Jimmy Carr - Offensive jokes

[LosOjos]

Fantastic comedian, thanks for the link!

[mthomas08]

Nice post Rydra, also reminded me about disabled comedians - Mock of the Week had an australian who had a prosphetic leg and they all joked about it. Your point about jokes is exactly that - it is a joke. And even some comedians are actually very smart especially when it comes to coming up with their own materials.

 

Again Rate up on that post for you!

[LiamH]

Sounds like we need to break out the cotton wool for some people.

 

People have the right to find anything offensive but it doesn't mean it should be banned, and I cant help but notice most of the people who are offended by jokes stereotyping people aren't from that stereotype themselves. I mean you can disapprove of someone painting stereotypes but I'm not sure how you can be seriously offended by it.

 

I would be offended if someone said something derogatory to me, if they said it to a friend I would disapprove, maybe be a bit mad, but wouldn't consider myself offended.

[dayzd]

No comedian or comedy sets out to offend people ... it is their intention to provide amusement, by which they get enjoyment out of it themselves.

I've seen a DVD of Arj Barker (Dave from Flight of the Conchords) doing stand up and at one point, he pretty much said the same himself.

You can either laugh with me, or you can laugh at me. I don't really care either way as long as you're having a good time.

(I'm paraphrasing. I can't remember it exactly.)

[localzuk]

Sounds like we need to break out the cotton wool for some people.

 

People have the right to find anything offensive but it doesn't mean it should be banned, and I cant help but notice most of the people who are offended by jokes stereotyping people aren't from that stereotype themselves. I mean you can disapprove of someone painting stereotypes but I'm not sure how you can be seriously offended by it.

 

I would be offended if someone said something derogatory to me, if they said it to a friend I would disapprove, maybe be a bit mad, but wouldn't consider myself offended.

 

Ok, the point being made is that stereotyping is harmful and damaging to that group. What about racism? Is it ok to have racial stereotypes? No, of course it isn't. What about stereotypes against homosexuals? Women? The list could go on. What makes it ok to make a 'joke' out of vulnerable groups?

 

Put it this way - something is classed as a racist incident if anyone finds it offensive and it is related to race. So, if 2 black people were using the N word with each other and a white person overheard and complained to the police, those 2 people could be arrested and prosecuted for a race related crime.

 

That's the state of the law as it stands. Why should it differ simply because it is about a different grouping of people, and because it is for 'comedy'?

 

You don't know what was said in the rep comment so please don't stick your nose in something that has nothing to do with you.

 

Err, you're posting on a PUBLIC forum, if something is written on here, I replied. Rather bizarre that you don't understand the concept of a public forum...

Edited November 25, 2011 by localzuk

[mwbutler]

Why should it differ simply because it is about a different grouping of people, and because it is for 'comedy'?

 

As it's been said way too many times in this thread, if you don't like it, don't listen to it. A joke is simply a joke.

 

Bet I get called an unintelligent, racist homophobe now...

[localzuk]

As it's been said way too many times in this thread, if you don't like it, don't listen to it. A joke is simply a joke.

 

Bet I get called an unintelligent, racist homophobe now...

 

And I'm saying that argument doesn't hold water. A joke is not simply joke. It has a knock on effect. Plus, you ignored the rest of my post. Its as if you are not actually reading the point being made - how is it ok for one part of society to get protection by law, and another side not be protected simply because its a 'joke'?

Edited November 25, 2011 by localzuk

[LiamH]

Put it this way - something is classed as a racist incident if anyone finds it offensive and it is related to race. So, if 2 black people were using the N word with each other and a white person overheard and complained to the police, those 2 people could be arrested and prosecuted for a race related crime.

 

That's the state of the law as it stands. Why should it differ simply because it is about a different grouping of people, and because it is for 'comedy'?

 

I don't personally see how the person in your example can be offended by that. If me and my friends decided to call each other "bros" or whatever they do nowadays are you saying a lady walking past could take offence and get us locked up for sexual discrimination? The only difference is the "n word" is considered to be offensive and derogatory towards black people, so they should be the people who can take offence from it, if they are fine using it then i don't see a problem.

 

I understand that your saying in the eyes of the law that's the case, but the laws not always morally right.

 

And i agree with the public forum, the difference between someone saying anyone who likes Jimmy Carr has a low IQ can be taken as an offence, just like if Jimmy Carr walked down the high street shouting his jokes out. People pay to go to his show or buy his DVD to see these comments, its optional. Just like all the god awful things on the internet that you can find if you look for it. It doesn't mean they should all be banned (unless they are popping up where kids can see them ofc)

[localzuk]

I don't personally see how the person in your example can be offended by that. If me and my friends decided to call each other "bros" or whatever they do nowadays are you saying a lady walking past could take offence and get us locked up for sexual discrimination? The only difference is the "n word" is considered to be offensive and derogatory towards black people, so they should be the people who can take offence from it, if they are fine using it then i don't see a problem.

