Humor seems to get put on a pedestal as something sacred that should not be touched.
Humor is just a form of speech. Speech is subject to legal limits. "Free speech" is a check on the government's ability to censor the free expression of ideas; it doesn't mean you should be free from criticism of what you say.
Humor is held in this holy regard as some special kind of speech. The same is done with music where people claim it's some it's has some elevated importance and any criticism of their songs is like an attack on civil rights.
The same for cinema where directors melt down when the public doesn't like what's portrayed in their films. Or the pretentious art world where paintings, performance art, etc., are supposed to be spiritual experiences.
Let me be clear: I don't get offended easily, especially when it comes to jokes. I love Jim Jeffries, I've enjoyed watching Andrew Dice Clay on YouTube, I was a huge Beavis and Butthead fan, and I've laughed my ass off watching South Park. I thought Lisa Lampanelli's standup was pretty fun to watch.
That said, I can understand why people would have a problem with them. I don't always agree with people who criticize them; in fact, I usually don't, and I think people are just too sensitive. However: when it comes to mocking people based on traits there were born with (like mocking race, sexual preference, etc.), I think how that group feels about such jokes is important and should be listened to. Just because I'm not offended doesn't mean we should ignore the concerns of the group being mocked.
For example, the Apu character in the Simpsons; While I never found the character offensive, what matters is what the group represented by that character feels. I don't always agree with such groups (like when trans groups attacked Dave Chappelle), but their concerns are important.
Someone on RHP was once upset at me using "cracker". Personally, I didn't think I used it in a way that denigrated whites; it was more of an over-the-top insult at a particular poster. While I wanted to tick that poster off, was being facetious. But that person made it clear he was upset. So, for a while, I stopped using it completely, only using such terms once in the last year.
Whether I disagree with a group being offended at jokes made at them or not, ultimately, people's humanity matter more than jokes.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
@vivify saidexplain why you feel it is ok to insult one race but certain words are taboo for another race
Humor seems to get put on a pedestal as something sacred that should not be touched.
Humor is just a form of speech. Speech is subject to legal limits. "Free speech" is a check on the government's ability to censor the free expression of ideas; it doesn't mean you should be free from criticism of what you say.
Humor is held in this holy regard as some special kind ...[text shortened]... p being offended at jokes made at them or not, ultimately, people's humanity matter more than jokes.
@mott-the-hoople saidBecause one of the words is heavily associated with the crime against humanity otherwise known as slavery and the other one isn’t?
explain why you feel it is ok to insult one race but certain words are taboo for another race
I can’t speak for vivify but that’s my opinion on the difference
@mott-the-hoople saidSee Kevin's explanation.
explain why you feel it is ok to insult one race but certain words are taboo for another race
Also, I started using the words after watching other whites on this site use it, like Shav or Suzianne. They've used it to refer to the conserves on this site (Suzianne has used "redneck", Shav has used "cracker" ). Since no one objected to the context they used the words in, I figured it was fine.
But again, most whites don't really seem bothered by it. Even so, I still stopped using such words (until very recently) when someone indicated they were bothered by it.
@vivify saidPeople are entitled to get offended as much as they like, but the question is whether speech should be regulated because it offends people. I say no. Obviously there are exceptions (businesses serving customers, etc.) But if some comedian insults me, that's my problem to deal with and for the state to silence the comedian is antithetical to freedom of speech.
Humor seems to get put on a pedestal as something sacred that should not be touched.
Humor is just a form of speech. Speech is subject to legal limits. "Free speech" is a check on the government's ability to censor the free expression of ideas; it doesn't mean you should be free from criticism of what you say.
Humor is held in this holy regard as some special kind ...[text shortened]... p being offended at jokes made at them or not, ultimately, people's humanity matter more than jokes.
It doesn't have to be sacred. It's just none of the government's damn business.
