Misanthropic political correctness
Those who claim moral sovereignty for themselves are often driven by clichés and misanthropic stereotypes. The arrogance of the alleged culture warriors exposes their pretended efforts to do what is supposedly good more and more obviously. What remains is deep mistrust and fascist impulses.
By Bent-Erik Scholz
By Bent-Erik Scholz
Is a joke about gays always a homophobic joke? According to this definition, we would have to almost completely exclude Jewish humor from public discourse, because if a joke about gays were always homophobic, then most Jewish jokes would also be anti-Semitic. It is quite obvious that such a way of thinking is silly. Nevertheless, more and more people who could actually be expected to have a certain level of intelligence are falling for such patterns and thus poisoning well-rested reflection on our society.
The word of the hour is "problematic." This word constantly falls out of the mouths of supposedly politically interested cultural observers, it hits the ground with a thud and leaves absolutely nothing behind other than a clatter. Because the word "problematic" is, so to speak, meaningless and patronizing : firstly, a problem is only what you make of it, secondly, this vocabulary presupposes that the other person's problem should also be mine. The word is thrown around as if it were a universal truth. There is often an attempt at moral consultation behind this.
When Stefan Raab took to his Instagram channel to announce another boxing match with Regina Halmich, the white knights of the internet felt compelled to saddle up. This is not an unusual process; on the Internet, certain filter bubbles reliably jump over any stick that is presented to them. The absurdity and platitude with which everyone is visible in the public space is almost disturbing: a user doesn't expose himself, but rather is outraged that Stefan Raab returned solely for the purpose of "beating" a woman ". An X user sums it up pithily with the sentence: "Man beats woman - for money". Here, however, internalized sexism is exposed. Anyone who writes something like that must assume that women are inherently weak beings who are fundamentally inferior to men and who are purely passive in this boxing match constellation. Regina Halmich, on the other hand, was boxing world champion for eight years, winning 54 of her 56 fights during her time as a professional boxer. To speak of her with any suggestion of supposed gender-based weakness and passivity shows enormous inherent misogyny.
Only ARD's gossip magazine, Brisant, made itself even more ridiculous on its Instagram account. "Such a TV comeback from Stefan Raab would be problematic. There's a big but: [...] What used to be well received by the general public, [...] you simply can't do anymore today," says a young presenter in a short video. There's a massive detachment there in expression and emphasis, because it is not made clear here that this is a personal view; instead, Stefan Raab's dirty childization is presented here as a fact that is obvious to everyone. But: Who decides what we can still "bring" today? can or not? I would be very reluctant to entrust this task to the editors of a gossip magazine that primarily deals with Hollywood news or the royals. This self-empowerment as a moral authority is hardly surprising: after all, the show Brisant is inherently hierarchical and monarchist due to its main subject areas and is therefore enthusiastic about systems in which there are a few privileged people who are allowed to make unquestioned decisions about the rank and file. Consequently, comments on Brisant's Instagram post are not allowed.
Anyone who wants to explain to the Internet public so openly, with so much self-confidence, what is right and wrong, and in a condescending tone of a senior teacher who, when in doubt, always knows everything better than the viewer, must consider themselves to be quite intelligent, but above all the audience to be incredibly stupid hold. It's an argument that comes up again and again, especially when it comes to evaluating satire: Stefan Raab, Lisa Eckhart or Michael Bully Herbig would "serve stereotypes" with their humor. The assumption here is not that this People themselves carry misanthropic views, but that other people could see their views confirmed by them. The artist is therefore blamed for his audience, and in case of doubt the audience is dumb, idiotic and prejudiced.
The supposedly backward-looking audience, whose supposedly outdated views are served by the supposedly problematic artists, can often differentiate much better between a joke and the truth than the supposed Robin Hoods of the pseudo-left anti-discrimination movement, which itself internalizes discrimination by regurgitating classist narratives , looks down on people with presumably lower levels of education or generally denies supposedly marginalized minorities any ability to defend themselves.
When Michael Bully Herbig announced a sequel to the film "The Shoe of Manitu", a comment appeared on Instagram criticizing the "queer-hostile" and "racist" humor of the film, which will only be released in cinemas next year , condemned. The sender was a white, obviously heterosexual, relatively well-off mother of multiples. As an openly bisexual man, I would like to state publicly that I refuse to let this woman represent my interests. If she is an alleged victim of queer hostility If she steps into the breach, she does so against my express will. I didn't elect her to be my representative, I didn't ask her for help, and I frankly find it excessive when she gets angry instead of me about something that bothers me more than concerns them, but I don't take any offense to that.
Homophobia is not a nasally-speaking and awkwardly acting Michael Bully Herbig or a Stefan Raab in skin-tight sports jackets who dances "light and gay gymnastics with the chair". Homophobia is being insulted on the street, solely because you Walking hand in hand with his partner. Homophobia is the threat of a beating on the subway. And I would bet a lot of money that the redneck who shouted the word "FAGOT!" out of the car window at me as he drove past. shouted after him, didn't do this because he had seen the "Shoe of Manitu".
Anyone who generally assumes that the general public, millions of whom watched TV or Manitu's Shoe, is incapable of abstracting from what they see, who confuses laughter with approval (because they themselves usually only strive for emotional applause), and Anyone who believes that they themselves understand the connections better than the "broad masses" referred to disparagingly in the explosive article comes out as an elitist cynic, stuck in deeply classist thought structures, and therefore as a misanthrope. Not to mention internalized sexism, racism and homophobia, which drip from the blanket assumption of weakness and patronizing proxy outrage. This pseudo-moralism is pure posturing and does not care about the interests of those it purports to protect because it indulges in meta-debates that can only be had from a very comfortable, privileged position.
I, on the other hand, believe that the average person is not primitive, just laughs at weaker people and feels validated by it. I believe that the audience of Raab, Eckhart or Herbig is very smart and emotionally intelligent, that they laugh because they recognize the wrong thing and are surprised by it. I believe that the majority are not suspected of being anti-gay, that they can expose homophobic clichés as clichés and still find them funny. And I believe that this audience will no longer appreciate being denied the ability to abstract and thus maturity by a few privileged media makers.
04/05/24
*Bent-Erik Scholz works as a freelancer for RBB
The word of the hour is "problematic." This word constantly falls out of the mouths of supposedly politically interested cultural observers, it hits the ground with a thud and leaves absolutely nothing behind other than a clatter. Because the word "problematic" is, so to speak, meaningless and patronizing : firstly, a problem is only what you make of it, secondly, this vocabulary presupposes that the other person's problem should also be mine. The word is thrown around as if it were a universal truth. There is often an attempt at moral consultation behind this.
When Stefan Raab took to his Instagram channel to announce another boxing match with Regina Halmich, the white knights of the internet felt compelled to saddle up. This is not an unusual process; on the Internet, certain filter bubbles reliably jump over any stick that is presented to them. The absurdity and platitude with which everyone is visible in the public space is almost disturbing: a user doesn't expose himself, but rather is outraged that Stefan Raab returned solely for the purpose of "beating" a woman ". An X user sums it up pithily with the sentence: "Man beats woman - for money". Here, however, internalized sexism is exposed. Anyone who writes something like that must assume that women are inherently weak beings who are fundamentally inferior to men and who are purely passive in this boxing match constellation. Regina Halmich, on the other hand, was boxing world champion for eight years, winning 54 of her 56 fights during her time as a professional boxer. To speak of her with any suggestion of supposed gender-based weakness and passivity shows enormous inherent misogyny.
