Why Forrest Griffin Should be Punished For His Rape Joke
"Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy, because without it citizens can't share their observations on folly and injustice or collectively challenge the authority that maintains them" - Steven Pinker.
The concept of free speech shouldn't be difficult to understand. You have the freedom to say what you want, just as others have the freedom to respond. The intentions of free speech are bound by provocation, and interaction. receiving criticism for the freely spoken word is an element of free speech more than just a consequence.
The UFC has been relatively active when it comes to free speech, what with rewarding fighters for being creative, and interesting on Twitter. This would always be a disaster waiting to happen, and now that disaster has a face: Forrest Griffin.
"Rape is the new missionary", Griffin tweeted just yesterday. On one hand, I failed to laugh because I don't have a sense of humor. But on the other hand, I failed to laugh because I'm also moderately civilized. Perhaps the worst part about Griffin's joke were the amount of retweets it got: 86 and counting. Forrest even retweets an even lamer joke comparing rape to "surprise sex".
There's no hypocrisy to mocking these people as genetic failure piles in an incurable sadness bowl of MMA fandom. This is the give and take in the context of free speech. You're free to be an idiot. I'm free to mock your idiocy.
Forrest is free to consider the tragedy of rape, territory for a punchline. But we are free to ask Dana to discourage such obscenities. It's not just the ethical thing to do: it's the prudent thing to do.
When I ask for "punishment", I'm not asking for a termination of Griffin's contract. That's ridiculous. But whether in the form of a public apology, or a fine, action needs to be taken. It's not a matter of being politically correct. That objection is nonsense. It's a matter of highlighting the type of behavior worth discouraging.
As kids, the proverb that "stick and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt", makes sense. When we're young, we know little about the complexity of ideas. But the unique assembly of words is what models the idea, and in turn, those ideas can inform your religion, your politics, and they allow you to communicate to others your identity which in turn, displays who you are to the social word.
In his essay What Shall We Tell the Children?, theoretical psychologist Nicholas Humphrey writes about the importance of words to children: how harmful ideas are designed precisely to take away a child's ability to attack, and question them. And so words, more than being shadows of thought, are precisely what gives them weight in flesh and bone: they are the weapons of indoctrination.This is precisely the point that sailed completely over Joe Rogan's head when he argued the word "fag" was not denigrating because to him it was a synonym for "weak". But certain words carry with them history, context, tragedy, and emotion. And they can't be stripped away at will.
So when Forrest Griffin jokes about rape he's not challenging any authority. He's not challenging injustice. In fact, his words mock the power of free speech. That's the irony some people just don't get: this freedom of speech can simultaneously be the source of injustice. But there's nothing descriptive, or poignant about his obscenity.
This might seem a pretentious digression, but the culture of MMA has been far too lenient with its open displays of prejudice. In fact, this has been the very thesis of the Culinary Union who argue that the UFC means 'unfit for children'. I'm not sure giving them more ammo is the proper response.
Forrest isn't a terrible person. My point isn't to compare him to the real scoundrels of polemic. But if we consider rape a tragedy, then his attempt to cheapen it in the public spotlight demands action. Whether Forrest likes it or not, he has responsibilities as an athlete, and a former champion no less. Dana White would do well to remind him of those responsibilities while Zuffa's adventure into the larger public spotlight looms.
12 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very well said, as always
Also, excellent channelling of Patton Oswalt.
by Damnatio Memoriae on Nov 9, 2011 11:21 AM EST reply actions
It's probably
my favorite bit from Werewolves and Lollipops, though the story on birth control is a close second.
Follow @DavidCastilloAC
by David Castillo on Nov 9, 2011 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
The first time I listened to Feeling Kinda Patton I nearly suffocated laughing, I’ve really enjoyed his stuff ever since. I also appreciate that he’s a pretty deep, interesting individual.
by Damnatio Memoriae on Nov 10, 2011 10:04 AM EST up reply actions
I actually don’t want the UFC to take any punitive measures – at least for this incident . Mostly because it would be too “ex post facto” for my liking, especially when you consider the fact that they were urging and rewarding their fighters’ twitter us. (They also won’t take any action because that is one extra step towards having fighters declared employees and not independent contractors)
What I would like to see is the UFC and Forest do some quick damage control: offer an apology, and perhaps a donation. Going forward I’d like to see them put in pace a stated policy that these kind of statements won’t be tolerated – be it from the fighters, commentators, or the brass.
I think the employees vs. contractors issue is important
Because every employee I know is subject to some sort of code of conduct that spells out expected behaviour and consequences. Unless the UFC writes that sort of thing into every contract, there’s really no expected standard of behaviour, which means that any punishment is subject to the whims of Dana and could end up looking unbalanced and biased depending on what consequences are applied to who.
by Damnatio Memoriae on Nov 9, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
Well written as always, but I have to disagree
Freud once described jokes as the conscious expression of thoughts usually barred by society. British author Angela Carter defined it as:
Comedy is tragedy that happens to other people.
