Reign-Mack
Prominent Member
Its seen as a PC way of refereeing to Race over there.I think the word "African American" really refers to a culture, and not a race.
Its seen as a PC way of refereeing to Race over there.I think the word "African American" really refers to a culture, and not a race.
overkill said:Carefull here SOK, I went to a company do in London a few years back and it was an Irish guy who got sick of the 'comedian's Irish jokes and nearly caused an almighty scene! He was right, as it was cringe inducing, but there you go.........
So according to this we can't solve racism because racism is only percieved by people with a complex of inferiority?abraxus said:As such, other races often perceive themselves as lesser, and whites (perhaps not deliberately or malicioulsy) end up seeing themselves as better. This results in whites not ever facing the feeling of being the victim of racism and largely explains why other races can be more sensitive to it whereas whites are not.
Jenn said:So according to this we can't solve racism because racism is only percieved by people with a complex of inferiority?
White people don't feel victim of racism because other races feel inferior?
I think I don't agree there. As a white person if I walked in some parts a certain cities I can pretty much feel racism around me and often feel scared at what could happen. It's got nothing to do with feeling inferior or superior, it's got to do with being picked on and threatened because of a difference which in this case is the colour of my skin.
Racism against white people is as real as racism against other races. I clearly remember racist remarks against white people being written inside the doors of the girls toilets in my school 10 years ago. At the time and still now I felt quite offended by it.
Also if you think about the recent fights in Birmingham, it didn't involve "white" people but black and asian people. It was as racist as can be nontheless.
overkill said:I would agree to the latter.
I would also agree that comedy should be allowed to be given a free reign and the new laws regarding 'racist behaviour' may indeed inhibit comedians and damage free speech.
However, I still hold to the view that some 'jokes' are tasteless and unnecessary, and the 'sick jokes' you refer to are the cheap option of buffons who aren't capable of producing any better material. The comment about those sort of jokes and growing out of them wasn't meant as a personal comment either. No-one I know enjoys those sort of jokes - apart from my son, who's in year 7!
There is always though, a line over which you should not step. I cannot see that there is a 'price to pay'. Why should people have to accept crude tasteless jokes about, for example, their disabilities, when the comedian can, and should, just write better quality lines?
All we are doing by accepting this behaviour as 'throwaway' is encouraging bigotry, and equally criminal, crap comedy writing!
There is always though, a line over which you should not step.
You need to see Russell Peters!goatywoaty said:I think that Chris Rock is a pretty funny guy, and as for him being racist, i'm not so sure he his...all he is doing is using peoples stereotypes of others and using them to take the mickey. It's similar to the type of comedy Goodness Gracious Me was...loved that show, Indians taking the mickey out of Indian stereotypes was a great laugh
Singh400 said:You need to see Russell Peters!
Similar stuff with offshoot The Kumars at No. 42, and also... Father Ted (Irish and Catholicism), Seinfeld/Larry David/Curb Your Enthusiasm (Americans and American/NY Jews). Enjoy all of those showsgoatywoaty said:... It's similar to the type of comedy Goodness Gracious Me was...loved that show, Indians taking the mickey out of Indian stereotypes was a great laugh
I doubt it. I spoke to the Irish guy before the do and he was as easy going as you can get. It was a classic example of where I and Abraxas disagree. Jokes about "tick', moronic paddy's" are not funny, and drew muted laughs even from the rest of the audience. This 'comedian' stepped over the line and nearly ruined everyones evening by causing a rumpus.SOK said:If the Irish jokes were funny I would have laughed at them.
I've always had the philosophy that you have to be able to laugh at yourself first before you can laugh at others.
Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh. That's because they stepped over the line. Even at this very forum there are lines drawn as to what is, and isn't acceptable.Abraxas said:No there isn't. Unless you can clearly and categorically say where that line is and who decides it. From this thread alone you can see that some people have lines they wont cross that others will, so who decides? I would guess that your line is somewhere different to mine. You and I may even agree in some instances where that line should be, but then again someone else wont. It ends being littlle more than censorship based on individual opinion.
overkill said:Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh. That's because they stepped over the line. Even at this very forum there are lines drawn as to what is, and isn't acceptable.
At this moment in time it's actually easier to get away with much more on television than you could even ten years ago, but make a joke about crippled children, and boy will you find yourself short of bookings! That's because society draws up the rules of what is acceptable, and unless you want to live outside society you accept those rules and where the line is drawn. In the 60's and 70's the line on vulgar, racist remarks was a lot harder to cross than it is now. But, it still existed.
To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable.
Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh.
To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable
If people at a rugby club found a series of jokes about paedophiles 'funny', I hope a third party would get involved. The boys in blue spring to mind......abraxus said:However, the same jokes at a rugby club dinner may keep the audiences in stitches. If audiences find it funny, then I don't agree that a third party can decide whether it's tasteless or not.
Beg your pardon? NF style jokes are unacceptable in my opinion? I think not, or I wouldn't be frequenting this forum, or watching any comedy act - and I've seen plenty.abraxus said:In your opinion.
