I suppose as a responsible blogger I should weigh in on the controversy surrounding the most recent cover of the New Yorker depicting Obama bin Barack and his wife Angela Davis.
It was offensive.
It was funny.
It was funny precisely because it was offensive.
In theory, it would be even funnier if it were offensive to everyone, as ostensibly it was if you believe both McCain and Obama's moral harrumphing. Personally, I think they both got a chuckle out of it but probably think it would politically suspect to even give hint they might find it funny. (Then again, nothing impairs a politician's sense of humor more severely than losing, and since it seems that both think that something like this could cost either one in the polls, I could be wrong.)
However, as far as I'm concerned, this whole brouhaha is paradigmatic of the fact that "Moral Offense" is an oxymoron.
To wit: if something is immoral, it remains immoral irrespective of its offensiveness. If something is offensive, that probably has nothing to do with its morality, or lack thereof.
More specifically: if you find something wrong, and it really IS wrong, I don't care if it offends you. If something offends you, morally or otherwise, don't assume that everyone must agree with your calling it wrong.
The confusion of morality with offense (and vice-versa?) is probably the single most toxic element of contmeporary political discourse. In theory, one should really not have a problem with that; in fact, it might be what makes political discourse intoxicating in the first place. The inability to draw a line between immoral and offensive is symptomatic of one needing treatment in some sort of political detox.
Oh wait, that sounds like political re-education. Never mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment