I was originally going to make Elon Musk’s endorsement of the meme above on Twitter/”X” an ethics quiz, but decided, after reading the furious and wide-ranging arguments from Ann Althouse’s own commenters that I’d rather focus on this as an example of how political orientation, personal morality and confirmation bias combine to make cultural coherence increasingly difficult today.
The main focus of the comments…there are 141 of them now (I’m envious)—is on Althouse’s declaration that it is “shameful” for Musk to circulate such a thing with a laughing emoji.
I must confess, I didn’t completely get the joke at first because I didn’t recognize rapper, P Diddy (Sean Combs), now serving time in a Federal prison for sex-related charges. Rap and Hip-Hop are big holes in my cultural literacy.
Had I used the meme as an EA ethics quiz, my own conclusions would have been 1) jokes are not unethical if they make people laugh, even if they are cruel, vulgar, or politically incorrect, but 2) it is unethical, as in irresponsible and incompetent, for important, valuable, influential figures in our culture to gratuitously and recklessly undermine their own credibility and popularity by associating themselves with divisive practices and ideas for no good reason. President Trump does this constantly. It is Cognitive Dissonance Scale malpractice.
However, Ann’s single word “Shameful” landed in her blog like a bomb thrown into Times Square at midnight on New Year’s Eve. You can (and should) read the responses here. An incomplete summary of the various arguments:
- The meme isn’t funny.
- It isn’t a prison rape joke because no rape is portrayed.
- It’s just an oil joke.
- It’s just typical male locker room humor so the female law prof /blogger doesn’t get it.
- Maduro is being mocked for ending up with Diddy.
- Maduro deserves to be raped.
- Prison rape is a terrible social problem that isn’t to be joked about, ever.
- Althouse is a hypocrite because long ago on her blog she expressed amusement at prison rape-related humor (or didn’t).
- MAGA types like such jokes because they are cruel assholes.
That last comment prompted the only long, EA-style response:
“But hey, for MAGA it is really funny. Ha, ha, ha!!!” Yeh, and some 1,000+ of them were tried, convicted, and served time in prison for protesting the stolen 2020 election. Called an “insurrection” to get sympathy, the protesters ALL left their guns behind. It was done with lying FBI agents and lying prosecutors who denied them, among other things, their Brady rights. 275 undercover FBI agents in the crowd who knew? Prosecutors just like you, just doing their jobs. And, no doubt, many of them raped in prison that these supposedly honorable prosecutors sent them to. So, no, don’t joke about prison rape with MAGAs, not after the 1/6 prosecutions.”
- When Ann, in her only response to criticism of her post, asked “”Did you think the Abu Graib photographs were funny?” the question launched another debate. Some said, yes, they were funny. It was pointed out that those were real people, not a cartoon. One wag asked Ann, “Did you laugh at Wiley Coyote getting violently killed over and over?”
All from a juvenile meme….
Fascinating.
Ethics Alarms 
We often laugh the loudest about things we are not supposed to laugh. This is often the case when the humor touches taboo subjects like death, sexuality, race, religion. Prison rape is a taboo subject too.
Crude humor has psychological benefits (tension release, cognitive engagement, as a coping mechanism, as a sign of rebellion) and social benefits (social bonding, facilitating communication), as a cultural mirror.
Crude humor also carries certain risks (offense and alienation, reinforcement of stereotypes, contextual misuse e.g. off-color jokes in the workplace).
Sometimes taking one of those risks reveal the reason why the crude joke is told: the goal is to deliberately offend the right people and then have fun about the offended reactions. The joke is then on the offended, censorious, potty mouthed liberal old church ladies (no offense to Ann Althouse here), and other carriers of moral authority. Ulterior motive may be to undermine a certain type of morality, worldview or cultural current e.g. political correctness.
Personally I have more sympathy for those who appreciate a joke no matter how crude, than for virtue signaling self righteous pharisees. However context matters, and X is a different context requiring more care than a get-together with male friends at a pub.
It’s “The High Brought Low” theme. A prominent feature of all cultures, at least all healthy cultures. It’s a version of Woody Allen’s dictator declaring underwear will now be worn on the outside of clothes. “The powerful are just like us.” Ironically, it’s related to the left’s pathetic and vaunted and self-congratulatory and delusional “speaking truth to power.” Of course, Maduro has suddenly been transformed into an oppressed person of color victimized by the white supremacist American judicial system.
Could someone here list the different interpretations of this Rorschach test.
Etc….
The better posting I saw was in cartoon form, with Diddy apparently consoling Maduro. The caption was, “They took away my oil too.”
Hints at but does not promote the rapey context.
Zelenskyy’s response:
“How should one react to this? What can I say?”
Smile…Pause… laughter… of course he understands comedic timing
“If it is possible to deal with dictators this way . . . then the U.S. knows what to do next.”
(Hint: He’s not thinking of Cuba…)
NOT the response to the Diddy joke — his own joke. Just to clarify!
I wonder why Maduro is actually kept in Manhattan? Perhaps it is to still experience a bid of the warmth of collectivism under Mamdani. However if he is unable to avert the affections of some famous rappers, perhaps Trump can find some better accommodation for a former head of state, and requisition the entire Hilton Hotel in Minneapolis.
I’m sure the Minneapolis Hilton is grandstanding this way at the direction of J.B. Pritzker, you know, a major owner of Hyatt Hotels, which owns Hilton (at least I think that’s the lay of the land in hotel world.
My understanding is that Hilton is a publicly traded company, and Hyatt is privately owned by the Pritzker family.
Yes. Interesting to note the Pritzkers own a controlling interest in the voting shares of Hyatt Hotels. They took it public and sold part of the voting shares to raise over a billion dollars to pay off some unhappy family members who had sued the controlling members for fraud.
Some “adjustment” going on now at corporate level, maybe
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/2008268497139224865?s=20
Elon should respond to his critics for that post with “First day on the internet?”