Of course any comedian has to use common sense and tailor his material to his audience in order to survive. But that's his choice and not for someone else to till him what he can and can't say or what his audience can or can't laugh at.
overkill said:I doubt it. I spoke to the Irish guy before the do and he was as easy going as you can get. It was a classic example of where I and Abraxas disagree. Jokes about "tick', moronic paddy's" are not funny, and drew muted laughs even from the rest of the audience. This 'comedian' stepped over the line and nearly ruined everyones evening by causing a rumpus.
Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh. That's because they stepped over the line. Even at this very forum there are lines drawn as to what is, and isn't acceptable.
At this moment in time it's actually easier to get away with much more on television than you could even ten years ago, but make a joke about crippled children, and boy will you find yourself short of bookings! That's because society draws up the rules of what is acceptable, and unless you want to live outside society you accept those rules and where the line is drawn. In the 60's and 70's the line on vulgar, racist remarks was a lot harder to cross than it is now. But, it still existed.
To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable.
Well now you're just being ridiculous (although I'm now not sure if you're joking or not ). What on earth would it have to do with the police? There's nothing illegal about telling paedophile jokes. What is even worse is that you make a blanket condemnation about a jokes subject matter without even knowing what the joke is. This kind of suggests that you're a bit of prude or perhaps over sensitive. Nothing wrong with that of course until you try and start imposing your sensitivities on others.overkill said:If people at a rugby club found a series of jokes about paedophiles 'funny', I hope a third party would get involved. The boys in blue spring to mind......
Whether you think not is largely academic, because in this instance you're wrong, it is your opinion. Whilst I have no time for the NF or racism, if at one their meetings they told jokes that they found funny, then those jokes would be acceptable. The fact that you and I may dislike them or find them tasteless is irrelevant.overkill said:Beg your pardon? NF style jokes are unacceptable in my opinion? I think not, or I wouldn't be frequenting this forum, or watching any comedy act - and I've seen plenty.
Wrong again, only unnaceptable in your opinion. How on earth do you define extremism? I'm sure that there are some jokes that you've found funny that someone else could find offensive. In my opinion censorship and restrcition on the freedom of speech (even for things I dislike) is unnaceptable. No-ones asking you to be bombarded with anything, just that you leave others to make their own decisions and don't bombard everyone else with your narrow view on what is and isn't acceptable.overkill said:This is going round and round and getting us nowhere. I'm sorry but jokes along extremist lines are unacceptable. As before, they contribute nothing, and achieve nothing but fostering hate. If that sits fine with you then, ok, but me, I'd rather not be bombarded by jokes that turn my stomach.
Wrong yet again. If that were the case then the comedy of Alf Garnett, Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning would be the mainstream and would have turned this country into a seething mass of racism by now. In reality what happened is that overexposure of this sort of thing brought it out in the open where it could be properly and intelligently opposed, made people see it as stupid and ignorant and society turned against it, before needing the jackboot of puritanical censorship to tell us all what we should and shouldn't laugh at. Pushing it underground and consolidating it's base is what causes hate, not keeping it in the open where society can dilute it's dangers. As a result, I suspect more people laugh at those sort of people than with them. As with most things, give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves but try and gag them and they'll always find a voice.overkill said:As soon as they become acceptable, they become the norm, as certain types of activity has on TV now. I'm not sure that's either healthy or desirable.
abraxus said:This kind of suggests that you're a bit of prude or perhaps over sensitive.
Come on EG, you should know me better than that! A few points:-Ethics Gradient said:I am sorry overkill, but you are wrong.
Not completely, but you are applying sweeping sets of rules that just don't fit with how society works.
It is audience specific - there is a huge difference between an early saturday evening audience and a late night club audience. There are differences from club to club, group to group.
People like adult material, yet the same people will agree that it is not for a family audience.
You can't dictate what people find funny. We can only say that before watersheds, we expect things to be within certain rules, but outside those boundaries, as long as it does not directly insite people to commit crimes, then tough.
.... or are you going to sit at home each night deciding what is simply a gag, and what is artistic expression ?
because I am sure as hell not going to have people telling me what I can and can't read, laugh at or watch.
I have an extremely dark sense of humor, but I can differentiate between humor and real life - and acceptable ways of treating and behaving towards others.
Or should I be arrested for finding Emo Philips funny ?
It was a joke. It was also typical of your 'liberatarian approach' that you took it at face value. I'm hardly 'over-sensitive' nor do I have any intention, or ever have, of forcing my values on anbody else. However, going on the tension evident in your posts I cannot say the same for you.abraxus said:Well now you're just being ridiculous (although I'm now not sure if you're joking or not ). What on earth would it have to do with the police? There's nothing illegal about telling paedophile jokes. What is even worse is that you make a blanket condemnation about a jokes subject matter without even knowing what the joke is. This kind of suggests that you're a bit of prude or perhaps over sensitive. Nothing wrong with that of course until you try and start imposing your sensitivities on others.
