187 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

I'm on the stance that jokes that touch on rape do not diminishes or belittles rape.

Nor do I think it's the "worst thing ever" and needs to be some golden taboo.

 

The worse society treats it, the worse the victim is going to take it too.

[ME_Fan]

Sexist jokes are okay.

 

So long as they are just jokes/ tongue in cheek. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Profanity by youth and teens is much worse than any kind of joke. Words like fack, motherfa..., ashol etc.

 

Please don't report this comment. It's just a complaint.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Any that are physically or emotionally(like ****** with someone who's already fucked up emotionally and you're ****** with them to get them to kill themselves, or something like that)  abusive are going too far imo.

And, I've seen a man blow his brains out before and it didn't phase Me, but if I see something about rape and what have you, it bothers the **** out of Me for like a month. So I also think that too in the sense you should be mindful of how fucked up that is.

I largely believe you should be able to say what ever you like so long as it isn't treating **** or what have you. Just be mindful when making ****** jokes.  

 

Hypothesis: Like a Joke being told about Armenians right after WW1 (told in that era)?

[Abraham_uk]

The squabbling is over?

We're finally back to discussion?

No more public rows?

 

Phew.

 

 

Okay to any comedian who says comedy should not have limits.

I have the following questions.

 

1. Is bullying an acceptable form of comedy?
2. Are minstrel shows acceptable?
3. Should all forms of comedy be allowed to be performed in any place at all situations?
4. Is laughing at someone being attacked as the attack is happening acceptable?

If these comedians say answer no to any of these questions, then they too are of the opinion that comedy should have limits.

Most of us would say no to all 4 including the risqué comedians such as Frankie Boyle and George Carlin.

I think it is a worrying thing to say that there should be no limitations on comedy.

However if the discussion is about where the line should be drawn, then well none of us can agree.

That is why this issue regarding comedy keeps getting discussed, because there is no clear cut answer that will satisfy everyone.

[Abraham_uk]

This video might shock you.

 

 

[Wulfram]

I find it interesting how widely acceptable jokes about Ebola seem to be

[Abraham_uk]

I think if a comedy show is offensive, then there should be an indication that it will be so.

 

It doesn't have to be a disclaimer even.

You don't have to say "WARNING. Some may find this act highly offensive."

 

 

You could have a poster and have a description of the event that says

 

"Offensively funny!"

or "Outrageous!"

"Who needs political correctness?"

 

Words such as that will make it very clear that the comedy act is going to be offensive.

This is without a disclaimer.

 

 

Want to communicate that the event will be offensive without any words? Easy.

The poster could show the comedian pulling a funny face and members of the audience looking shocked.

 

This tells the person inspecting the poster that the event will have jokes that may offend.

 

 

Either way, I feel if you are going to tell certain types of jokes, then it must be signposted.

If it is signposted and audiences come only to be offended, then it's no longer the comedian's fault. The spectators were warned.

[Cheech 2.0]

I understand the need for humour I do, but like I said earlier rape is off limits for me. When it happens to someone you know, and the alcohol/drug addiction that follows, the self destruction that eventually leads to suicide, and the motherless child left behind the notion of thinking that is remotely joke worthy is just taboo to me. Things aren't all that funny when you've had to live through them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

1. Is bullying an acceptable form of comedy?
2. Are minstrel shows acceptable?
3. Should all forms of comedy be allowed to be performed in any place at all situations?
4. Is laughing at someone being attacked as the attack is happening acceptable?

 

How is that a joke?

 

People can sometimes find the misfortune of another funny (schadenfreude), but an attack isn't a joke.
 

[Abraham_uk]

How is that a joke?

 

People can sometimes find the misfortune of another funny (schadenfreude), but an attack isn't a joke.
 

 

To some very sick and twisted people it is.

You stare humanity in the face and you'll realise that anything can be a joke.

It's just wide eyed optimism to assume that misfortune cannot be viewed as funny.

 

There is a side to humanity that takes great joy in inflicting harm on others.

Suffice to say, this kind of behaviour is something we simply cannot relate too.

It is a monstrosity that should be purged from our planet.

 

Comedy is beyond the limitations that society imposes upon it.

In extreme cases it manifests in acts of pure unadulterated evil.

I know evil is a loaded term, but sometimes comedy can be outright evil.

That is why in my opinion there should be some reasonable restrictions on comedy.

 

It is comforting that you do not place those vile actions under the banner of comedy.

Sadly nasty people will keep the umbrella as wide as possible making all ravenous acts of maleficence fair game.

[Nukekitten]

Comedy is beyond the limitations that society imposes upon it.
In extreme cases it manifests in acts of pure unadulterated evil.
I know evil is a loaded term, but sometimes comedy can be outright evil.
That is why in my opinion there should be some reasonable restrictions on comedy.

Uhm, I kinda don't agree with the first premise there - and feel like we may be coming at this from different ideas of what comedy is. To me, comedy and acts are different things. Comedy is the (often controlled) interpretation of an act. But the act itself has a character, and often that character is unaltered by the fact that it's used for comedic effect.

Stand up comedians have, as their stock in trade, speech, and that's an act that has no inherent character - though specific speech acts to specific audiences may take on one based on intent and the likely interpretations of the audience. But as you stray away from speech into things like assault and bullying, the character of the acts is not altered by the fact that presented in a certain way some people find them comedic.

