LSJUMB Does It Again - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: LSJUMB Does It Again (/thread-23815.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: LSJUMB Does It Again (/thread-23815.html)
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - martyup - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 11:35 AM)gailtate Wrote: Generally agree. Thing is, humor by definition is threatening. Just is. That and subjective as nothing else. . . It is comedy. It is "making fun" of something or someone. At their expense. It is high-risk. The funnier the higher the risk. Nothing more or less. One person's bad taste is another's hilarity. Good taste is in mouths of an audience.
By this logic racial, gay, ethnic, and fat jokes are acceptable. They are not.
There has to be a line that should not be crossed. Indeed, Stanford has rules that establish this line. The band crossed this line, and they admit it.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - Phogge - 11-29-2022
My church discriminates against gay people by making them third class Catholics. Time to sever the Domer ties, the TCU ties and any other religious institutions that don't treat people equally. That includes Cal which is an adjunct of the Church of the Left.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - martyup - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 11:39 AM)burger Wrote: Bigotry and homophobia are unacceptable, too. The halftime show was the best kind of trolling because you can tell who is on the right and wrong sides of history by their response to it. Anyone who doesn't understand what the band was doing needs to do some reading on the Mormon church's history with regard to LGBT people.
So you're saying that the intention of the skit was not to be funny but to highlight BYU's history of discrimination? Isn't that worse?
Are you also saying that those that didn't get the joke, or otherwise embrace the skit, are homophobes, bigots, and/or ignorant of history?
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - cardcrimson - 11-29-2022
The LDS take on the Book of Mormon:
https://www.deseret.com/2016/11/16/20600593/how-the-lds-church-s-response-to-the-book-of-mormon-musical-is-actually-working
A lesson or two in there perhaps?
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - CompSci87 - 11-29-2022
This thread is going south in a hurry. Can we drop it?
(No offense meant to Southerners.)
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - burger - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 02:54 PM)martyup Wrote:(11-29-2022, 11:39 AM)burger Wrote: Bigotry and homophobia are unacceptable, too. The halftime show was the best kind of trolling because you can tell who is on the right and wrong sides of history by their response to it. Anyone who doesn't understand what the band was doing needs to do some reading on the Mormon church's history with regard to LGBT people.
So you're saying that the intention of the skit was not to be funny but to highlight BYU's history of discrimination? Isn't that worse?
Are you also saying that those that didn't get the joke, or otherwise embrace the skit, are homophobes, bigots, and/or ignorant of history?
If you browse around the ex-mormon communities online, they clearly got the message. Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean that it was badly done.
Quote:Are you also saying that those that didn't get the joke, or otherwise embrace the skit, are homophobes, bigots, and/or ignorant of history?No, I'm saying that if you condemn the band but not BYU (where any overt same-sex romantic behavior is banned) and its parent institution, your priorities are f'd up. Bigotry is wrong. Condemning (or making fun of) bigotry is good. eom.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - ElDoradoRed - 11-29-2022
I have searched the United States Constitution and never found a a right not to be offended. I also have searched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still did not find a right never to be offended. On occasion, the LSJUMB has offended me with comments critical of religious faith and conservative political ideology. But I have shrugged it off because I believe, that under the Constitution, people have a right to think their own thoughts and freely express those thoughts so long as they do not preach physical violence. I then get a hotdog and watch the second half. I suppose I’m just a dinosaur.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - BostonCard - 11-29-2022
I agree with you. I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech. The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot). I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.
BC
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - TonyLima - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 04:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with you. I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech. The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot). I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.
BC
Agree with both of the two comments. I’m pretty much a 1A absolutist. But the Constitution explicitly refers to government controls on speech. Stanford can do what they want. As consumers, we have the right to gripe, write to university officials, and many other forms of dissent. If Stanford choises to retaliate, that, too, is their choice.
(11-29-2022, 03:00 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: This thread is going south in a hurry. Can we drop it?
(No offense meant to Southerners.)
Improves down here.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - Treebound - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 04:33 PM)ElDoradoRed Wrote: I have searched the United States Constitution and never found a a right not to be offended. I also have searched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still did not find a right never to be offended. On occasion, the LSJUMB has offended me with comments critical of religious faith and conservative political ideology. But I have shrugged it off because I believe, that under the Constitution, people have a right to think their own thoughts and freely express those thoughts so long as they do not preach physical violence. I then get a hotdog and watch the second half. I suppose I’m just a dinosaur.
Thanks ElDoradoRed and Burger. I'm with you on this. In the new era of "Stanford Hates Fun," I'm inclined to cut the band and the students some slack. The pandemic put a real damper on student life and institutional memory around fun Stanford traditions. I can live with the pendulum swinging back towards Fun, realizing there will be an occasional wrist slap.