@sh76 saidI completely agree that it should *not* be regulated, as long as we're talking about adults. Obviously where children are involved, there should be some regulation, (within reason).
the question is whether speech should be regulated because it offends people.
While I agree that everyone has a social responsibility to maintain a general level of respect, no form of speech should be regulated, provided that it doesn't incite harm or slander others. But we must agree that getting banned from Twitter or getting your TV show cancelled for something offensive does not count as being "regulated".
@vivify saidThat’s where a lot of people seem to get confused. We have a right to free speech but We also have the right to try to avoid hearing speech that offends us and likewise any platform has the right to not promulgate that speech by allowing it on their platform.
I completely agree that it should *not* be regulated, as long as we're talking about adults. Obviously where children are involved, there should be some regulation, (within reason).
While I agree that everyone has a social responsibility to maintain a general level of respect, no form of speech should be regulated, provided that it doesn't incite harm or slander others. ...[text shortened]... itter or getting your TV show cancelled for something offensive does not count as being "regulated".
Free speech can only be impeded by federal or state governments everything else is people exercising their right to not hear or read any given speech
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@vivify saidYeah, it's all got to be politically correct....
Humor seems to get put on a pedestal as something sacred that should not be touched.
Humor is just a form of speech. Speech is subject to legal limits. "Free speech" is a check on the government's ability to censor the free expression of ideas; it doesn't mean you should be free from criticism of what you say.
Humor is held in this holy regard as some special kind ...[text shortened]... p being offended at jokes made at them or not, ultimately, people's humanity matter more than jokes.
Manholes are now people holes./
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@vivify saidSarcasm certainly has it's place.
A great bit from the great George Carlin.
It doesn't have to be politically correct (Carlin wasn't). The issue is that people automatically expect humor to have no consequences.
.....You recognized my Carlin plagiarism,
my favorite was 'The Hippy-Dippy Weatherman.'
@mott-the-hoople saidDo you need yet *another* history lesson, Mr. Sweet-Home-Alabama?
explain why you feel it is ok to insult one race but certain words are taboo for another race
Humor or comedians?
There’s a difference.
The court jester’s role was that he could say things to the king that others could not. He had to say it with wit, but it was criticism all the same.
That, today, can be projected onto comedians as their role. And it is essential to hold authority, in all its ugly forms, to account. That means racists and anti-racists alike. It also means the moral high-ground being challenged.
And in that role there cannot be “untouchable subjects”.
It’s the whole point.
Humor in general, as I pointed out in another thread, has the same role as a comedian, but there are subtle differences.
There’s nothing wrong with a racist joke, so long as it’s not meant as racist propaganda.
Using stereotypes in story telling or humor is cutting corners. If everyone knows that Scots are “conservative with their spending”, then it’s simpler to use that as a basis, rather than wasting time explaining.
If people are using the absurdity of “all Scots are stingy” to actually sell an anti-Scottish message, then suddenly it’s something else altogether.
So, Jimmy Carr joking about stingy Scots at the expense of the Scottish first minister is perfectly fine.
Boris Johnson doing the same during a debate on Scottish independence… not quite so…
And generally, when actually speaking with people, you get the subtle difference.
Online it’s harder. You only have words to make that judgement call.
An example:
At work, there is, at the moment. no group more worthy of scorn than the woke, pro-vegan, anti-car activists.
However, I have two extreme right-wingers in my team (Dutch people in love with Fox news and Donald Trump and the Dutch equivellants) and their anti-wokeness, mingled with pro-Jordan Peterson and anti-vax viewpoints, and their subtle racism wrapped in other terms, make any joke about wokeism a political statement, meant to undermine certain groups deliberately.
And that makes it unacceptable.
And, personally, I hate them for that. It means, in my role, I can’t be as sarcastic as I want to be, because they’ve tainted it with their own ugly brand political activism… which they of course don’t see as activism at all…
Ugh.
Snowflake, right-wing crackers. They should all be gassed.
Ohhhhhh… too soon?