Irony and sarcasm are wasted on the overly sensitive.

Um, Jade, if you get the irony -- and you sort of seem to -- I don't understand your objection.

What Josh is actually saying is "Slavery is a serious subject that we shouldn't joke about."

His (ironic) way of saying that is "I guess I love a good slavery joke as much as the next guy."

The irony is not making a joke about slavery. It's a joke about conservative doofuses who think the subject is funny.

Jade, exquisite.

Just sorry it had to be written. And it did.

I've tried to avoid responding to racebaiting posters like Jade7243, but this is freaking ridcukous at this point. Quite possibly the most ridiculous, reactionary, over-the-top, out of line post I've read in a long long long time.

The point in case y'all missed it:

The point that struck me was how easy one could substitute the "N Word" for slavery and continue reading -- thinking "oh, boy that's gonna be real funny." And I was thinking that's how so many people tell disparaging ethnic jokes and racial jokes and gay jokes and feel okay doing it. It's okay for me, cause the "next guy" likes 'em too. Don't blame me for telling these jokes -- or laughing at them, or letting 'em slide by -- cause everybody else is telling 'em, or laughing at 'em or letting 'em slide right by.

Got that?

Not calling Josh a racist. Just saying what you say and how you say it speaks volumes. And sometimes you might say something that sends a message you didn't intend. Just saying if you don't pay attention, you might blow that "dog whistle" that perks up the ears of some people -- and gets them thinking you said something that you didn't say.

Not "race-baiting" as a loud mouthed, foolish, non-thinking commenter stated categorically.

Think, people. THINK.

Jade-

Strom or Helms would have never made that statement in that context. You've become a victim of Selective Reading Syndrome that has plagued network and cable news since the 90's Context is everything, and you're willfully ignoring that to try and appear righteously indignant.

Josh Marshall is the last person you need to worry about being a racist or actually enjoying a slavery joke in the way you are accusing.

As for myself, I saw a movie recently that was a satirical and biting look at slavery. It was called CSA, or Confederate States of America. It was a mockumentary, non-slapstick, made to appear like a Ken Burns film about our country if the South had won the Civil War. It was funny, and dark, and some could say full of "slavery jokes".

I enjoyed it because it mocks the people whose views I despise. Laughing about tragedy is a way of healing. Not the only way, not the way you may choose, but still valid.

Sure. Words matter. Context matters. Who's saying something matters.

But Josh is the right person, in the right context, with the right words. Bush, in the example above, is the wrong person, in the wrong context, saying the wrong thing.

The solution is not to tiptoe around taboo words or taboo subjects. We've tried that in the past, and it tended to turn the Left into the sort of boring party no one wants to show up for. The solution is just to exercise good judgment, on a case-by-case basis, paying attention to context.

I'm of the mind that JM was being sarcastic or ironic, but he didn't telegraph it well. As he probably made the assumption that we all know his hearts in the right place and that he would never say such a thing seriously.... And he wouldn't.

Still a lot of folks out on the web aren't being ironic and it feels like Obama's candidacy is bringing all the racist folks out of hiding..

I noticed this headline on a so-called "McCain Blog"

"Obama Loves Dat FISA Bill!"

That takes us back..

I heard that as Josh totally jeering and crapping on Jonah Goldberg.

After a few people responded with great civility and helpfulness for the ironically challenged OP she still tries to justify her post. Still doesn't get it.

Now, in the past I've been accused of being a little over the top, rude, too insulting...and clearly this begs for some of my best stuff! But no...I'll refrain. I'll let this poor little deeply sensitive genuinely ignorant woman be.

*good god*

I was troubled, too, by Josh's words though I knew immediately, as they came from Josh, that they were meant ironically. And of course, Goldberg is an ass which is what Josh was trying to say - as only an ignorant ass would compare some community service to slavery. Additionally, I believe Josh assumes that most people don't enjoy a good slavery joke, so enjoying as much as anyone may mean feeling slight nauseous and sickened that you belong to the same species as the person telling the joke.

