What you do about any particular instance will obviously depend on the situation. Some things are worth speaking up about. Some things are worth making non-verbal indications that their joke is bombing. Some just deserve to be ignored. You don’t want to be this guy.
I don’t? If the expected social improvement exceeds my personal cost (taking into account my opportunity cost), why shouldn’t I act? Taking that xkcd to mean what you assert suggests you think all social advocacy is wasted.
More generally, the blogger I linked is complaining that the joke didn’t bomb and generally doesn’t bomb.
If the expected social improvement exceeds my personal cost (taking into account my opportunity cost), why shouldn’t I act?
You have just defined the set of cases in which you should. Deciding when you are looking at such a case and what to do about it is the non-trivial part.
I was just saying that seeing something objectionable, and deciding whether and how to object to it, are two separate things. I do find “jokes” like the one in the original article objectionable, but if I was present at Rowdy telling this joke about the dog, I don’t know how best to tackle it, even having the leisure of taking as long as I want to consider the hypothetical, let alone face-to-face with about one second in real time to get my brain in gear. But that’s just me.
Or to put it another way, my short answer to your question:
So you endorse calling them on it, ceteris paribus?
What you do about any particular instance will obviously depend on the situation. Some things are worth speaking up about. Some things are worth making non-verbal indications that their joke is bombing. Some just deserve to be ignored. You don’t want to be this guy.
I don’t? If the expected social improvement exceeds my personal cost (taking into account my opportunity cost), why shouldn’t I act? Taking that xkcd to mean what you assert suggests you think all social advocacy is wasted.
More generally, the blogger I linked is complaining that the joke didn’t bomb and generally doesn’t bomb.
You have just defined the set of cases in which you should. Deciding when you are looking at such a case and what to do about it is the non-trivial part.
I’ve all but explicitly been asserting that this is a time to act.
You seem to agree there is a problem (Jokes are statements of true belief / in vino veritas), yet you seem to disagree that taking action is a good idea.
I obviously misunderstand your position in some way.
I was just saying that seeing something objectionable, and deciding whether and how to object to it, are two separate things. I do find “jokes” like the one in the original article objectionable, but if I was present at Rowdy telling this joke about the dog, I don’t know how best to tackle it, even having the leisure of taking as long as I want to consider the hypothetical, let alone face-to-face with about one second in real time to get my brain in gear. But that’s just me.
Or to put it another way, my short answer to your question:
is “yes”.