Only ARD's gossip magazine, Brisant, made itself even more ridiculous on its Instagram account. "Such a TV comeback from Stefan Raab would be problematic. There's a big but: [...] What used to be well received by the general public, [...] you simply can't do anymore today," says a young presenter in a short video. There's a massive detachment there in expression and emphasis, because it is not made clear here that this is a personal view; instead, Stefan Raab's dirty childization is presented here as a fact that is obvious to everyone. But: Who decides what we can still "bring" today? can or not? I would be very reluctant to entrust this task to the editors of a gossip magazine that primarily deals with Hollywood news or the royals. This self-empowerment as a moral authority is hardly surprising: after all, the show Brisant is inherently hierarchical and monarchist due to its main subject areas and is therefore enthusiastic about systems in which there are a few privileged people who are allowed to make unquestioned decisions about the rank and file. Consequently, comments on Brisant's Instagram post are not allowed.
Anyone who wants to explain to the Internet public so openly, with so much self-confidence, what is right and wrong, and in a condescending tone of a senior teacher who, when in doubt, always knows everything better than the viewer, must consider themselves to be quite intelligent, but above all the audience to be incredibly stupid hold. It's an argument that comes up again and again, especially when it comes to evaluating satire: Stefan Raab, Lisa Eckhart or Michael Bully Herbig would "serve stereotypes" with their humor. The assumption here is not that this People themselves carry misanthropic views, but that other people could see their views confirmed by them. The artist is therefore blamed for his audience, and in case of doubt the audience is dumb, idiotic and prejudiced.
The supposedly backward-looking audience, whose supposedly outdated views are served by the supposedly problematic artists, can often differentiate much better between a joke and the truth than the supposed Robin Hoods of the pseudo-left anti-discrimination movement, which itself internalizes discrimination by regurgitating classist narratives , looks down on people with presumably lower levels of education or generally denies supposedly marginalized minorities any ability to defend themselves.
When Michael Bully Herbig announced a sequel to the film "The Shoe of Manitu", a comment appeared on Instagram criticizing the "queer-hostile" and "racist" humor of the film, which will only be released in cinemas next year , condemned. The sender was a white, obviously heterosexual, relatively well-off mother of multiples. As an openly bisexual man, I would like to state publicly that I refuse to let this woman represent my interests. If she is an alleged victim of queer hostility If she steps into the breach, she does so against my express will. I didn't elect her to be my representative, I didn't ask her for help, and I frankly find it excessive when she gets angry instead of me about something that bothers me more than concerns them, but I don't take any offense to that.
Homophobia is not a nasally-speaking and awkwardly acting Michael Bully Herbig or a Stefan Raab in skin-tight sports jackets who dances "light and gay gymnastics with the chair". Homophobia is being insulted on the street, solely because you Walking hand in hand with his partner. Homophobia is the threat of a beating on the subway. And I would bet a lot of money that the redneck who shouted the word "FAGOT!" out of the car window at me as he drove past. shouted after him, didn't do this because he had seen the "Shoe of Manitu".
Anyone who generally assumes that the general public, millions of whom watched TV or Manitu's Shoe, is incapable of abstracting from what they see, who confuses laughter with approval (because they themselves usually only strive for emotional applause), and Anyone who believes that they themselves understand the connections better than the "broad masses" referred to disparagingly in the explosive article comes out as an elitist cynic, stuck in deeply classist thought structures, and therefore as a misanthrope. Not to mention internalized sexism, racism and homophobia, which drip from the blanket assumption of weakness and patronizing proxy outrage. This pseudo-moralism is pure posturing and does not care about the interests of those it purports to protect because it indulges in meta-debates that can only be had from a very comfortable, privileged position.
I, on the other hand, believe that the average person is not primitive, just laughs at weaker people and feels validated by it. I believe that the audience of Raab, Eckhart or Herbig is very smart and emotionally intelligent, that they laugh because they recognize the wrong thing and are surprised by it. I believe that the majority are not suspected of being anti-gay, that they can expose homophobic clichés as clichés and still find them funny. And I believe that this audience will no longer appreciate being denied the ability to abstract and thus maturity by a few privileged media makers.
04/05/24
*Bent-Erik Scholz works as a freelancer for RBB
Write a comment