Jump to content

Jimmy Carr - Offensive jokes

MK-2

By MK-2
in General Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Earthling

Earthling

Posted
Posted

Never seen Jimmy Carr, but it sounds like I wouldn't find him funny anyway.

 

Eddie Izzard I find hilarious, Billy Connolley and Denis Leary too, but none of the current crop of so-called 'Comedians'.

 

In context, I recently downloaded an old live performance by Victor Borg. I can't remember the year it was made right now, but it was back in the 90's. No smut, no innuendo, no racism, no cheap shots at challenged minorities.......just really funny wit, human observation and performance.

Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Posted
Posted
Yawn. You have a right to your own opinion but please don't tell me what I am and am not allowed to find funny.

 

Didn't say anything about what you are allowed to find funny, I simply said people who find that sort of thing funny must not be intelligent. Where does it end? When does it stop being funny and become sick? What if I found it funny that someone raped your mum...

 

Now the interesting thing will be if my post gets edited, deleted, I get neg rep, etc, as "everyone has the right to say whatever they please regardless of how sick it is and who it may offend", or at least that's what people are saying in this thread.

MK-2

MK-2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Did you do this in order to cause further possible offense?

 

If there is a hoo-ha about something, its not the cleverest thing to reprint it :(

 

A simple ref would suffice and those people interested in such things (I personally don't like "offensive" jokes about people with disabilities) could see what you were blabbering on about.

 

But full troll marks!

 

Si

 

PS The audience in the colliseum/football "supporters" and people watching IAC also like their entertainment as well.

 

No I didn't but thanks for jumping to conclusions. The joke is fully posted on a couple of news websites where this has been printed, and I put that comment there in case the mods saw fit for it to be removed for some reason.

This thread was based around peoples ideas of offensive jokes and their viewpoints, so perhaps I could have just had a whole thread of "heres a link, discuss" but I didn't.

 

You don't like offensive jokes, great, that's OK, as has been stated that's your viewpoint. But to then say I am trolling and blabbering on about something could be seen as offensive to me, you could have quite easily said "I don't think you should have posted that joke" and left it at that.

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
Didn't say anything about what you are allowed to find funny, I simply said people who find that sort of thing funny must not be intelligent. Where does it end? When does it stop being funny and become sick? What if I found it funny that someone raped your mum...

 

Now the interesting thing will be if my post gets edited, deleted, I get neg rep, etc, as "everyone has the right to say whatever they please regardless of how sick it is and who it may offend", or at least that's what people are saying in this thread.

 

Are you actually a Daily Mail editor?

 

The difference between an offensive joke and being offensive, is offensive jokes are often said because the joker knows they're offensive, not because they genuinely believe them.

 

"people who find that sort of thing funny must not be intelligent" is just plain offensive.

  • Thanks 3
aerospacemango

aerospacemango

Posted
Posted
Didn't say anything about what you are allowed to find funny, I simply said people who find that sort of thing funny must not be intelligent. Where does it end? When does it stop being funny and become sick? What if I found it funny that someone raped your mum...

 

Now the interesting thing will be if my post gets edited, deleted, I get neg rep, etc, as "everyone has the right to say whatever they please regardless of how sick it is and who it may offend", or at least that's what people are saying in this thread.

 

There's nothing like a good sweeping statement to incite the thread.

 

I presume that is an act of trolling?

 

Stating that people who find it funny "must not be intelligent" is a ridiculous thing to say. In fact, I'd put it at more offensive than the original joke, and for this reason.

 

The original joke is, just that, a joke. However, by the tone of that, and your subsequent posts, that statement is something you BELIEVE. That is a very scary thing, indeed.

 

I would suggest that it was an highly unintelligent thing to post.

  • Thanks 1
andyturpie

andyturpie

Posted
Posted
Didn't say anything about what you are allowed to find funny, I simply said people who find that sort of thing funny must not be intelligent. Where does it end? When does it stop being funny and become sick? What if I found it funny that someone raped your mum...

 

Now the interesting thing will be if my post gets edited, deleted, I get neg rep, etc, as "everyone has the right to say whatever they please regardless of how sick it is and who it may offend", or at least that's what people are saying in this thread.

 

You would be well within your human rights to find it funny though.

Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Posted
Posted
Are you actually a Daily Mail editor?

