“Actually, I think that’s the official slogan of oppression.”
—-Comedy Central’s Daily Show host Jon Stewart, mocking Megyn Kelly’s statement that “just because it makes you feel uncomfortable, doesn’t mean it has to change.”
Kelly, because she appears on Fox News, is presumed to be an idiot by Stewart, who manages to reserve a disproportionate supply of his barbs for that network as opposed to the even more barbable MSNBC. Her statement, however, was completely correct and responsible, unlike Stewart’s “motto” quip.. In fact, “‘Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable, doesn’t mean it has to change’ is the official slogan of oppression” could be the official slogan of smug, censorious and hypocritical political correctness peddling wise-asses.
This is why nobody should take Jon Stewart seriously, and also why he needs to take pains to discourage anyone from taking him seriously. As an off the cuff comic’s retort to Kelly’s silly defense of racial purity for Santa Claus portrayers, the motto comment is fine—snappy, pointed, properly dismissive. Unfortunately, as Stewart well knows, lots of young, otherwise unread and politically ignorant viewers (and web columnists) view him as a substantive political commentator, and from that perspective, his statement is irresponsible and reckless. Gays make Phil Robertson uncomfortable—should they have to change? Are they oppressing him? Student criticism of President Obama makes some college professors uncomfortable—should the students be muzzled? Stewart’s statement, if it is taken as more than a momentary quip to tweak Kelly, is an endorsement of tyranny of the conveniently offended, which is another form of oppression. There is too much of that going on already, as the current Duck Dynasty flap is demonstrating.
In Long Island, for example, someone who has been thoroughly intimidated by political correctness bullies felt that she had to Bowdlerize the lyrics of “Silent Night,” which is a song about the birth of Christ, of all religious references before it was sung at a school concert. This is both a disrespectful and foolish exercise, the equivalent of taking all references to baseball out of “Take Me Out To The Ballgame.” Why was it done? The explanation was that the teacher didn’t want to offend any members of the audience who were not Christians. After all, you don’t want to oppress them, right Jon? This is the kind of liberty-strangling logic that Stewart’s motto endorses.
I sympathize with Jon Stewart’s plight. His show’s popularity is built on his excellent satiric marksmanship that often exposes more truth than the supposedly serious reporting from the pathetic U.S. journalistic establishment. Still, he is a comic, and his job is to get laughs; he should be accorded the same leeway as a any other comic, he believes, and so he retreats to the comic’s defense when he is criticized for statements that seem hyperbolic or unfair. At this point, however, that defense shouldn’t be available to him; not when so many people take his comments as substantive, and not when he and Comedy Central accept the accolades and benefits flowing from that phenomenon. Unless he has a graphic flashing on the screen that designates his comments as “joke” or “serious commentary,” he is responsible for how his audience takes his words, because he knows how his audience takes his words. His “motto” is therefore irresponsible, and it gives dangerous support and encouragement to censors, bullies, and oppressors themselves, though I’m sure Daily Show viewers understand that he only means to empower the censors, bullies, and oppressors of the Left.
Or maybe he’s just joking. Unfortunately, from Stewart’s conflicted position, even the joke is irresponsible.
_______________________
Source: Huffington Post, PJ Lifestyle, The Blaze
Graphic: PJ Lifestyle
Ethics Alarms 
What an idiot Jon is. The fundamental concept of “freedom of speech” IS that said speech will make someone “feel uncomfortable” about it. If all speech were universally approved of and identical, there would be no need for the terms freedom or oppression to be introduced here. Megan’s implicit meaning is the opposite of oppression, whereas Jon’s is actually the implicit and explicit definition of oppression.
There’s a question worth careful study here. You’re good at finding those. It’s part of why I enjoy your blog.
Compare and contrast to the training you offer about sexual harassment.
There is such a thing as deliberately making people uncomfortable for the sake of accumulating a hostile environment. I remember the forklift operator who found a sign taped to her forklift reading “Blow Jobs 25 cents”. I don’t know how the perpetrators rationalized it. Based on your training experience, is it plausible that they might have said “It’s just a joke and you’re being oversensitive”?
Making someone uncomfortable is utterly different from lynching him. But what if there are another thousand people who can be counted on to back up the aggressor? Then it’s the death of a thousand cuts.
Making people uncomfortable is a key social control mechanism. We make boors uncomfortable (or try to!) to deter them.
So, imagine an example: someone tells a joke like “Why is rape impossible?” in front of the new woman at work, and dismisses her protest with “You have no civil right of not being offended”? I would call that oppressive. (I choose not to post the punch line).
Then comes the hard part. You’ve cited more than one example of fake outrage done by manipulative people to gain unjust power. I’ve seen that firsthand. It’s the point of your post now.
A person choosing to act ethically is compelled to distinguish real oppression (including micro-aggressions) from victimhood mining. How does the ethical person tell the difference? Especially when the ethical person doesn’t know the parties well?
I’m asking a practical question not a rhetorical one. I’ve had to handle just that question in a diverse community I belong to. We’ve had people ostentatiously get into a huff and storm out because we’re “privileged” and “tolerate casual racism”, and another because we’re too “politically correct”. The sad thing is that we lost people on both sides of that argument who had made real and valuable contributions.
I rarely watch Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central show on the boob tube. His smarmy, elitist, sense of ‘humor’ raises my blood pressure significantly after a few minutes. I kinda wish he’d lose it in some interchange with a reasonable conservative and do his imitation of Hitler in “Downfall”.
Yet another interesting question you raise, about Jon Stewart’s obligations.
Is he responsible for his audience taking him seriously? It’s their decision, not his. On the other hand he knows perfectly well that it’s happening. I think he’s ethically on the hook when he knows what his words will do.
He’s not the only one in that situation. Rush Limbaugh calls himself an “entertainer”. I’ve got a relative who quotes everything he says as gospel. Rush Limbaugh knows people are believing him.
Are we seeing further proof that the mainstream media are failing us in the fact that people are depending on a comedian? Or is this just a continuation of the old principle that the court fool was the only one allowed to tell the truth?
Stewart has a funny show that is often times more honest than either MSNBC or Fox News.
You just have to be smart enough to know the difference between the satirical mockery and the apt analysis given via a dose of humor.
Unfortunately many on both sides are not.