Glad to be dismissed so easily by a 'libertarian'. What is the point of that whole section? If a bunch of NF skins choose to make foul jokes at one of their meetings - great. That's 'fine' in that context. As you know that's not what I meant. The same offensive jokes are not acceptable in other contexts. Challenging racism should be something we are proud to do, not run away from it because it might offend some moron!abraxus said:Whether you think not is largely academic, because in this instance you're wrong, it is your opinion. Whilst I have no time for the NF or racism, if at one their meetings they told jokes that they found funny, then those jokes would be acceptable. The fact that you and I may dislike them or find them tasteless is irrelevant.
On the first point I agree totally. However, on the second you are utterly and worringly incorrect. You cannot persuade people who have extreme views from holding them. They either discover they are wrong for themselves or just carry on. Normally the latter. This whole 'keep it in the open and it'll go away' is proved wrong time and time again. Events in Germany have disastrously shown how not banning certain views can have serious consquences. It's fine for 'libertarians' to glibly say 'it'll all be well if we give them freedom for us to persuade them they're wrong' but in practise, as the resurgence of NAZI's in Germany has shown since the ban was lifted it doesn't work. People are paying a huge price for such self indulgence.abraxus said:I'm a libertarian, and one of the constant frustrations of this is that not only do I have to accept that some people have a different view to me, but also that they are allowed to express them. That's life. Give me the choice of shutting someone up by persuading them they're wrong, or by banning them from expressing their view and I'll take the former every time. Apart from being more reasonable, it's more permanent.
This is terrific stuff. On the one hand you claim to be offering the hand of freedom then you shout down anyone who disagrees! Magic! Freedom of speech should not be restricted I agree, but there will always be bounds of acceptibility. If you really cannot see that then, well.....................abraxus said:Wrong again, only unnaceptable in your opinion. How on earth do you define extremism? I'm sure that there are some jokes that you've found funny that someone else could find offensive. In my opinion censorship and restrcition on the freedom of speech (even for things I dislike) is unnaceptable. No-ones asking you to be bombarded with anything, just that you leave others to make their own decisions and don't bombard everyone else with your narrow view on what is and isn't acceptable.
You claim to be willing to discuss freely but are happy to shoot down rather than discuss? This is not freedom of speech. It is you telling me what is right. Very libertarian............. What a clanger too! Davidson, Manning and co were seen as 'mainstream' once upon a time. People discussed it and 'intelligently opposed it'. Oh brother......... Not a bit of it. People are still racist, and the only thing that stopped overt racism was pressure from above. The so called PC brigade (with their jackboots on no doubt) cracked down on what was deemed 'acceptable' in the workplace and this permeated into some parts of society. The racist certainly does not hang himself. He openly discusses his views down the 'local' and convinces many people he's right. Give them enough rope and they will hang us.abraxus said:Wrong yet again. If that were the case then the comedy of Alf Garnett, Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning would be the mainstream and would have turned this country into a seething mass of racism by now. In reality what happened is that overexposure of this sort of thing brought it out in the open where it could be properly and intelligently opposed, made people see it as stupid and ignorant and society turned against it, before needing the jackboot of puritanical censorship to tell us all what we should and shouldn't laugh at. Pushing it underground and consolidating it's base is what causes hate, not keeping it in the open where society can dilute it's dangers. As a result, I suspect more people laugh at those sort of people than with them. As with most things, give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves but try and gag them and they'll always find a voice.
All I was trying to say is that some people find nasty sick jokes offensive, and that there is a line that should be drawn somewhere, and now I'm a crazed bigot out to attack our individual liberties. Blimey! Talk about paranoid, not to mention miles off the mark.abraxus said:Originally I could kind of see where you were coming from, but am now even more concerned about where it would lead. Once the list of topics that you don't like is banned, what next? Religion? Politics? Some comedy by it's very nature is devisive, and we're often laughing at someone and not with them, that's the joke. If you don't like it or get it then don't listen to it, it's easy and your choice. Any sort of censorship is just the the thin end of the wedge, and history has shown that once it starts it knows no end.
I wasn't even voicing my own opinion as frankly I can turn the other cheek quite easily. It is however, the opinion of many who don't like the sort of humour that I can handle. It's their voice that's being squashed flat - and they are reacting! Negatively. Society has moved forward? I wish I had your optimism. By the very fact that crude racist jokes still get a good laugh, I wonder, I really do. Not to mention the undercurrent of hatred generated by lurid headlines about immigrants. No?abraxus said:I had assumed that you were just expressing an opinion (which is fine) that I disagreed with and so debated the pros and cons with you. However, you've rejected the idea that it's just an opinion and tried to suggest that your idea of acceptable is in effect fact, and tried to back that up with examples that just don't reflect how society has moved forward. On this basis I'm sorry, but you're not only wrong, but wrong in every possible way that it is to be wrong.
What I enjoy is doubtless as rich and varied as you. If not more. I have no intention of telling anyone 'what to watch'. Its been fun though, reading comments that basicaly I should put up and shut up from someone keen on freedom of expression.......abraxus said:By all means watch and enjoy only those things that are acceptable to you, but please don't try and tell others what is or should be acceptable to them.
Reign-Mack said:Has anybody seen The Amazing Racist?