worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
No, it functions on a meta level aswell where it points to the absurdity of assuming a ds kid would type that. Because it's a more absurd notion that that could be a text then thinking it's absurd that humans come in all different types, as we all know.magma wrote:Again, what the fuck is wrong with being holy? Is it really unacceptable to try and be a nice person and not ignorantly spread bigotry in the name of the lulz?I like some of the opinion behind putting it like that, but you are both taking the holy route here.
Incidentally, I wouldn't say you've often (if ever) been guilty of what I'm describing. You have my utmost respect for your contributions, funny or otherwise.Holy means pointing fingers alot aswell right? in that sence.. but you know funny people spread the form of absurd bigotry that points back to how absurd all of it is - that plane is more important than that someone could get offended. Because the principle of stirring up shit works like a charm.
right back at you m8Hi, my name's Simon and I struggle with the funnies. Honestly, I do. I love humour and I love trying to make jokes, but I'm not very good at it and I fail to spot when others are trying all the time. I've never once considered becoming a comedian. I lost count of the amount of serious conversations I've tried to have here when it's transpired that someone was just in it for the lolz (See the conversation with wub a few weeks ago where he was joking about being Jewish to derail my conversation about folk music). It's one of the more disappointing experiences this place offers on a regular basis and it's one of the main reasons I toy with leaving for good.Maybe you are right about there being intelligent but non-funny people out there I haven't met any, but intelligence is a requisite for humour in either getting a joke or in being able to hit people with one.
I love gallows humour when it's witty, but I absolutely can't stand the sort of primary school, point-and-laugh humour that I often get confronted with when trying to dig deeply into what I consider a subject worthy of sensible conversation.I really didn't understand what happened there - super weird to me
Imo they've confronted themselves with it - you might have been a subject in there, but you hold the truth and this isn't really socializing..Then it contains wit and is as a joke - it's all about target and subject. If a joke that seems 'racist' on the surface's target is actually the racist, rather than the race, then have at it - jokes can be made on any subject, absolutely. I've got no problem with any of the lines written for Alf Garnet or Uncle Ruckus, for example because they're satirising racism, not glorifying it with humour.at facelevel maybe but not in reality or in actuality. The tragic nature of something can be heartwarming in the way it forces you to relate and then become absurd to the point where you can only laugh at it.For instance, posting a picture of a person with Downs Syndrome using a computer in a "Funny Pictures Thread" should lead to instant social isolation.
That's not to say that racist jokes can't be funny either. They can. But rape is also pleasurable for one side of the transaction and I don't condone that either.
What I'm referring to was fairly nicely illustrated with the Downs Syndrome picture posted today. The only "humour" in there is that it's hilarious to think that people with Downs Syndrome must be shit with computers. That's not clever wit, it's just offensive bigotry.
Anyway, entertaining the idea of hell like that is not very nice either, but that one lost it's sting so let's hope it all gets watered down...Then why are people replying "I'm going to hell" for laughing at it? They clearly know they're laughing at something they shouldn't rather than any misconception. You don't go to hell for laughing at people who discriminate against the disabled, you only go for laughing at the disabled.
If you take out the religious connotations, holy just means good. Well intentioned. Without moral fault... it doesn't really imply any judgement of others. (After all, if you're truly holy, God is the only judge)Holy means pointing fingers alot aswell right? in that sence.. but you know funny people spread the form of absurd bigotry that points back to how absurd all of it is - that plane is more important than that someone could get offended. Because the principle of stirring up shit works like a charm.