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.
Just because you do not enjoy a joke, does not mean that there isn’t an audience for it. Similarly, if we restrict jokes to statements that do not offend any group than humor cannot exist as we know it. Anthony Jeselnik whose recent album Shakespeare was #2 in the nation tweeted:
If you’re getting raped by a fireman, do not yell “FIRE.” And definitely don’t bring up 9/11.
For some reason rape is an acceptable topic for a full time comedian and comedic writer, but unacceptable for a full time fighter and comedic writer. Either everything is fair game or everything is off limits. Most people have jobs, but to give employers carte blanche to control speech is a mistake. To do so would cede control of public discourse from individual actors to private interests and lessen its value.
I also think you found a red herring in Joe Rogan’s defense of fag. This is a separate issue. There is a widening gap between usage of fag and gay and its prior meanings. Similarly, issues have arisen or are ongoing regarding retarded, idiot, dumb, learning disabled, handicapped, and countless other words. The options are to cede control of these words from the population as a whole to a special group and freeze it in time or to allow these words to continue to grow and evolve. While these words were used to target a specific group, today this is becoming the case less and less frequently.
This isn’t the first time words have evolved past their original use, even in this context. The widely used British use of bugger originally referred to sodomy, but has since grown to a catch all euphemism. Ignoring linguistic change simply results in a dissonance between reality and proper etiquette. If Joe Rogan needs to apologize to the GLBT community for using fag then he also needs to apologize to the old women the word previously targeted.
While different issues, in both cases, defining words are best left to the general populous. I can see no advantage in ceding control of language to a smaller group of people.
Excellent post
For some reason rape is an acceptable topic for a full time comedian and comedic writer, but unacceptable for a full time fighter and comedic writer. Either everything is fair game or everything is off limits.
I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. A full time comedian creates jokes in an arena divorced from the status quo. People that go to a comedy club understand that any subject may be fair game: but even then, being a comedian isn’t a bulletproof vest. Consider the Michael Richards situation: one of the reasons people attacked him is because despite the fact that his diatribe occurred inside a comedy club, his comments just “felt” racist.
While it’s a vague description, in Richard’s case, the problem is that his comments didn’t have the feel of a carefully designed barb: it was just raw sinister unconscious spewing from his mouth. Even the most grim events can be funny, but only if the comedian’s words pay respect to their significance. As an audience we only laugh when we suspect the person saying it gives us the impression of responsibility.
Design is one thing, execution is another, and even within the world of comedy, the wrong words can still inspire outrage. Somebody at BE posted Jason Miller’s Hitler joke: a perfect example of how to walk that tightrope. Forrest wasn’t talking to people at a comedy club. It was a tweet (as public as it gets), free of context or understanding. And given his history, it appeared to be yet another example of his irresponsibility.
Mentioning Joe Rogan wasn’t because I was making a direct comparison (or one at all). It just sort of flowed from my larger point. I agree about the evolution of words, but the change has to be organic. “Fag” still has strong associations with injustice, and so as long as we take that injustice seriously, so too should the verbal manifestation of that injustice.
Follow @DavidCastilloAC
by David Castillo on Nov 10, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
I meant
‘subconscious’, not ‘un’.
Follow @DavidCastilloAC
by David Castillo on Nov 10, 2011 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
one of the reasons people attacked (Richards) is because despite the fact that his diatribe occurred inside a comedy club, his comments just "felt" racist.
If we are going to judge things when they feel racist then we are accepting that there is a critical mass of people who must feel offended in order for humor to unworthy. But when we defer to a majority like that we are accepting that things that offend the majority are much less acceptable than things that offend a minority; a Jewish joke becomes much more acceptable than a Christian joke.
Design is one thing, execution is another, and even within the world of comedy, the wrong words can still inspire outrage.
Richards using nigger was in poor taste, but society accepts when Louis C.K. does the same thing. But the world cannot have an uproar at every single failed joke. If an area is acceptable to explore humor than we have to accept that some of that exploration will fail. The response to a bad joke is silence or possibly a boo. The story of the response to Forrest’s joke is really one of commentators feeling that there should be uproar when there isn’t. But even if there is, if we are willing to have extended commentaries based on a failed joke than we should be willing to do the same when there is success.
People need to look for context before judging.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/11/10/2551936/ufc-forrest-griffin-rape-tweet-dana-white
It seems Forest Griffin was not making a joke when he posted that, but a social commentary on how we are seeing a rise of rape reports in the media. Like it is becoming common place. He should have clarified instead of attacking detractors, but no, he should not be punished.
That makes
zero sense. For one, it’s just Dana White speaking for Forrest, which should be taken with a grain of salt. Two, when people attacked Griffin for the joke, this wasn’t his defense. His defense was that following him is a “privilege”. And three: are you sarcastically giving Forrest credit for being more insightful than he actually is?
Follow @DavidCastilloAC
by David Castillo on Nov 10, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

by 

















