publishing. Apologies.
Posted by: ellipsis on November 21, 2006 10:36 AM
Maybe Borat can interview Michael Richards sometime soon? Letterman didn't seem to do a very good job last night...
There is a part of the Rolling Stone interview with Cohen here
It rather confirms my suspicions that he's not going to be exploring bigotry in "blue" states any time soon.
Jane I haven't had a chance to read all the comments, but I hope someone has said to you that you've put the cart before the horse here.
"Humiliation doesn't entertain me"? Surely you should see the movie before you judge it: or don't see it, and don't judge it?
I have often seen people pass judgment on movies they have not seen, or books they have not read. Their judgment has rarely, if ever, been illuminating in such cases.
Love your writing style, though!