I'd consider "pious" or "sanctimonious" to be more in line with what you're describing.Holy - religious and morally good
I'm not a religious person in the slightest, but if anyone described me as holy I'd honestly consider it one of the biggest compliments I could receive. I spend a lot of my life trying to make sure I'm nice to people and that I'm acting in a morally good way... meet me out and I'll smile for the whole night, give you cuddles and share whatever I have with you - I consider inclusivity, acceptance and tolerance to be the touchpoints of modern holiness and I honestly don't understand why being holy would be considered a negative trait to anyone that isn't being at least a little bit immoral. Even looking at humour, most of the funniest people I can think of often seem to have been the "nicest"... even those joking about difficult, riské or arguably "down right offensive" subjects, their intentions are usually clear. That's the difference between genuinely clever gallows humour and cheap laughs. Anyone can make a joke about a disability - abnormality is inherently funny to us, but only the talented few can do it without being offensive towards people with disability... and in a modern, supposedly progressive society, I honestly don't think the "point and laugh" style of comedy does us any favours. Even if it doesn't actively perpetuate discrimination (actually, I think it does), it does nothing to get rid of it.Pious - characterized by a hypocritical concern with virtue or religious devotion; sanctimonious.
Not sure I've quite got the implication here, but are you saying that, for example, kruptah posted the Downs Syndrome picture to take the piss out of himself ? If that's true, then I stand entirely corrected, but I don't really think it is true. I think it was a knowingly guilty laugh about the idea of someone with Downs Syndrome using a computer. If you knowingly feel guilt doing something, you probably shouldn't be doing it. That's what guilt is!Imo they've confronted themselves with it - you might have been a subject in there, but you hold the truth and this isn't really socializing..
What are racist jokes?scspkr99 wrote:So racist jokes are alright if you reckon your audience is racist?faultier wrote:political correctness at its worse imo (only read the last few posts, mind)
slippery slope when you start deciding there are things no one is allowed to joke about
one can and should be authorized to joke about anything, just know your audience imo
I agree with you with regard to that clip so I'm going to cede that it's possible to tell jokes using stereotypes without being offensive. But this doesn't fail to be offensive because of the audience it fails to be offensive because of his skill and the context. The stereotypes he uses aren't those stereotypes that are used too discriminate, if his joke had been about his jewish girlfriend's love of money then it is much more likely to be offensive.faultier wrote: white comedian: check
stereotypes about women: check
stereotypes about jews: check
stereotypes about irish people: check
i find it funny though, and really don't think the guy is either misogynistic or antisemitic or racist
This is somewhat tautological, if no one in the audience finds it offensive it's not offensive. My original question that a racist telling racist jokes to a racist audience isn't offensive remains, if it is a merely a matter of who the audience is it says nothing about whether someone should could or would reasonably take offence.one can and should be authorized to joke about anything, just know your audience imo
http://www.sickipedia.org/search?q=Bernard%20Manningrickyarbino wrote: What are racist jokes?
What if he had a jewish girlfriend who genuinely loved money and the joke was about her? Would it still be offensive?scspkr99 wrote:I agree with you with regard to that clip so I'm going to cede that it's possible to tell jokes using stereotypes without being offensive. But this doesn't fail to be offensive because of the audience it fails to be offensive because of his skill and the context. The stereotypes he uses aren't those stereotypes that are used too discriminate, if his joke had been about his jewish girlfriend's love of money then it is much more likely to be offensive.faultier wrote: white comedian: check
stereotypes about women: check
stereotypes about jews: check
stereotypes about irish people: check
i find it funny though, and really don't think the guy is either misogynistic or antisemitic or racist
That I agree with you over this doesn't mean I'm going to agree with the comment I initially questioned
This is somewhat tautological, if no one in the audience finds it offensive it's not offensive. My original question that a racist telling racist jokes to a racist audience isn't offensive remains, if it is a merely a matter of who the audience is it says nothing about whether someone should could or would reasonably take offence.one can and should be authorized to joke about anything, just know your audience imo
We wouldn't know that his girlfriend genuinely loved money and as I said if it was about his Jewish girlfriends love of money I am much more likely to find it offensive.rickyarbino wrote: What if he had a jewish girlfriend who genuinely loved money and the joke was about her? Would it still be offensive?