 

The purpose behind the law is to point out that those terms and that behaviour is wrong, whoever is using them or engaging in it. By making it that clear cut, it works to eliminate the terms from use and the negative historical connotations, and the continuing negative links between the words and some form of stereotype. Much like it is wrong for kids to be calling each other 'gay', even in jest in the playground, as it teaches that it is acceptable to somehow find homosexuality 'wrong'.

 

I understand that your saying in the eyes of the law that's the case, but the laws not always morally right.

 

The law is crafted, generally, from public opinion. In the case of hate crime related law, it is very much based on the morals of the people - as the laws came about due to attacks on people and the reaction to those attacks.

[pcstru]

Put it this way - something is classed as a racist incident if anyone finds it offensive and it is related to race. So, if 2 black people were using the N word with each other and a white person overheard and complained to the police, those 2 people could be arrested and prosecuted for a race related crime.

 

Rubbish. Methinks you have been reading too much Daily Mail.

[localzuk]

Rubbish. Methinks you have been reading too much Daily Mail.

 

Nope, this was from a training session at my place of work, from an organisation that bases their existence is based on this legislation. They gave multiple examples of situations, for example a man walking through St Pauls wearing a t-shirt with racially offensive terms against people from the same race as him. He was arrested and prosecuted for it.

 

Evidence to the contrary would be good?

[LiamH]

Nope, this was from a training session at my place of work, from an organisation that bases their existence is based on this legislation. They gave multiple examples of situations, for example a man walking through St Pauls wearing a t-shirt with racially offensive terms against people from the same race as him. He was arrested and prosecuted for it.

 

Evidence to the contrary would be good?

 

Well if this was the law why ins't every comedian, every rapper, every Australian that call's a British person a pom locked up?

 

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.

[mwbutler]

And I'm saying that argument doesn't hold water. A joke is not simply joke. It has a knock on effect. Plus, you ignored the rest of my post. Its as if you are not actually reading the point being made - how is it ok for one part of society to get protection by law, and another side not be protected simply because its a 'joke'?

 

Not sure why I'm continuing here as there isn't any point arguing with someone who is willing to argue for the sake of arguing. However...

 

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 )

[pcstru]

Nope, this was from a training session at my place of work, from an organisation that bases their existence is based on this legislation. They gave multiple examples of situations, for example a man walking through St Pauls wearing a t-shirt with racially offensive terms against people from the same race as him. He was arrested and prosecuted for it.

Hearsay. Let's have some facts we can actually check please.

Evidence to the contrary would be good?

 

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.

 

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.

[Theblacksheep]

Nice post Rydra, also reminded me about disabled comedians - Mock of the Week had an australian who had a prosphetic leg and they all joked about it. Your point about jokes is exactly that - it is a joke. And even some comedians are actually very smart especially when it comes to coming up with their own materials.

 

Again Rate up on that post for you!

 

Check out 'Richard Herrings' Objective on BBC Radio 4, an episode recently was 'the wheelchair'. Had the girl who was on Grange Hill with MS, they all made jokes about the situation and not in a 'Joey Deacon' way (if anyone is old enough to remember that)... the point was the offence term 'nigger' was taken back by black rappers and comedians for the right reasons, comedy is about breaking down barriers, not putting them up and just because *SOME PEOPLE* are offended it is often their problem (see Hitler Moutache episode) and the perception of offence, rather than actual offence.

[MK-2]

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?

[localzuk]

Contact SARI, they were the trainers. I'll see if I can find my notes etc...

[MK-2]

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!

[Butters]

Where's my tumbleweed icon.

[MK-2]

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.'

[Hightower]

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.

[LosOjos]

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:

 

Some things in life are bad they can really make you mad

Other things just make you swear and curse

When you're chewin' on life's gristle, don't grumble give a whistle

And this'll help things turn out for the best

 

And always look on the bright side of life

Always look on the light side of life

 

If life seems jolly rotten there's something you've forgotten

And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing

When you're feeling in the dumps don't be silly chumps

Just purse your lips and whistle, that's the thing

 

And always look on the bright side of life

Come on, always look on the bright side of life

 

For life is quite absurd and death's the final word

You must always face the curtain with a bow

Forget about your sin, give the audience a grin

Enjoy it it's your last chance anyhow

 

So always look on the bright side of death

Just before you draw your terminal breath

 

Life's a piece of s**t when you look at it

Life's a laugh and death's a joke it's true

You'll see it's all a show keep 'em laughing as you go

Just remember that the last laugh is on you

 

And always look on the bright side of life

Always look on the right side of life

Come on Brian, cheer up

 

Always look on the bright side of life

Always look on the bright side of life

Worse things happen at sea you know

 

Always look on the bright side of life

Always look on the bright side of life

Always look on the bright side of life

[mwbutler]

Here's the video to complement the above

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

[pcstru]

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.

 

I'll see if I can find my notes etc...

 

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.

[X-13]

none of you have made jokes about the Chelsea defence, and let's face it, they definitely cannot defend themselves!

 

I don't like Football, so I'm not sure if this is truth or not. But, I do know that I am offended by it. You should be ashamed of yourself.[/sarcasm]

 

 

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]

Edited November 25, 2011 by X-13