|
|
|
|
|
|
by rgoulter
990 days ago
|
|
|
> In this comment you seem to be reading "punch up not down" as a very binary, fixed rule de Boer's blogpost paints it as the opposite: it's a nebulous, indefinite phrase used to try and simplify a complex reality into something that's easy to understand. de Boer reckons that the only consistent usage is "up" referring to "people I don't like", and "down" referring to "people I like". |
|
|
> For it to make any sense at all, human beings would have to exist on some unitary plane of power and oppression, our relative places easily interpreted for the purpose of figuring out who we can punch
I think this is obvious bullshit. You need a strict, easily interpreted hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed in order to implement this strawman version of the punching up/down rule. This straw man is what I was referring to when I described it as a "commandment" in my previous comment.
On the other hand when the "rule" is interpreted in a more realistic way. Which is something like "make comedy about whoever you like, but consider carefully why you want to make fun of these groups of people, and consider the context of what you're doing", then you don't need this strict hierarchy at all.
To be explicit: I don't think the concept needs a consistent definition of "up" and "down" in order to be useful.