(1/53) Q: Why did the man* throw* butter* out of the window*? A: He wanted to see* butter fly*!
(2/53) "Man" in my previous Tweet should not be construed as privileged, misogynist or anti-trans.
(3/53) Nor should there be ANY assumption of said man's race or religion. It could be an African American man, Asian, or any one
(4/53) of the vast multi-cultural mosaic which make up the world we live in today. "Man" was simply an archaic placeholder for the
(5/53) "subject" of the joke, and thus should not denote privilege nor exclude any sexuality, religion, nationality or offend any
(6/53) feelings the joke listener may or may not have or have ever experienced in the past. Furthermore, the action of "throwing" is
(7/53) NOT meant in any way to imply an exclusion of the differently abled, or even someone who@may have ever felt excluded from
(8/53) And the choice of "butter" as the object being thrown was in NO WAY an insult to those with a strict lacto-vegan diet or
(9/53) ANYONE who may be lactose intolerant, might KNOW someone who is lactose-intolerant (or knows someone who is ka to-vegan) or
(10/53) may meet someone of those two persuasions anytime in the future. Also, "butter" does not mean the joke-teller is unaware of
(11/53) or insensitive to the abuses in our current factory-farming dairy industry, including neglect of animals or additions of
(12/53) hormones, pesticides or other contaminants. Also, PLEASE accept this pre-emptive apology if the word "butter" was a trigger
(13/53) for any time in the past the joke recipient may have been called a "butter face" or knows someone who was insulted in such a
(14/53) fashion. Aesthetic shaming is real and bullying hurts us all.
(15/53) Also, again, privilege. What else? Oh yes...
(16/53) "Out the window" was NOT meant as any sort of insult to the homeless population, in that the phrase "out the window"
(17/53) could EASILY be construed as placing the butter-thrower in a house which
(18/53) the butter thrower owns.
(19/53) The triggering potential for "out the window" is not to be underestimated.
(20/53) Nor should the act of THROWING AWAY food, which can be read as a violent, corporate-centric status maneuver.
(21/53) Privilege.
(22/53) Privilege.
(23/53) Privilege?
(24/53) PRIVILEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'nnn
(25/53) The pronoun "he" in the 2nd part of the joke should, again, NOT be taken
(26/53) as a patriarchal assumption.
(27/53) Parts 28 through 36 will simply be the word "problematic" for your use in any other interpretation of the pronoun "he"
(28/53) Problematic.
(29/53) Problematic.
(30/53) Problematic.
(31/53) Problematic.
(32/53) Problematic.
(33/53) Problematic.
(34/53) Problematic
(35/53) Problematic
(36/53) Problematic
(37/53) "See" is, we all know, VERY POTENTIALLY TRIGGERING to any seeing impaired or blind people hearing the joke
(38/53) And, again, a pre-emotive apology is meekly offered.
(39/53) And the fact that Twitter does NOT offer a Braille version of its website is part of a larger problem
(40/53) which the joke was IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY making light of.
(41/53) Finally, the fact the man wanted to see butter "fly"
(42/53) implies a flippant attitude towards mental illness or the subjects lack of abstract or
(43/53) or symbolic/empathetic thought which was NOT the aim of the joke
(44/53) or the joke teller. But context, as we know, does not matter. Only individual words and feelings do, so
(45/53) as always, and from now on, no matter what the intent, aim, or satirical content
(46/53) the deepest apology is offered to ANYONE
(47/53) ANYWHERE
(48/53) for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
(49/53) who found any offense in the previous joke.
(50/53) Jokes should always entertain. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HEARS THEM.
(51/53) A simple series of clarifying post-joke Tweets like the ones I just sent out will insure EVERYONE a gentle, comforting chuckle.
(52/53) Welcome to comedy in 2015, @Trevornoah!
(53/53) Also, the "come" part of "welcome" shouldn't be construed in a "faggy" way.
No comments:
Post a Comment