It's odd, you know, we tend to judge the words of people we like by intent and the words of people we dislike by impact. We respect Josh and are confident his intent is benign - to highlight the ludicrous inanity of someone comparing a few hours a week of community service to slavery.

On the other hand, we tend to judge the statements of those we dislike by impact. If someone we did not know or knew to be racist said those words, we could look at the impact of the actual phrase "enjoy a good slavery joke" which is on its face offensive to descendents of slaves - and really to all people who believe slavery is no laughing matter.

I believe the proper course is to judge impact - how our words affect the people who hear them. That means when someone speaks up and say those words offend me, to listen to why and try to understand the impact of the words before jumping up and down and saying "but that's not what was intended."

In the law, the impact of your actions trumps your intent - most of the time. I think they should in language as well.

Call me "over-sensitive" and tell me that I need to go out and buy a sense of humor

Yep.

ARGH!

AVAST ME MATEYS! YE NOT SEE LAND ENOUGH IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS? GET YER CHELLY-SEA LEGS UP AND QUITCHER FIGHTING!

LEFTIES ALL
WE HEED THE CALL
PROGRESSIVES ARE OUR PICKS!

NOW IT RAINS ABOVE
SUCH PEACE AND LOVE
FROM TWO BELLIGERENT CHICKS!

INTO THE BRIG WITH BOTH OF YE WENCHES!

WENCH HILLARY WOULD NOT APPROVE! SHADDUP OR ME WILL GET ER TO RUN YOU THROUGH!

ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!

ARGH!

You need to go out and buy a sense of humor.

actually it appears to be Jade that is attempting to curtail speech here. laying down some sort of imaginary line in her own head that josh, in the future, should know not to come near as regards his choice of "words." she then wasted no time hurling insults, accusations and telling someone to get lost when they pointed out the obvious. nice try at spinnin it tho.

The classic 5th column move. I feel both stupid and crushed. You've been setting us up all these years Josh.

Sometimes a quip is just a quip. It's easy to take offense, the trick is try look on the bright side, give the benefit of the doubt, resist the urge to be pedantic--lighten up.

Some words do matter. Some don't. Sticks & stones baby. Sticks & stones.

Jade,

When I read Josh's comments, I assumed they were intended to be sarcastic. After all, the piece WAS about Jonah Goldberg's usual idiotic blather. However, I agree with you on this one. If joking about slavery is acceptable, what's next? Holocaust jokes? Sadly, dijamo's comments are indicative of the level of racism on this site tolerated by other TPM readers; especially since it's obvious that dijamo sure as hell ain't a "sista". Call it like you see it.

Wouldn't bother me if someone said, "I like a good holocaust joke as much as the next guy," or "I like a good basilisk joke as much as the next guy," if I thought the point was that holocaust jokes are bad and the people who make them are bad.

Notice that saying you enjoy a joke is not to tell a joke. Two different things.

People - he was calling Goldberg an asshole. A dumb, ignorant, asshole. Using sarcasm is even less respectful than saying, "Goldberg wrote on slavery and does a poor job, and some might even call it offensive."

Were an "intelligent", "respected" person to write such a piece, Josh would have written the intro different, i.e. "Wow, I really don't understand this. I don't agree with X person much, but I do know they aren't stupid." But it wasn't. It was a big fat gooey dummy. So he laughed at him. Saying, "slavery is great! Goldberg gets it!"

its issues like these (I can think of only a couple of others) I try not to think about. PC sucks. How do people so sensitive (not just the poster, but those who are doing the "well, both sides have their points") and/or clueless get through life without crying each hour of every day? Or do people just avoid them?

Josh doesn't need to "clarify", "apologize", or anything. If anything, just say "Those who have even the slightest issue with this intro should stay off the web".

Jade, it appears that you have a highly developed ability to find something that offends you, whereupon you react to it with a hair-trigger spiel whose obvious and condescending intent is to sound like you are educating all of us troglodytes about race matters.