It's the LSJUMB, in a very down football year, poking some thought provoking fun at our foes. I don't take it too seriously. Frankly, I was surprised the band actually sanctioned the Tree after the ASU banner protest. To me, that's evidence of how much things have changed given administrative pressure and the band probation of 4-5 years ago. I don't want Stanford to become the new home of "where fun goes to die." UChicago is still trying to quash that moniker. Part of Stanford's undergraduate appeal is the more relaxed, west coast vibe versus the stodginess of the Ivies.
SBRmail@sbcglobal.net - ElDoradoRed - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 04:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with you. I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech. The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot). I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.
BC
As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument. There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech. I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives. But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.
RE: SBRmail@sbcglobal.net - TonyLima - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 05:18 PM)ElDoradoRed Wrote:(11-29-2022, 04:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with you. I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech. The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot). I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.
BC
As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument. There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech. I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives. But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.
If any private university takes them to court over section 94367, my non-lawyer guess is that it will be tossed as unconstitutional government-mandated speech.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - Snorlax94 - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 10:29 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band
BC
I didn’t see the skit but I think the general idea of staging a gay marriage during a halftime show is fair game and potentially funny.
There was apparently some uproar that they did this during the BYU game — but isn’t a key part of humor… timing?
Some people are upset that they apparently used language specific to LDS ceremonies. I wouldn’t know and I never would know because to my understanding, you must be an LDS member in good standing, and currently be tithing, to be permitted inside an LDS ceremony. Because ceremonies are closed off to the world, it could be difficult for anyone to know that they were using LDS-specific wording. One example that has been cited were the words “be fruitful and multiply,” which is not specific to the LDS church. Another example was “for all time and eternity.”
If that is a phrase specific to the LDS Church, then I would think just that wording was inappropriate. I think it’s fine to stage a gay wedding in support of equal rights generally and to broadly mock organizations that oppose those equal rights, but mocking a specific group’s ceremony and wording — which would be sacred to them — crosses a line, and was unnecessary for the joke.
But again, how could anyone reviewing the script *know* the band was specifically mocking LDS ceremonies? It’s hard to criticize someone for not censoring a skit if the public has never been permitted to see what was being parodied.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - gailtate - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 02:41 PM)martyup Wrote:(11-29-2022, 11:35 AM)gailtate Wrote: Generally agree. Thing is, humor by definition is threatening. Just is. That and subjective as nothing else. . . It is comedy. It is "making fun" of something or someone. At their expense. It is high-risk. The funnier the higher the risk. Nothing more or less. One person's bad taste is another's hilarity. Good taste is in mouths of an audience.
By this logic racial, gay, ethnic, and fat jokes are acceptable. They are not.
There has to be a line that should not be crossed. Indeed, Stanford has rules that establish this line. The band crossed this line, and they admit it.
"By this logic racial, gay, ethnic, and fat jokes are acceptable. They are not."
Unacceptable to YOU.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - CompSci87 - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 05:54 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(11-29-2022, 10:29 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band
BC
I didn’t see the skit but I think the general idea of staging a gay marriage during a halftime show is fair game and potentially funny.
There was apparently some uproar that they did this during the BYU game — but isn’t a key part of humor… timing?
Some people are upset that they apparently used language specific to LDS ceremonies. I wouldn’t know and I never would know because to my understanding, you must be an LDS member in good standing, and currently be tithing, to be permitted inside an LDS ceremony. Because ceremonies are closed off to the world, it could be difficult for anyone to know that they were using LDS-specific wording. One example that has been cited were the words “be fruitful and multiply,” which is not specific to the LDS church. Another example was “for all time and eternity.”
If that is a phrase specific to the LDS Church, then I would think just that wording was inappropriate. I think it’s fine to stage a gay wedding in support of equal rights generally and to broadly mock organizations that oppose those equal rights, but mocking a specific group’s ceremony and wording — which would be sacred to them — crosses a line, and was unnecessary for the joke.
But again, how could anyone reviewing the script *know* the band was specifically mocking LDS ceremonies? It’s hard to criticize someone for not censoring a skit if the public has never been permitted to see what was being parodied.
I don't know what wording an LDS ceremony uses, but I understand marriage for eternity is a characteristic LDS doctrine. Other Christian groups I am aware of interpret Matthew 22:23-30 to mean that marriage is for life on earth only.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - M T - 11-29-2022
Did the band's action unfairly target a group based on the characteristic of their religion?
If so, it seems it is in violation of Stanford's Protected Identity Harm policy.
If the same band had done an half time show that mocked those choosing binary orientations, would there be any argument here that it was unfairly targeting a group based on a protected characteristic?
I agree with martyup.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - jacket3ree - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 04:33 PM)ElDoradoRed Wrote: I have searched the United States Constitution and never found a a right not to be offended. I also have searched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still did not find a right never to be offended. On occasion, the LSJUMB has offended me with comments critical of religious faith and conservative political ideology. But I have shrugged it off because I believe, that under the Constitution, people have a right to think their own thoughts and freely express those thoughts so long as they do not preach physical violence. I then get a hotdog and watch the second half. I suppose I’m just a dinosaur.
Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you should exercise it.
There is a time and place for assholery comedy, and that wasn't it.
LSJUMB offends me with their ****** musicianship, but whatever. They are more irrelevant than irreverent at this point.
BYU got the best revenge. Beat the **** out of Stanford and the irrelevant band that had to sit there and watch.
Petros got off a great dig at the old guy still playin', but kudos to an old guy still playin'.
I would love for another band just to unload on Stanford at halftime and see what the reaction is. Will never happen because those types of bands are down to a handful, but it would be fun to watch.
I was thinking of going to the game just for the hell of it. Weird to say I'm glad I was sick all weekend, but in retrospect I am.
Unsolicited advice from this old trumpeter: Just shut up and play your guitar. And trumpets, and bones, and horns, and everything else. You can't be funny for 10,000 people let alone a full house, so you end up sad (trombone).
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - Row80Critic - 11-29-2022
I've grown to dread those halftime 'shows' where students wail into the microphone with the sing-songy cadence of a Ms. America contestant. They are utterly devoid of comedic timing, content, and delivery. I've literally never heard anyone laugh at anything they say. It's a bad format, delivered poorly, in the wrong setting. I didn't know that was even affiliated with the band. It's a good reminder to us all why The Beatles and The Who never took a break to do a stand-up routine. Grumpy old man, out.
RE: SBRmail@sbcglobal.net - lex24 - 11-30-2022
(11-29-2022, 05:45 PM)TonyLima Wrote:(11-29-2022, 05:18 PM)ElDoradoRed Wrote:(11-29-2022, 04:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with you. I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech. The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot). I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.
BC
As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument. There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech. I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives. But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.
If any private university takes them to court over section 94367, my non-lawyer guess is that it will be tossed as unconstitutional government-mandated speech.
(11-29-2022, 07:53 PM)jacket3ree Wrote:(11-29-2022, 04:33 PM)ElDoradoRed Wrote: I have searched the United States Constitution and never found a a right not to be offended. I also have searched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still did not find a right never to be offended. On occasion, the LSJUMB has offended me with comments critical of religious faith and conservative political ideology. But I have shrugged it off because I believe, that under the Constitution, people have a right to think their own thoughts and freely express those thoughts so long as they do not preach physical violence. I then get a hotdog and watch the second half. I suppose I’m just a dinosaur.
Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you should exercise it.
There is a time and place for assholery comedy, and that wasn't it.
LSJUMB offends me with their ****** musicianship, but whatever. They are more irrelevant than irreverent at this point.
BYU got the best revenge. Beat the **** out of Stanford and the irrelevant band that had to sit there and watch.
Petros got off a great dig at the old guy still playin', but kudos to an old guy still playin'.
I would love for another band just to unload on Stanford at halftime and see what the reaction is. Will never happen because those types of bands are down to a handful, but it would be fun to watch.
I was thinking of going to the game just for the hell of it. Weird to say I'm glad I was sick all weekend, but in retrospect I am.
Unsolicited advice from this old trumpeter: Just shut up and play your guitar. And trumpets, and bones, and horns, and everything else. You can't be funny for 10,000 people let alone a full house, so you end up sad (trombone).
Winner. Best post on the subject. Stanfords bands spreads a lot of Ill will. And buttresses the notion many have on the arrogance of the institution and it’s students.
And they suck to boot.
(11-29-2022, 05:18 PM)ElDoradoRed Wrote:(11-29-2022, 04:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with you. I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech. The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot). I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.
BC
As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument. There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech. I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives. But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.
You are correct of course. There is no such right. Yet, people lose their jobs and students get suspended over offensive comments. I’m not arguing whether that’s “good” or “bad”. But it’s an unassailable fact. If the “antics” of the band had been to “poke fun” at a group other that Mormons, the consequences would have been more severe.
RE: LSJUMB Does It Again - Mick - 11-30-2022
(11-29-2022, 10:29 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that people here pan Stanford for "hating fun" and cracking down on things that make Stanford unique, but then when the Stanford band pulls a stunt that shows its irreverence and is 100% consistent with what it has done historically (2004 BYU game, 1997 Notre Dame game, 1990 Oregon show, 1994 impromptu courthouse show, and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band)
You can call for Stanford to crack down on the band, but you can't then turn around and accuse the university of "hating fun" just because you don't like the kind of fun that students in the band pursue.
BC
Yeah...mocking the potato famine and the million+ starving Irish, coupled with the band member dressed up as a nun and another dressed up as a cardinal probably deserved their three-year ban from playing in front of Notre Dame.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/1997/october15/irish.html