Fat Mike Talks Vegas Backlash • Page 3

It goes both ways, public shaming can be good sometimes and necessary to call out pieces of shit, Mike and Melvin being two of them. Fox News is terrible, but in this case it’s a separate issue, because it’s not just Fox News doing it.

 

Possibly my favorite reaction to this is from the interviewer himself:

 

I said I’m out, but you quoted me anyway. Maybe you didn’t see. Have a good evening.

 

They’re a trash band...but he shouldn’t be censored in any way. Let the market decide whether he/they are still relevant based on the (justified) reaction to their shtick.

Also, kind of crazy that so many comedians get away with 9/11 jokes in their sets still...(Jeselnek, Glaser, etc.)

 

I don't feel like he was censored though. He said his offensive stuff, people were made aware of it, and the market decided for themselves. He seems bitter that the public was as (in my opinion, rightfully) offended as they were, and it's hurt his business.

He can make it about "punk" or "politically correct" culture all he wants, but ultimately he's just being held to account by the market, which is unsurprising because you can't get away with saying stupid and insensitive things publicly anymore when you won't just offend people in the audience, but everyone who can then watch it back from anywhere else on earth.

 

Read the whole thing. Not all of it was "cringe". I don't think hes a bad person or an enemy in my eyes. Anything he says, well, it's a joke. His intent isnt malicious and hes usually making a point (a point I'm sure most of us would agree on).

At this point it is punk rock of him to keep going and not being afraid to say these things.

Stuff about his mom and ex was sad.

Oh the only shitty thing I definitely didnt like was the fact he was gloating at exploiting his backlash for money etc...and hes dead wrong thinking foxnews is the enemy here.

 

I feel like "his intent isn't malicious" stops being something we can pretend is true (or rather, something that matters) when he's told that he's causing pain and his response is "you're all too pc, so I'm now going to do something even worse". If that isn't indicative of poor intent, then the word stops meaning anything imo. And anyway, there's intent and then there's impact. People with good intentions tend to stop it when they find out their impact was this negative.

(Intent vs. impact: If you run someone over on accident and they die, it might change your prison sentence but it doesn't make them any less dead. Someone with good intentions would be distraught over the damage. Someone without good intentions might say "I'm gonna go run over a few more now because screw you guys".)

I agree. That's exactly what this public backlash IS - the market responding. The dude's being given interviews, he isn't being censored.

 

But I don't agree with that analogy. When I say intent, I mean, what's this guys personal stance on this issue and what's his background when it comes to this stuff... oh, hes anti racist, anti gun, pro human rights, pro gay rights, pro animal rights... okay this guys got the right ideas, hes actually just trying to make jokes, let's move on.

And actually circling back to your analogy, that's actually a good point. In criminal proceedings, a persons background is very relevant (in ratio to what he did). So to me, everything I know about fat Mike, his past... it doesnt make me think hes a shit person because he doesnt want to censor himself on stage.

 

Hey, feel how you feel. I'm just saying: someone's background offers a reason for why things happen, not an excuse for it. He's responsible for the pain he's causing, and doubling down on that is a shitty thing to do. I don't like to mince words about "good" or "bad" people because I guarantee someone would've insisted Hitler was actually a really good guy once you got to know him. (No, I'm not saying Mike is Hitler. Nor am I saying he's a "bad" person. I'm just saying you can take the worst kind of person and still find someone who thinks they're good. Good and bad are useless terms when it comes to describing people for that exact reason.) I look at people's actions, and how they respond when they're made aware of the impact of their actions. At the end of the day, that's all we are.

And right now, he's choosing to be a petulant child. He could choose to be loud about all those things you say he believes (I'm not saying he doesn't, just that I'm not going to research it.), but instead he chooses to continue down a path that he knows causes pain to people already hurting. That's all I've got.

 

That's just it - he can say it was all a joke not intended to offend people, but once you realize you have offended people (he probably should have anticipated it before saying it in the first place, but still), if you really cared you would apologize and try to move things along, not defend it and double down by criticizing people for feeling the way they do about the things said.

 

Jesus Christ, shut the actual fuck up.

 

I did, so blocked.

 

The irony here is that "shock humor" proponents are always so damn sensitive to being criticized for it. They think being told "hey that wasn't funny and I don't want to support it" is the same as censorship.

 

I can't BELIEVE you all think this that's so fucked up!!!

"No one thinks that"

I'm OUT stop being hostile to me I didn't even do anything!!!