You didn't even bother to consider the context of Josh's use of Words That You Find Offensive (WTYFO for short, since we will undoubtedly be having this discussion the next time anyone uses one of several words no matter the context).

You need to free yourself from this self-constructed prison.

He was obviously making fun of the author of the article. To find offense here is so fuckin stupid.

A question to the many posters on this thread who were really unpleasant in their degree of vitriol:

Do you (individually and/or collectively) really think it is no longer necessary in our society to observe common courtesy? Have you lost, or never learned, how to say what you mean, even when you vehemently disagree with someone, without stooping to name calling and base insult? And have you lost, or never learned, the obligation to make a prompt apology when you really know you have gone over the top? Please think about it.

I realize that the tag line from a bad book and worse movie in the early 70's said: "Love means never having to say you're sorry." But, aside from the fact that many of you are too young to have seen it, in fact, the opposite is true: "Love (read respect and decency) means always having to say you're sorry.... because if you hurt someone -- intentionally or unintentionally -- you still hurt them and that deserves an apology.

Although it seems clear that Josh did not intend offense, that does not mean that what he said, or the way he said it, could be guaranteed to be offenseless.
Therefore, because it did offend Jade (whether or not it offended you, or me, or whomever else) and she said so, civilly, why isn't it the simple, right thing for Josh to do to at least offer Jade the classic lawyer's apology?: "If what I said, or the way I said it was offensive to you, Jade, I'm sorry. That was not my intention; on the contrary, my sole intention was to call Jonah on his glib racial insensitivity."
If Josh apologized that simply and directly, then we might expect Jade to reply: "Thanks, Josh, I know that was not your intention. If I over-reacted, and that upset you, I'm sorry. That was not my intention; on the contrary, my sole intention was to point out that words can be interpreted in different ways by different people, and we need to be sensitive to that."
Now everyone feels good about himself or herself again, because both primary parties have done the higher road thing. And the rest of you could then post a simple: "Sorry, All."
And now we're all over it.
This is not rocket science; it's just good manners. And now it's my turn: "I'm sorry, if I offend anyone by sounding as if I am lecturing."
The End, on the other hand,

hmmmmm... you really ARE wearing a turtleneck in July, aren't you?

I really care about subtle prejudice, and insensitive word choices. I've written many comments on the subject. I could write a thousand words on John McCain's wife-beating joke, or Maureen Dowd's Obambi references. But this has nothing to do with prejudice or insensitivity. It's about basic reading comprehension. Josh was saying that joking about slavery is a bad thing, and he was criticizing Goldberg for doing that. If you didn't immediately understand that, you can't read English well, and that is not Josh's fault.

I am getting really tired of people insisting that journalists and others write without blatantly obvious irony, because they are either poor or inattentive readers. Find a book written by a great author - Tolstoy, Austen, Henry James - and learn how to read without the help of emoticons.

Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal", by Jonathan Swift?

Call me "over-sensitive" and tell me that I need to go out and buy a sense of humor, but cannabalism has never been something I find funny.

Now Swift didn't really mean he advocates cannabalism, as far as I know.... I'll take him at his word that he was just a bit "inartful" in his choice of words... In the future, he might choose "a good beefcake joke" instead.

target="_blank">"I don't know what we're yelling about! ... Loud Noises!" -- Brick Tamland

Jade could be Matthew Weaver's sister or wife. If I don't look at the avatar or the nickname, I could swear it was Weaver's bullshit.

Jade, you lost me on this one. Josh's sarcasm is unavoidable and non-racist.

wwstaebler,

Thank you!

Josh,

What may have seemed an innocuous and ironic comment is a raw subject area for many African-Americans. Unlike many of your readers, I have family members still alive who grew up knowing our relatives who WERE slaves. This is not a subject area that we joke about, ever. Slavery is still a relevant issue especially when more political voices are calling for the revision of the Fourteenth Amendment, so-called "originalists" sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and human trafficking routinely takes place world-wide, even here on American soil.

