Dubstepforum.com

I haven't said you've implied anything. You called me a racist because I said I might consider offensive a joke about a Jewish girlfriend's love of money.

Yes, because the joke is only offensive because of the joker's whiteness.
I still don't get how Chris Rock applies?

bro, I'm the first idiot

jrkhnds wrote:fuck I hope I get a lesbian baby girl with my current girlfriend at some point

female, gay, black (okay mixed, but w/e), jewish. Just imagine: she'd be one of the last persons on earth who could joke about everything.

she'd rule the earth. wow.

heh my point is a bit subtler than saying people who don't belong to some group can't make jokes about it but the alternative to what is a pretty qualified position is to suggest that a comedian has no ethical responsibilities and I don't think this is correct. We all have ethical responsibilities whether we wish to consider them relevant or not.

A comedian has the ethical responsibility to say stuff in jokes that other people can't say in conversation

rickyarbino wrote: I still don't get how Chris Rock applies?

It's because you are a nice guy and can't imagine that m8 wants there to be seperate conditions for black people....

rickyarbino wrote:Yes, because the joke is only offensive because of the joker's whiteness.
I still don't get how Chris Rock applies?

Firstly it's not his whiteness it's his lack of Jewishness that's appropriate. Chris Rock telling a joke about black people is less likely to be offensive than some white comic telling a joke about black people just as some Jewish comic making a joke about Jews is less likely to be offensive than a non Jew.

This also doesn't mean I would find the joke offensive I said I'd be more likely to.

Actually, I think I see where you're coming from. In that case yes, I'd like to think Chris Rock's material would still be as funny if a white person had written it, after all if his jokes weren't any good then it wouldn't do much good to have a white person say it.

Point being, you shouldn't say that people can't make certain jokes because of skin colour, even Chris Rock talks about white people.

I laugh at South Park but I think everyone gets fingered in South Park pretty well, actually maybe white people get the piss taken out of them most but I haven't counted. The point is that's so ridiculous it's no longer realistic. However, I know some people who take serious offence to it, like my one of my muslim mates in Leeds just couldn't understand how it was funny to portray people like that.

Speaking of portrayals of cultures etc those Danish cartoons were too far imo

scspkr99 wrote:non Jew.

the correct word is gentile

One merely means the other, given the difficulty I was having explaining a pretty straightforward idea I thought I'd keep it simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile

Gentile (from Latin gentilis, by the French "gentil", feminine: "gentille", meaning of or belonging to a clan or tribe) is an ethnonym that commonly means non-Jew.[1] Other groups that claim Israelite heritage sometimes use the term to describe outsiders.[2]

But whichever you prefer I don't really mind either way.

test_recordings wrote:I laugh at South Park but I think everyone gets fingered in South Park pretty well, actually maybe white people get the piss taken out of them most but I haven't counted. The point is that's so ridiculous it's no longer realistic. However, I know some people who take serious offence to it, like my one of my muslim mates in Leeds just couldn't understand how it was funny to portray people like that.

Speaking of portrayals of cultures etc those Danish cartoons were too far imo

I'm danish and yeah.. they where terrible and institutionally racist. And has been a big part of a resurging racism/ intolerance to muslim over here.

What, the muhammad cartoons?

Obviously it's pretty fuckin childish but the madness those caused can't be put on the cartoonists/newspapers even though they were trying to intentionally rustle some jimmies imo

No it really could.

It was designated racism covered up with free speech nonsence, getting the minister of state (prime basicaly) to go out and give an official position (that however you spin it, would agree with or mirror the american neo con version of what muslims are about).

It could only go one way, and there was no reason to go that length for something as abstract as freedom of speech in this context.

Straight up Netanyahu bizz

Harkat wrote:What, the muhammad cartoons?

Obviously it's pretty fuckin childish but the madness those caused can't be put on the cartoonists/newspapers even though they were trying to intentionally rustle some jimmies imo

How couldn't it if they were acting intentionally?

Innit, they deliberately made out that Islam has a visible deity and that it encourages suicide bombing.

Great. Go back to bacon, swines.

magma wrote:...our generation's apparent obsession with being funny. This Internet generation seemingly prizes making people laugh above almost anything and so people who don't actually have much talent for humour can only really get involved socially in places like this by repeating tried and tested jokes and tropes that are guaranteed to get a little snigger.

this is so true.

DrGatineau wrote:

magma wrote:...our generation's apparent obsession with being funny. This Internet generation seemingly prizes making people laugh above almost anything and so people who don't actually have much talent for humour can only really get involved socially in places like this by repeating tried and tested jokes and tropes that are guaranteed to get a little snigger.

this is so true.

no idea what he's on about what a babylon fedora

hubb wrote:No it really could.

It was designated racism covered up with free speech nonsence, getting the minister of state (prime basicaly) to go out and give an official position (that however you spin it, would agree with or mirror the american neo con version of what muslims are about).

It could only go one way, and there was no reason to go that length for something as abstract as freedom of speech in this context.

Straight up Netanyahu bizz

Im not denying there was something racist about those, cus there was (even if it wasn't on the surface against a certain race but against a religion). But IMO theres cartoon racism and then theres bricks through windows and shit...granted theres a pretty good chance the media tried to spin the fallout to maximize vilification of muslims and people who look like they could be muslims.

When you say "it could only go one way" do you mean that the violence and shit that followed was inevitable and thus the people who provoked it are responsible, even tho the violence was on bullshit premises (imo)? IIRC There was a good amount of muslims who were completely fair on TV debates and shit saying the cartoons were racist, but that they don't condone some of the reactions they caused. I'm leaning towards that.

I think it's important to have a notion of personal responsibility that draws a certain line, and I don't think even something like those cartoons absolve you of responsibility like that.

I wanna live in a society where racist shit can be printed and it leads to a discussion that elevates people`s understanding rather than pointless destruction.

But you're destroying people's self esteem when you publicize racism.