Acceptable Humour and Moral High Grounds.

I personally feel that everything and anything can be made into a joke/made humorous, that there should be no taboo on certain topics.

However I do also believe in tact, so I don't go out with the express purpose of being offensive.

That's me, I wonder what 'YOU' feel is acceptable in terms of comedy and humour, and whether you have any taboos or topic you censor.

Also similar to N-Word Privileges what do you think about joking from the moral high-ground as it were? So for example a rape victim telling jokes about rape.

Edit: I forgot to put my own view about the Moral highground joking. In relation to nothing being taboo I feel it is ok for those who have suffered something to be able to joke about it, firstly due to the taboo, secondly as it may be part of them coping with the event if traumatic.

edited 17th Nov '10 2:48:12 PM by IanExMachina

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

Good topic.

I feel that everything can be expressed as comedy... in a work of art. There should be no taboos in art.

It's different, though, in personal interaction. I believe in tact. If something prevents flame wars, it works. Personally I would not make a joke if I thought it could (legitimately) lead to offended people and hurt feelings (rape jokes in front of rape victims, cancer jokes in front of cancer patients- except if they start first- stupid stereotypical jokes about a person's country and such like).

"Why don't you write books people can read?"-Nora Joyce, to her husband James

I more or less agree with what's been posted here. I think "making light" of something by joking about it doesn't mean that the joker doesn't grasp the gravity of the topic or encourage others to disregard it.

I know a German exchange student that was offended by any jokes about Hitler. I asked him why this was, and I don't remember the answer verbatim, but I think it went along the lines of the standard objection to this, which was it was hurtful to some and paints it as a less serious topic.

I do think it's tasteless to make a joke about a tragedy as it is happening if you aren't affected by it. Doing so seems to communicate a lack of sympathy, even if the joker is sympathetic. That's just my feeling about it, though. I think I might tolerate that behavior if it came from someone I knew well enough.

Ruining everything forever.

"Also similar to N Word Privileges what do you think about joking from the moral high-ground as it were? So for example a rape victim telling jokes about rape." - IEM

If they get to tell jokes about rape so does everybody else. You can't have it both ways. Similarly, N-Word privileges are bullshit too. The whole concept strikes me as rationalizing hypocrisy.

I don't think "humour" of any subject should be ruled out. It depends on the context in which the joke is told, and the style of the joke.

But who tells the joke is part of that context. A black person using the N word has very different implications than that of a white man; similar with rape jokes. People are context, too, and they can change the meaning.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

I think there is 'stupid humour', rather than unacceptable humour.

One guy making a joke about rape is fine. To be expected. He broke a taboo, and so long as the joke is also funny in itself, it adds a layer of hilarity to the reaction I have.

Every bloody hack comedian shoving a rape joke on stage to cover for their lack of originality is not cool. It's stupid humour, the same way as jokes about the difference between men n women used to be.

It has got to the point that 'rape' which is not cool is considered more acceptable in polite conversation than the 'c-bomb' which are very cool things indeed. As a society, I find it hard to argue that this makes us anything other than sexist. I would not argue for such a harsh limitation as stopping people from making 'rape' jokes, rather I would urge each individual strongly to consider this situation, and whether your time might be more gainfully employed making jokes about vaginas.

There's a lot of mileage in them, if you'll excuse the squicky mental imagery.

So, I guess for me, the difference between 'stupid' humour and acceptable humour is a variation on It's Popular, Now It Sucks!.

Same here.
Well, I believe in actions, consequences, and self interest. Tact isn't an obligation in my eyes; it's a strategy for maximizing the probability of certain consequences, and minimizing the probability of certain others. It's up to the individual which strategy they happen to prefer.

I don't believe in moral high grounds. I believe in risk management. I can get away with using the n-word in situations where a caucasian couldn't; that doesn't make it wrong for the caucasian to use it; it just makes it riskier.

The only thing that comes to mind is that I avoid making jokes which could be mistaken for personal threats. In general, consequences dictate my course of action, and consequences vary depending on the audience and circumstances.

"But who tells the joke is part of that context. A black person using the N word has very different implications than that of a white man" - Drakyndra

If the issue isn't of the word itself but of the race of the person using it, then that has racist implications all its own.

