Evidence to the contrary would be good?
Evidence to the contrary would be good?
Is calling a geordie a geordie illegal? Are you saying Monty Python should be banned for its hilarious stereotyping of the 4 Yorkshiremen? It would be much easier for everyone if people who are offended by things not directed at them or being said in an obvious joke just grew a backbone and stopped being offended for the sake of it.
mthomas08 (25th November 2011)
Comedians aren't racists, homophobes, etc etc. They push the boundaries against what is and what isn't morally acceptible. It's called shock humour and it's been around for ages.
If it really angers you this much why argue about it when you can simply ignore it?
(PS Thanks for more neg rep )
Oh, so I need to prove your ridiculous claim is false rather than you substantiate it. Err right. Prove that god doesn't exists. Prove that I can't do majic. Prove that David Cameron isn't the devil. "Daily Mail" just about covers that level of argument.Evidence to the contrary would be good?
How about showing me where there is legislation against a "race related crime". You get arrested for committing a *crime*. That crime might be determined to have a racial element, which might be recorded for police statistics on "race related crimes" (a mugging of a black man by 3 white men was determined to have been racially motivated - the crime wasn't the race element, it was the *mugging*). The only crimes on the books that directly relate to race are incitement to racial hatred - a very difficult to prove offence which requires an intention to whip people up into a frenzy in which they are likely to commit a crime.
The easy proof against your claim is to draw your attention to the Tours of Reginald D Hunter. His tour a few years ago was called "Pride & Prejudice & Niggas". The posters for that show were removed from the London Underground due to complaints, but I don't recall (and neither does he) him being charged with a criminal offence. If what you claim was true, then he should have been.
just to put in context the thing about racially offensive language, an australian teacher at my old place said over here the term used for pakistani people is seen as offensive (you know which one, i wouldnt want to say it for fear of upsetting people without due warning!). but he said in australia its a common term that is used (not sure how true but still). he said its the same as australian being shortened to aussie, with pakistani being shortened.
now if true the pakistani people in australia didn't see offense in it, so is it a racially offensive word just because one group in one country deems it so (and most times its middle class white men in the uk whe are outraged by it).
also (and this is just a question, ill again try not to offend anyone), the guy on mock the week with a prosthetic leg, who made a joke about being in airport security with it. is that offending those with prosthesis? if someone without prosthesis found it offensive despite not having that ailment, is it offensive or just that person not finding it funny?
Contact SARI, they were the trainers. I'll see if I can find my notes etc...
just to sum up from me, we've all talked about making jokes about people who can't defend themselves, yet none of you have made jokes about the Chelsea defence, and let's face it, they definitely cannot defend themselves!
Where's my tumbleweed icon.
Just as a follow up, there is this from Jimmy Carr (please be warned, reading further on in my post may cause offence if you don't like opinions)
During the radio interview, O'Connell asked Carr: 'Do you think there are no taboo areas?'
Carr replied: 'I don’t think there are. I mean you could, I mean there’s different rules for different people. There’s things that I couldn’t joke about but other people could.
'You go, well you can’t joke about race. Well if you’re from a different race and that's your experience of the world and you want to talk about that, then fine. Or you can't talk about disability, but disabled comics can talk about that. Well okay that's ... I think anyone can talk about anything, anything's kind of up for grabs.'
I think it all comes down to how it is said. I could call someone an Arab, and be correct because I'm talking about where that person comes from. But I could then call that person an Arab again with real venom in my voice, in a different context and mean a completely different thing. It's been a long week and my head is fried, but I think my point is a joke is a joke, and should not be taken out of that context.
My final word on this as I'm a bit bored of the same arguments going around and around now (@Millgate said a few pages back, "let's all agree to disagree"; that's the only possible outcome here!).
Words can only be offensive if you allow yourself to be offended by them. In allowing yourself to be offended by those words, you then give an attacker a weapon to use against you. If you don't allow those words to offend you, the attacker will stop using them as they'll soon see they have no weight.
Jokes are jokes - for the most part they're not intended to hurt anybody (I know there are those out there who tell "jokes" when in actual fact they're only portraying their own venom; I really do not believe for a second that this is the case with Jimmy Carr). For instance, a friend of mine is both gay and Indian (and he's in a wheelchair, and he wears a turbine - Craid David [Bo Selecta]) and as a bit of banter between ourselves, in bars I would shout to him things like "what are you doing here you big gay asian", he'd reply along the lines of "oh be quiet you dirty little white boy". Neither of us meant what we said, it was just a joke, we didn't get offended or hurt, we just laughed about it (other people's faces were what made it funny!).
The world is a vast and varied place and so it is inevitable that there will always be disagreements over any subject - the trick to leading a happy and fulfilling life is to not let those disagreements get you down, especially if they really have nothing to do with you! (that's reference to the middle class white folk who get so "outraged" at topics they'll never know or understand).
Life is short, enjoy it.
I leave this thread with a personal favourite song of mine from none other than the Monty Python crew:
Originally Posted by Monty Python
Here's the video to complement the above
[QUOTE=localzuk;760199]Contact SARI, they were the trainers.
So we have gone from "Prove my ridiculous assertion is false" to "do my research for me". Geez, the standard of internet debate these days is abysmal.
Your notes might tell you that the source of your risible claim is indeed a bunch of trainers (get your money back), they won't tell you that the claims are any more true than anything you might find in the Daily Mail, Sun or parading as truth on Fox News. If your claim was true you would be able to find actual legislation to back it up - The "Race T-Shirt Crimes Act 1993" or some such. You won't find such a thing because it doesn't exist.I'll see if I can find my notes etc...
Also, not replying, eh? You didn't manage to stay away for long.
@mwbutler I find that video to be offensive. It both trivialises the suffering of people who were crucified by implying it's not that bad. That it could be worse, as it were.[\MoreSarcasm]
Last edited by X-13; 25th November 2011 at 06:42 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)