 

The difference between an offensive joke and being offensive, is offensive jokes are often said because the joker knows they're offensive, not because they genuinely believe them.

 

"people who find that sort of thing funny must not be intelligent" is just plain offensive.

 

Eh?

 

"Are you actually a Daily Mail editor?" - pretty much point proven there tbh as playing the tabloid card is pretty much the least intelligent reply going.

andyturpie

andyturpie

Posted
Posted
It just shows you that in todays society a few ill thought words carry more weight than physical actions against a person. Take Sepp Blatter, for instance and the furore which followed I actually felt sorry for what the guy was actually put through. I presumed he meant in an ideal world certain issues and wars of words could be put to bed with a handshake?
aerospacemango

aerospacemango

Posted
Posted
Eh?

 

"Are you actually a Daily Mail editor?" - pretty much point proven there tbh as playing the tabloid card is pretty much the least intelligent reply going.

 

I think you'll find that the question "Are you actually a Daily Mail editor" was a comic line.

 

You choose to only take that part of the post, and yet do not wish to comment on the rest of it?

 

One thinks that you are hiding behind the argument of "least intelligent reply going" to stave off replying in an adult and educated way. Instead of a discussion, you seem to want to give and take offense, in any way you can.

 

Would I be right in suggesting that??

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted (edited)

Offensive jokes and jokes which attack vulnerable people unable to protect themselves are 2 different things.

 

People have the right to be offensive, but when it gets to the stage where people find it appropriate or acceptable to craft a joke about people with illnesses or issues then that is not just offensive, it is a whole new level of wrong.

 

I have to agree with j17sparky, finding such things 'funny' or saying 'its a joke' doesn't make it ok. It just means you are lacking the ability to think about the subject matter properly, and maybe are lacking in intelligence. If I go and make a joke about some of our fallen soldiers is that ok?

 

The same thinking is what many teasing children use when they decide to pick on someone in school for having glasses, or looking different. It is a behaviour that we are teaching our kids today is totally wrong, yet its acceptable for a comedian to do it?

Edited by localzuk
  • Thanks 2
Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Posted
Posted
Now the interesting thing will be if my post gets edited, deleted, I get neg rep, etc, as "everyone has the right to say whatever they please regardless of how sick it is and who it may offend", or at least that's what people are saying in this thread.

 

 

Thread: Jimmy Carr - Offensive...

 

Completely offensive. No need.

 

There we go. Why is there no need? Am I not entitled to say what I please, and if you don't like it you don't have to read it?

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
Eh?

 

"Are you actually a Daily Mail editor?" - pretty much point proven there tbh as playing the tabloid card is pretty much the least intelligent reply going.

 

It was a joke, obviously. :rolleyes:

 

I'll explain it to you as you clearly didn't get it: I was referring to the tone of your message and that you seemed to be implying that by various contributors to this thread stating that humour is a matter of personal taste, you can say whatever you want with no consequences. It is this tendency to blow things massively out of proportion that Daily Mail editors have become known for and so I say to you; are you actually a Daily Mail editor?

Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
I think you'll find that the question "Are you actually a Daily Mail editor" was a comic line.

 

You choose to only take that part of the post, and yet do not wish to comment on the rest of it?

 

One thinks that you are hiding behind the argument of "least intelligent reply going" to stave off replying in an adult and educated way. Instead of a discussion, you seem to want to give and take offense, in any way you can.

 

Would I be right in suggesting that??

 

No, like I said, eh? I didn't understand what was said, therefore I only replied to the bit I did.

 

It was a joke, obviously. :rolleyes:

 

I'll explain it to you as you clearly didn't get it: I was referring to the tone of your message and that you seemed to be implying that by various contributors to this thread stating that humour is a matter of personal taste, you can say whatever you want with no consequences. It is this tendency to blow things massively out of proportion that Daily Mail editors have become known for and so I say to you; are you actually a Daily Mail editor?

 

I'm very confused. Either it is acceptable to say whatever you please or it isn't. Which is it? The simple answer is it is up to the audience, which pretty much everyone agrees on. I simply said where do you draw the line?

 

My own opinion is if you think that the line is beyond paedophilia, mocking people with disabilities, (as localzuk suggested) maybe throwing in a bit of mockery of the dead soldiers, etc, I believe you are lacking in intelligence.

Edited by Guest
MK-2

MK-2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If I go and make a joke about some of our fallen soldiers is that ok?