Your response sets the tone for everything else on this site. Calling Jade7243's comments "bizarre" seems dismissive and downright peevish to me. As a journalist, does "free speech" trump taking responsibility for what others would consider "hurtful" or "hate speech"? What I find truly ironic is how one of most recommended reader posts from yesterday repeatedly referred to individuals as "pussies" yet NO ONE at TPM called out the author for inflammatory and sexist language. So much for TPM's policies on civility.

Billy Glad,

Now you are just being a complete tool. Weaver is an out and out racist. Jade is no such thing. I do not recall you doing much, if any, challenging of Weaver when he was spewing his hate speech all over this site for month after month.

I understand why Jade reacted the way she did. I can not say if I would or not, because my ancestors did not have their entire humanity and genealogy erased. Look at all the people who go to great links to trace their specific roots, and family trees all the way back to the old countries. Jade can not do that, and neither can any of those who are descended from their abducted and enslaved ancestors.

Jimm Webb can trace his roots back to Ulster and Scotland, and identify his clan, and his ancient family roots and culture. Oprah can not. She is left to trying to find some indications of what part of Africa her ancestors were from with some vague DNA matchings that are of questionable accuracy, but she will never identify her specific African lineage.

As for those who are using Mr. Swift's Modest Proposal as an example of why people should not be so sensitive about jokes about slavery or the holocaust; you do not have a clue.

Mr. Swift was an Irishman who was not making a joke about the conditions that the English had reduced the Irish people to. He was crying out in outrage over the genocidal conditions that were being inflicted on the Irish people in their own country by posh sounding invaders. Mr. Swift was not joking. He was putting the lash to those genocidal spoilers of his native land.

Mr. Swift was speaking truth to power. Of course the murderous bastards shrugged it off, and the Irish Famine followed. Then people, such as Lady Wilde, Oscar Wilde's mother, had to lash out at those who created the conditions that caused the famine, and who did nothing to alleviate it.

Here is what she wrote. She was not much of a poet, but her anger come through. It came throught all down the years in Ireland, and that is why Bob Geldof acted to save the children.
People stop bullying Jade. She may have overreacted to some of Josh's words. She is a good and decent human being.

"The Famine Year (The Stricken Land)"
Lady Wilde's poem "The Famine Year" was anthologized in twentieth-century Irish schoolbooks. Here's the poem, which originally appeared in The Nation in January of 1847.

Weary men, what reap ye? - Golden corn for the stranger.
What sow ye? - Human corses that wait for the avenger.
Fainting forms, hunger-stricken, what see you in the offing?
Stately ships to bear our food away, amid the stranger's scoffing.
There's a proud array of soldiers - what do they round your door?
They guard our masters' granaries from the thin hands of the poor.
Pale mothers, wherefore weeping - Would to God that we were dead;
Our children swoon before us, and we cannot give them bread.

Little children, tears are strange upon your infant faces,
God meant you but to smile within your mother's soft embraces.
Oh! we know not what is smiling, and we know not what is dying;
We're hungry, very hungry, and we cannot stop our crying.
And some of us grow cold and white - we know not what it means;
But, as they lie beside us, we tremble in our dreams.
There's a gaunt crowd on the highway - are ye come to pray to man,
With hollow eyes that cannot weep, and for words your faces wan?

No; the blood is dead within our veins - we care not now for life;
Let us die hid in the ditches, far from children and from wife;
We cannot stay and listen to their raving, famished cries -
Bread! Bread! Bread! and none to still their agonies.
We left our infants playing with their dead mother's hand:
We left our maidens maddened by the fever's scorching brand:
Better, maiden, thou were strangled in thy own dark-twisted tresses -
Better, infant, thou wert smothered in thy mother's first caresses.

We are fainting in our misery, but God will hear our groan:
Yet, if fellow-men desert us, will He hearken from His Throne?
Accursed are we in our own land, yet toil we still and toil;
But the stranger reaps our harvest - the alien owns our soil.
O Christ! how have we sinned, that on our native plains
We perish houseless, naked, starved, with branded brow, like Cain's?
Dying, dying wearily, with a torture sure and slow -
Dying, as a dog would die, by the wayside as we go.