Not sure I've quite got the implication here, but are you saying that, for example, kruptah posted the Downs Syndrome picture to take the piss out of himself ? If that's true, then I stand entirely corrected, but I don't really think it is true.magma wrote:If you take out the religious connotations, holy just means good. Well intentioned. Without moral fault... it doesn't really imply any judgement of others. (After all, if you're truly holy, God is the only judge)Holy means pointing fingers alot aswell right? in that sence.. but you know funny people spread the form of absurd bigotry that points back to how absurd all of it is - that plane is more important than that someone could get offended. Because the principle of stirring up shit works like a charm.
I'd consider "pious" or "sanctimonious" to be more in line with what you're describing.Holy - religious and morally good
Sure. I agree with all your saying about the definition, but when people use holy they probably mean holier than thou.. less important anyway..
I'm not a religious person in the slightest, but if anyone described me as holy I'd honestly consider it one of the biggest compliments I could receive. I spend a lot of my life trying to make sure I'm nice to people and that I'm acting in a morally good way... meet me out and I'll smile for the whole night, give you cuddles and share whatever I have with you - I consider inclusivity, acceptance and tolerance to be the touchpoints of modern holiness and I honestly don't understand why being holy would be considered a negative trait to anyone that isn't being at least a little bit immoral. Even looking at humour, most of the funniest people I can think of often seem to have been the "nicest"... even those joking about difficult, riské or arguably "down right offensive" subjects, their intentions are usually clear. That's the difference between genuinely clever gallows humour and cheap laughs. Anyone can make a joke about a disability - abnormality is inherently funny to us, but only the talented few can do it without being offensive towards people with disability... and in a modern, supposedly progressive society, I honestly don't think the "point and laugh" style of comedy does us any favours. Even if it doesn't actively perpetuate discrimination (actually, I think it does), it does nothing to get rid of it.Pious - characterized by a hypocritical concern with virtue or religious devotion; sanctimonious.
Imo they've confronted themselves with it - you might have been a subject in there, but you hold the truth and this isn't really socializing..
I'll explain this to you as clearly as I can, if his routine included a joke about his girlfriends love of money and he related this to her jewishness then I may (note the may here) consider it offensive if it panders to the stereotypes of jewish people loving or coveting money. Comedians are bound to use generalisations in order to get a laugh, there has to be something that the audience can relate to, these generalisations may or may not be offensive. If the generalisation is at the expense of some group that is a target for bigotry and reinforces some negative stereotype about that group then it is more likely to than if it plays on what is a reasonably positive generalisation.rickyarbino wrote:Why would that be offensive? She is a person who happens to be both jewish and monogamously involved involved with a person who happens to be white. All you really know is this, yet you still find it racially offensive? There's no reason to draw that conclusion here, you're guessing at best, but imo you're rationalizing this because you're racist.
I dont really care if ^m8 reads this or not.If the generalisation is at the expense of some group that is a target for bigotry and reinforces some negative stereotype about that group then it is more likely to than if it plays on what is a reasonably positive generalisation.
You're only saying it's racist because he's not jewish. There's your racism.scspkr99 wrote:I'll explain this to you as clearly as I can, if his routine included a joke about his girlfriends love of money and he related this to her jewishness then I may (note the may here) consider it offensive if it panders to the stereotypes of jewish people loving or coveting money. Comedians are bound to use generalisations in order to get a laugh, there has to be something that the audience can relate to, these generalisations may or may not be offensive. If the generalisation is at the expense of some group that is a target for bigotry and reinforces some negative stereotype about that group then it is more likely to than if it plays on what is a reasonably positive generalisation.rickyarbino wrote:Why would that be offensive? She is a person who happens to be both jewish and monogamously involved involved with a person who happens to be white. All you really know is this, yet you still find it racially offensive? There's no reason to draw that conclusion here, you're guessing at best, but imo you're rationalizing this because you're racist.
How that makes me a racist I will leave you to decide.
Where have I said anything is racist? I've said it's offensive, the people using racist are you and that other idiot hubb.rickyarbino wrote: You're only saying it's racist because he's not jewish. There's your racism.