 

The point Jimmy Carr was making was, if you thought up a joke about dead soldiers, you're well within your right. If you told it to 10 mates and they all said "WTF is wrong with you thats sick", again, you know where you stand. But if said 10 mates laugh profusely then what? Are you the person wrong for thinking of the joke, or are they wrong for laughing? Your audience found what you said funny.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what he said in the joke, but that comment stands

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted (edited)
I have to agree with j17sparky, finding such things 'funny' or saying 'its a joke' doesn't make it ok. It just means you are lacking the ability to think about the subject matter properly, and maybe are lacking in intelligence. If I go and make a joke about some of our fallen soldiers is that ok?

 

The difference is, a comedian wouldn't walk up to the family of a fallen soldier and make an offensive joke about it, they'd say it to their audience (who are there to see them because they find offensive jokes funny). It does not mean the audience are actually laughing at the joke itself (some might be, that's up to them) but most people will be laughing out of shock at what has been said; it's all about your target audience.

 

The fact that pornography exists is because some people like to watch it and they do watch it. Those that don't like it, don't watch it. Same rules apply.

Edited by LosOjos
Spelling
localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted
The difference is, a comedian wouldn't walk up to the family of a fallen soldier and make an offensive joke about it, they'd say it to their audience (who are there to see them because they find offensive jokes funny). It does not mean the audience are actually laughing at the joke itself (some might be, that's up to them) but most people will be luaghing out of shock at what has been said; it's all about your target audience.

 

The fact that pornography exists is because some people like to watch it and they do watch it. Those that don't like it, don't watch it. Same rules apply.

 

So, because he says it away from a vulnerable group, or people unable to defend themselves, it becomes ok? What has vicinity got to do with it? I don't get that argument. Why not extend it further, make racism an ok thing so long as it isn't done in front of people of different races?

 

Either something is acceptable or it isn't. Being near someone it is about doesn't make it any more or less offensive and wrong!

 

The point Jimmy Carr was making was, if you thought up a joke about dead soldiers, you're well within your right. If you told it to 10 mates and they all said "WTF is wrong with you thats sick", again, you know where you stand. But if said 10 mates laugh profusely then what? Are you the person wrong for thinking of the joke, or are they wrong for laughing? Your audience found what you said funny.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what he said in the joke, but that comment stands

 

So, because 10 of your friends are lacking the ability to understand empathy or to figure out that laughing about dead soldiers is not cool, it is therefore ok? The comment doesn't stand - it simply means the audience is also wrong, or, the audience is reacting with laughter through shock, not through finding the joke funny.

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
So, because he says it away from a vulnerable group, or people unable to defend themselves, it becomes ok? What has vicinity got to do with it? I don't get that argument. Why not extend it further, make racism an ok thing so long as it isn't done in front of people of different races?

 

Either something is acceptable or it isn't. Being near someone it is about doesn't make it any more or less offensive and wrong!

 

I completely agree that regardless of where or when these things are said, they are offensive. The fact of the matter is though, some people obviously find Jimmy Carr funny, he wouldn't be so successful if that wasn't true. Nobody is being forced to watch him or listen to his jokes. I am totally against bullying and racism; if you had told me Jimmy Carr had walked up to a disabled person in the street and started taking the mickey, that crosses the line in to bullying. For him to tell a joke based on a general stereotype of a group (as jokes are) to his audience is up to him, nobody has to listen to it.

andyturpie

andyturpie

Posted
Posted
The difference is, a comedian wouldn't walk up to the family of a fallen soldier and make an offensive joke about it, they'd say it to their audience (who are there to see them because they find offensive jokes funny). It does not mean the audience are actually laughing at the joke itself (some might be, that's up to them) but most people will be laughing out of shock at what has been said; it's all about your target audience.

 

The fact that pornography exists is because some people like to watch it and they do watch it. Those that don't like it, don't watch it. Same rules apply.

 

Agreed, that sort of comedy is about pushing boundaries. Also with without p0rwn0graphy, would VHS and even domestic broadband have been succesful lol.

Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Posted
Posted
I have to agree with j17sparky

 

Now there is a first! :D

 

*Screenshot done*

MK-2

MK-2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm not commenting on the argument/discussion but this thread i think would class as comedy.

 

I'll send a copy over to BBC3, they usually air rubbish anyway, so I'm sure this would qualify :)

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...