Advocating Satire: Purdue and the Prestige [Updated]

(Updated below)

In the circles I roam, this cartoon has gotten a lot of attention the last couple of days:


(Click to see the bigger image.)

It was published in The Exponent, the paper run by Purdue students.

There are a few things we can react to here: 1) an incidence of rape 2) a plan to commit rape 3) a joke about rape 4) indifference about rape 5) indifference about a joke about rape.

The people around me who are mad about this haven't said #1 occurred (well they believe it has, but they're not saying that this cartoon is an incidence of rape). They're also apparently not saying that #3 occurred. So they're mad about #s 2 and 4. And if they read this and believe what I say here and they get mad at me, we can add #5.

Mxrk writes:

To me, the only thing funny about this comic is that once dudes 1 and 2 are convicted of felony sexual assault and sent to big boy prison, their cellmates are going to have a high old time pulling “The Prestige” on them.

So we can assume that he is either OK with all jokes about rape, or OK with jokes about rape when he figures the victims deserve it. What's the golden rule there? Do unto others what you think you can make a pretty good argument they deserve? No. It's irony. Mxrk isn't OK with rape. And because it's a joke, I'm not mad that he said it.*

And a cowboy without a cause writes "I tend to enjoy a raunchy joke" but explains that this one is not OK because "There doesn't seem to be a trace of irony to be found" and if you look around the paper's website for other cartoons, looking for misogyny, "there's plenty of other evidence."

This is an interesting claim: If someone hasn't earned the right to make a joke, we can take the joke literally.

So "earned the right" probably isn't quite it. Our wrangler friend is looking for irony, and I'm assuming evidence of that irony could be apparent in the joke itself, even if it's not found in the newspaper's archives or in the life of the writer/cartoonist/editor.

Well how about the fact that it's a fucking cartoon and it's referencing an overrated melodramatic movie about magic tricks and murder. Oh Shit! I knew it! Michael Caine is a psychopath! All those accents should have been a clue.

It seems to me very obvious–and so I really don't think it needs much more argument–that this isn't a literal statement of belief. Then next step, and this one does deserve more discussion, is how the joke might affect the values of the readers. And in the context of a Big Ten school with a population full of drunk frat boys that were weened on moonshine and grew up eyeing their cousins and goats, this cartoon could sound like tame round of truth or dare. So we can't trust this population to hear this kind of joke no matter what the writer's intention.

Thank god we don't base policy on that sort of well-intention distrust.

But the angry reaction to the joke can lead in a few directions that do make perfect sense. The newspaper can hear from the readers that this joke made them angry. And if the editors don't atone for it, pissed-off readers will go somewhere else for dumb jokes and typo-riddled stories about local pizza.

Or the complaints will escalate and move to the advertisers, and the power of money will lean on them. Repent and sin no more, or you'll have to find advertisers that don't care.

That's fair.

Both of these skip over the argument of "is my anger justified." Because really, who cares of your anger is justified? That's a self-evident belief. When Jerry Falwell claimed his emotional distress was worth some of Larry Flynt's money, part of his claim was obviously justified–if all we're looking for is evidence that some emotional distress occurred. But is that where we are? 'Don't make a joke that I have a problem with'?

Do we have to cross ourselves and kneel before every mention of rape too?

There's nothing inaccurate about taking offense. There's nothing silly about being very sensitive about rape.

Disagreements about this joke have to be very precisely set. So I have to make a few things clear:

• I'm against rape.
• I think rape should not happen
• I believe date rape is "rape rape."
• If I saw a rape occurring, I might go so far as to disembowel the rapist to stop it. Definitely if I've had my coffee.
• If I heard someone actually planning a rape, I would say "Don't try it." If necessary, I would follow them and stop them forcefully. It could get messy.
• I believe the cartoon is meant ironically.
• I don't think the joke is all that funny.
• I believe those who are complaining should say everything just as they've said it if it's what they believe.
• I believe if the paper wants to make absolutely sure that every meathead realizes this trick would be prosecutable as rape, a simple statement to that effect would help a little bit.
• I believe if the student paper cares about these petitioners feelings, an apology and a promise to be more sensitive in the future is a good way to make that clear.
• I don't really care if the paper cares about those feelings.

Here's the trump card that can get thrown at me for not being upset by this cartoon: What if one kid sees this cartoon and thinks it sounds like an awesome idea and plans it with his friend and a girl ends up a train victim?

Yeah. That's always there. It's the same argument my youth pastor made about Ozzy and Marilyn Manson. And you could nudge a lot of comics away from satire if you got them to be afraid that any joke might be taken seriously and acted-on by idiots. But even if you're going to make that argument, what you're really saying is 'Make a joke, as long as you make sure to spell it out for the audience that you're just kidding, so that if anyone thinks you're serious, you and I will know you did your part.' Because there are always idiots out there that don't understand things. And our job is to make sure we've been reasonably clear.

So we're arguing about "reasonably." Fine. Because if that's not good enough, then you're forced to argue that all satire is dangerous. Either that, or that your sense of jokes that get 'too close' is good enough to measure the morality of a piece of satire. And if we're outraged because a joke doesn't work well enough, where's our petition to get all Geico ads banned?

Well, I guess I've been working on an important jump here: that the cartoon was satire. So let's start back there. Convince me that this cartoonist or editor is advocating rape. Convince me that they'd be ok with this little switcheroo on their sister, and I'll sign your petition telling them it's not OK.

And I'll probably start a bunch of others too.

UPDATE:
The Exponent has published an apology by EIC Zoe Hayes. It sounds sincere. I believe she too is anti-rape and respects people's sensitivity about it. And she makes an interesting admission.

When we conceived of the position, we assumed that everyone involved would meet our criteria for consent, which are conscious, coherent, and into it. When we saw the graphic, that’s what we, in retrospect mistakenly, assumed was taking place – consensual, albeit kinky, sex between three adults.

So that adds a whole new wrinkle to the situation. Is is possible that this trick would work if all three were consenting? Not unless we create a backstory and the girls says 'Hey, if you ever want to do that Farinelli flipflop on me I'll be cool with it. But don't tell me, because I want to be surprised.' And that hardly ever happens. It almost sounds like I have to eat my words here and bail on my argument, because I did say "Convince me that they'd be ok with this little switcheroo on their sister and I'll sign your petition."

I'm not sure what Zoe means by "meet our criteria" or even "everyone involved." I doubt she means only the two guys. At any rate, it's a boneheaded explanation for the decision to run the joke. If it's all consensual then sure, an orgie isn't rape. But then the surprise falls apart. I stand by my assertion that the people who wrote and published this would not be OK with the prank as an actual surprise.

Hayes adds:

And to those defending us: While we appreciate some of your arguments on our behalf, ladies and gentlemen, suggesting that someone was “asking for” rape is misguided and precisely the problem here.

Of course I agree. And I never said anything like that. Defending this joke doesn't mean you think the girl was asking for it. And besides, if she actually did ask for it, it wouldn't be rape, would it?

Look, they stumbled on this joke. It failed miserably. And my point here is that if I'm going to attack a joke for being in poor taste, I'm not going to say it's the subject matter that made it fail. It's the delivery. And these kids are hacks.

UPDATE #2
* Let me unpack the reason I don't call Mxrk a hypocrite. He's obviously OK with jokes about rape, as long as he believes that the person telling the joke isn't advocating rape. His complaint about the cartoon is not that it's a joke, but that it's advocating rape. Now he might not even believe it's a joke. That makes his anger even more understandable. Even if I don't share that anger. Even if I poke some fun at it. Because I'm willing to be an insensitive prick. And he's told me he likes that.