The acts you described may be funny to some people. However, the acts of themselves are mean whether or not they're funny to people. It doesn't matter if it was comedy or not, if you assault someone you've frickin' assaulted someone! And you ought to bear all the usual consequences of doing so.

Comedy's not a defence unless you're a very small child who doesn't understand that 'I was just joking!' means nothing more or less than, 'Sorry, I failed to communicate clearly - having misjudged the effect that my speech would have in this audience as compared to my intent.' and serves as an excuse only to the degree that the longer version of it does. It's meaningless to make that sort of defence when you've just beaten or bullied someone.

[mybudgee]

Breast cancer is off limits no matter what

[SwobyJ]

Breast cancer is off limits no matter what

 

Well, I've heard breast cancer survivors prove you wrong - some have certainly joked about it.

[Cassandra Saturn]

some jokes being said toward deaf people are very wrong and is offensive to me in many ways because we are the half side of our country that are deaf.

[The Poster]

Depends on the context and the audience, really. Your co-workers will find your black joke a lot funnier than a room full of black people. If you tell the wrong joke to the wrong type of people, then you should be prepared for people to be pissed.

[Melra]

There's time and place for any kind of joke. I've never been one to care, if someone gets offended by a joke whether it is a friend or a stranger. After living a certain kind of life and going through certain kind of things, some simply develop a special sense of humor that helps them deal with things in life.

[Cknarf]

There's two ways to respond to a joke.  Either laugh, or don't.

[Abraham_uk]

Uhm, I kinda don't agree with the first premise there - and feel like we may be coming at this from different ideas of what comedy is. To me, comedy and acts are different things. Comedy is the (often controlled) interpretation of an act. But the act itself has a character, and often that character is unaltered by the fact that it's used for comedic effect.

Stand up comedians have, as their stock in trade, speech, and that's an act that has no inherent character - though specific speech acts to specific audiences may take on one based on intent and the likely interpretations of the audience. But as you stray away from speech into things like assault and bullying, the character of the acts is not altered by the fact that presented in a certain way some people find them comedic.

The acts you described may be funny to some people. However, the acts of themselves are mean whether or not they're funny to people. It doesn't matter if it was comedy or not, if you assault someone you've frickin' assaulted someone! And you ought to bear all the usual consequences of doing so.

Comedy's not a defence unless you're a very small child who doesn't understand that 'I was just joking!' means nothing more or less than, 'Sorry, I failed to communicate clearly - having misjudged the effect that my speech would have in this audience as compared to my intent.' and serves as an excuse only to the degree that the longer version of it does. It's meaningless to make that sort of defence when you've just beaten or bullied someone.

 

 

Some actions done in the name of comedy are so unacceptable that we adamantly refuse to put them under the umbrella of comedy.

I do agree with you when you say that nasty individuals that perform these horrendous acts deserve to be punished by the law!

 

I am also not advocating using "comedy" as a defence.

That is like using "love" as a defence. Sure people do horrendous deeds in the name of love, but they too must suffer the consequences.

 

My definition of comedy is anything that potentially invokes laughter.

I don't restrict the definition of comedy. I restrict what comedy is acceptable. Beating someone up in the name of comedy is not acceptable at all.

[Nukekitten]

Some actions done in the name of comedy are so unacceptable that we adamantly refuse to put them under the umbrella of comedy.

I do agree with you when you say that nasty individuals that perform these horrendous acts deserve to be punished by the law!

 

I am also not advocating using "comedy" as a defence.

That is like using "love" as a defence. Sure people do horrendous deeds in the name of love, but they too must suffer the consequences.

 

My definition of comedy is anything that potentially invokes laughter.

I don't restrict the definition of comedy. I restrict what comedy is acceptable. Beating someone up in the name of comedy is not acceptable at all.

 

Uhm, I'm not sure what you're talking about any more when you say comedy then. *chews her lip* :/

 

Anything might be funny to someone under the right conditions. To say that comedy is simply anything that might invoke laughter, seems to me to say that comedy is everything.

 

The act of definition seems inherently restrictive: When you start off you could be referring to anything, but you point to a thing and say "that thing" and point to some other similar things and say "and not that, that and that," or you list a sequence of properties that would only apply to the thing of all possible things – and that seems to be how people know you are talking about one thing, or group of things, as compared to any other thing.

 

It also seems to be the reason that few definitions, as used in day to day life, are entirely exact. Because we haven't gone through a rigorous process of definning them in the same way that we might for molecules, mathematical concepts and the like.

[Abraham_uk]

@Nukekitten. Yeah you make a fair point.

 

Perhaps I was a little overzealous with the definition.

I guess by invaliding certain behaviour as comedy, we limit the validity of people using "comedy" an excuse. 

 

 

But isn't it interesting that we can't even agree on what should constitute comedy and what shouldn't?

You said yourself that few definitions that we use in daily life are entirely exact.

 

I genuinely see jokes as this large grey area where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable are blurred.

 

 

We can all agree that bullying for example is flat out wrong and should be punished.

But where do you draw the line between banter and bullying?

 

So often people use "banter" as an excuse.

How does one determine when this excuse holds water and when it doesn't?

 

Obviously beating someone is inexcusable. This is not a grey area. It's immoral and illegal!

However, quite often it's the jokey remarks that we say to one another that lie in the blurred area.