Nah. Non-black non-racists relinquished their n-word privileges long ago, when they decided that it was more important to them to avoid being accused of racism. Blacks and non-black racists opted to keep their privileges. As a result, we now own the word. Since common usage dictates meaning, part of the word's meaning is now "I am either black or bigoted against blacks".

If non-black non-racists want their n-word privileges back, they must earn them. They must risk being mistaken for racists a few times, or a few thousand times, however many times it takes to change the word's meaning, just like we males who make rape jokes risk being mistaken for misogynists.

edited 18th Nov '10 9:45:31 AM by Tongpu

I always thought it was funny how much emphasis people put on the one or two words in the English language that they "can't" use.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

Not a fan of taboos, but deliberate trolling annoys me even more.

I don't see any deliberate trolling. If you do, use the holler button and report it.

Tongpu has a very good point in #9. When a group relinquishes a word to another group (or other groups,) they also are acknowledging that using that word in the future marks a person as a member of the group(s) that "took it back". "Nigger" has been relinquished so completely by non-black, non-racist-bigots that even using the whole word to identify the word by anyone not black or an overtly racist bigot is uncomfortable.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

No, I mean, the only Moral High Ground I consider worthy of any respect is "Not deliberately trolling" and I guess being intellectually honest. I'm not accusing anyone of trolling-that came out wrong.

I think it is more of an issue of whether you are trying to be offensive or not. People are intelligent enough to tell the difference. The level of offensive humour in Canada versus America is big. Now, few people would use the n-word simply because it is distasteful by itself (as in, even our black comedians would not use it). But in terms of being vulgar, racist, sexist and the sort, they're very open with those jokes and people can laugh. The only thing that concerns people is whether you are telling a joke that can only be construed as offensive and be used in an offensive way, or a joke that is making light of a stereotype.

Well, there's the whole Forbidden Fruit thing. Get hit over the head enough times with the fact that you're not allowed to do X, and I imagine sooner or later there'll also be resentment.

"Nah. Non-black non-racists relinquished their n-word privileges long ago" - Tongpu

Oh, so based a person's race and their level of racism, (non-racist? What kind of fantasy world you live in?) we have COLLECTIVE ownership of a word?

"when they decided that it was more important to them to avoid being accused of racism." - Tongpu

I'd place the blame more on the people who would accuse racism than the people who would avoid such accusations. In any case, when an INDIVIDUAL decides to use the word, they shouldn't have to have its meaning distorted by its use by people of comparable race or level of racism. Not to mention how ridiculously unfair it is that people of darker skin aren't as likely to be accused of similar racism in the first place.

"Blacks and non-black racists opted to keep their privileges." - Tongpu

I see. So you're collectively referring to non-black racists as "they" and even referring collectively to blacks as "they." Congratulations, you're making the same mistakes fervent racists make.

"As a result, we now own the word." - Tongpu

Language is property now?

"Since common usage dictates meaning" - Tongpu

Not LEGITIMATE meaning. Legitimate meanings aren't subject to the whims of majority rule.

"If non-black non-racists want their n-word privileges back, they must earn them. They must risk being mistaken for racists a few times, or a few thousand times, " - Tongpu

You are talking about losing or earning COLLECTIVELY here. Add to this the inevitable Double Standard as mentioned above, and your argument borders on Insane Troll Logic.

"however many times it takes to change the word's meaning" - Tongpu

This is bullshit. A word means what it means.

edited 18th Nov '10 3:18:22 PM by neoYTPism

RE the whole N-Word Privileges thing, I've started getting the impression that two things are getting confused.

Using the word itself as an example, you have two different things:

On one hand, you have a positive usage (spelled nigga for some reason- perhaps in a sense because it's the less offensive one). In this case, members of the group are actually "reclaiming the term"/using it positively.

On the other hand, there's also cases of blacks calling each other nigger insultingly and giving it the same meaning as someone of another race using the insult.

(The above analysis could be extended to other ethnic slurs).

I don't find it hypocritical for a group to use a term positively and still not like others to use it negatively toward them, although the second type might qualify as hypocrisy.

Hodor

Frankly, I wouldn't equate whites saying it with it being used negatively to begin with.

Well, I don't mean saying it, I mean a white (or anyone who isn't black) calling a black person a nigger.