One by one they're falling round us, their pale faces to the sky;
We've no strength left to dig them graves - there let them lie.
The wild bird, if he's stricken, is mourned by the others,
But we - we die in Christian land - we die amid our brothers,
In the land which God has given, like a wild beast in his cave,
Without a tear, a prayer, a shroud, a coffin or a grave.
Ha! but think ye the contortions on each livid face ye see,
Will not be read on judgement-day by eyes of Deity?

We are wretches, famished, scorned, human tools to build your pride,
But God will yet take vengeance for the souls for whom Christ died.
Now is your hour of pleasure - bask ye in the world's caress;
But our whitening bones against ye will rise as witnesses,
From the cabins and the ditches, in their charred, uncoffin'd masses,
For the Angel of the Trumpet will know them as he passes.
A ghastly, spectral army, before the great God we'll stand,
And arraign ye as our murderers, the spoilers of our land.

Peter Principle,

Making light of slavery, even with sarcasm, is offensive to those of us whose lives continue to be drastically shaped by it. Substitute "Shoah" for "slavery" and see if the context is any less painful.

Liam,

Powerful!

And this is supposed to be a liberal blog with progressive thinkers. HA!

There are some people who can be mediators and healers. Some that are brilliant at moving difficult conversations forward--conversations about race, gender, homophobia, abortion, etc.

Oregon Activist smartly attempted to illuminate "intention vs. impact" and wwstaebler called for civility.

Why the lack of compassion and empathy for Jade and others here who say Josh's comments disturbed them?

What does it cost people on a personal level or intellectual level to put yourselves in someone else's shoes and try to understand why something offended them?

You don't have to feel offended to acknowledge the legitimacy of someone else's feeling of hurt. No need to be so mean-spirited about it. >p>Geez. It's not like Jade was demanding that Josh be fired from the campaign...

And this is supposed to be a liberal blog with progressive thinkers. HA!

I find your use of HA! offensive. For some reason you find it funny that people here make don't take every accusation of closet racism seriously. Please legitimize my feelings of offense with an apology. Thanks in advance.

I think the main problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding about sarcasm and irony. It's not always meant to be funny. I don't think there is anything in Josh's original post that is funny. That is what makes his post thought provoking. The fact that it's not funny...the fact that he [i]doesn't[/i] find jokes about slavery funny. If he had instead said, "I guess I don't like slavery jokes as much as some people." Would that have been offensive? Because that is the meaning of the sentence he wrote.

That said, it brings up an interesting point about language. If someone is offended someone's rhetoric but it is because they misinterpreted the writer's meaning--at what point is that the writer's fault and and what point is it the reader's fault?

For example, if someone were to write:

"Slavery in America was one of the greatest tragedies in human history."

And someone read that and thought that meant that slavery was great and got offended. Is that in anyway the writer's fault? I understand that this a very simplified example. Not many, if any, readers would misinterpret the meaning of that sentence. But it is just grammar, context, and word usage.

In this particular case, I don't think Josh is to blame. I think the meaning was pretty clear. Even Jade7243 suspected that she didn't think that Josh really liked jokes about slavery. So it does seem as if, as she says at the top of her post, she is being too sensitive.

No, I don't think Josh enjoys a good slavery joke. Yes, I recognize it as sarcasm. Yes, it can still be offensive. Slavery is not something he has the history or the right to joke or be sarcastic about. What is insensitive is his nonrecognition that slavery is not the place for irony - not from someone outside the group affected by slavery.

Additionally, what is even more offensive is white posters telling Jade she has no right to be offended. That is white privilege, the white poster saying white people get to set the boundaries of what black people can be offended by in terms or racial joking, irony and the like. What Josh said initially was insensitive. The response from posters and from Josh was offensive - in that they presume that as white people they can tell black people to "get over it" which is the essential point of telling black people they aren't allowed to be offended when a white person stomps on sensitive subjects so gracelessly.

Slavery wasn't funny 200 years ago and it's not funny now! No love lost Josh!