Hodor

@neo YT Pism

I agree with you on the part about rationalising hypocrisy, as I believe that all humour is acceptable.

Chiming in with other posts on the subject context/tact do matter, as walking into a kidnap support group and telling a joke about Ian Huntley is different to telling it to friends. I personally view tact in a way so as not to offend those I care somewhat more about (friends family etc) so acquaintances can usually deal with it, also using the above example avoiding harm upon myself.

Another point that may be lurking behind the discussions of acceptable humour is Intent. As intent can change a witticism to a racial/rape/trauma slur depending on the user. As before I feel all is acceptable but I retain the idea that I don't believe that gang rape/racism is funny in real life, just in the joke.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

EDIT: Never mind

edited 18th Nov '10 7:55:01 PM by neoYTPism

That's ridiculous (by which I mean "stupid" not "you're wrong").

—

I don't know, in another time I and others called people (of various races and skin-tones) "nigga" and never got told off for it (or rather, told off by anyone whose opinion matters/mattered to me at the time), it was kind of the norm where I was. I've since stopped that, since people get offended by it (for reasons that I really just can't fathom) but I'm not morally objected to the word itself. Nor its use by anyone.

Which brings me to my next point. If you make a joke or say a word around a friend and they stop talking to you because you said it, just apologize. Easy fix. And if they don't accept your apology, you have to start wondering if they're you're friend at all.

—

A footnote, the people I called "my nigga" and variations thereof were close, lifelong friends. I don't really recommend doing it with someone you've been friends with for only a short time, it's best to find out their attitudes on that kind of thing first.

edited 18th Nov '10 5:00:22 PM by SpainSun

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

I think there are some things that just should not be joked about like death (and especially suicide). I also think the same way about racist or sexist jokes or other humor that has a similar theme.

I draw the line there partially because I think offending or hurting people with the words I say is wrong. I know that some people are offended by the jokes I mentioned earlier and I think it is fair to cater to them in refraining from using that type of humor. I generally believe that it is the fault of the one who offends rather than the one who takes offense so I think it is inappropriate to use jokes that one knows may be particularly disturbing to certain persons.

I also think that such jokes may take away some of the meaning of very serious things or allow for people to say very hateful and prejudicial things in the guise of jokes.

I personally find those kinds of jokes unappealing as well just as I would find people saying essentially the same thing in regular speech outside of humor.

I realize that may not be a mainstream opinion here though and I doubt I could persuade a lot of other people to agree with me on this.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

For Humor: All is game but its highly dependent on timing and the intended target audience.

Who watches the watchmen?

Yes, in a manner of speaking.

That's a weird comment. Do you not understand what I meant?

While many accusations of racism are off-base, racists do exist, and when it comes to the use of the word in question, a word whose association with racism happens to be so extremely well-known that even the use of utterly unrelated words that merely sound similar to it have prompted accusations of racism, it is reasonable for somebody to conclude that when a person who isn't black uses said word, there exists a significant probability that they are a racist.

Regarding the topic of the thread, though, I'd say that it is not reasonable to jump to the same conclusion about comedians and other sorts who by their very essence are putting on some sort of act. I'm really not convinced that Michael Richards, for instance, is particularly racist.

IOW, you don't think usage should dictate what words mean. Well, sorry, but that's just how language seems to work.

No, the mistake racists typically make is failure to modify their schema in the face of new evidence. What you've noticed, on the other hand, is merely a preference on my part for impersonal language. I tend to refer to humans as "they" as well. When speaking of race, I may throw in a token "us" to save myself the trouble of having to do a You Know I'm Black, Right? later on, but my default mode is to refer to groups as "they".

Metaphorically speaking. On a literal level, what I've been talking about are social norms; permissions to use a particular word without having particular inferences mistakenly made about one's character.

What determines "legitimate" meaning, if not majority rule? Do you think language is some sort of dictatorship?

Whatever. If you think there's a more effective way to get n-word privileges, feel free to try it.

A word is just a symbol. Symbols only mean what they're perceived to mean. Don't agree? Sew a swastika into your shirt before you go out. See how many people think it represents the rays of the sun. See, communication can't happen without agreement on meanings, and words exist for communication.