| Do we now live in a post joke world? 07:53 - Jun 30 with 3124 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
Discuss? |  |
| |  |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:24 - Jun 30 with 779 views | Dubtractor |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:16 - Jun 30 by DanTheMan |
That's not what they said, you've just drawn lines saying "this one is OK to mock, this one isn't".
So my point was there are things which you will receive a backlash for joking about / shouldn't joke about.
I agree with your point, it's basically who the punchline is about that is kind of key. There is the concept of punching upwards.
Which is why I don't really find the Ricky Gervais joke in good taste. The punchline boils down to "haha transwomen" which I don't think is that funny. It's just a joke at the expense of a minority. |
The whole thing is quite simple really isn't it?
Anyone is free to make jokes as they please, pretty much, but equally some may find those jokes unpleasant or unfunny. That doesn't stop people making the jokes, as illustrated by your Gervais link above, which is why the whole 'cancel culture' narrative is horse sh1t. No one is stopping anyone from making jokes, just on occasion perhaps stating that making those jokes is poor form. As you rightly identify, punching down is pretty weak comedy. |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:25 - Jun 30 with 779 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:23 - Jun 30 by DanTheMan |
It is subjective yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the joke. It just sits wrongly from me. I'm not overly offended by it, I just don't think it's funny honestly.
That said, your second part brings me back to my original point. Why shouldn't I be able to joke about how many Jews died in the Holocaust? After all, if it offends you, you can just ignore it. Neo-Nazis might find it the height of comedy. |
"Why shouldn't I be able to joke about how many Jews died in the Holocaust? After all, if it offends you, you can just ignore it. Neo-Nazis might find it the height of comedy."
Thats the point. You can. You might get arrested for it mind you, for inciting racial hatred, but that would be YOUR risk. |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:25 - Jun 30 with 781 views | RobTheMonk |
I think it was about 20 years back when Brass Eye had the 'Paedogeddon' special. It was f'in hilarious and still is. Would it be green-lighted for production today? Not so sure... |  | | |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:25 - Jun 30 with 767 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:25 - Jun 30 by RobTheMonk |
I think it was about 20 years back when Brass Eye had the 'Paedogeddon' special. It was f'in hilarious and still is. Would it be green-lighted for production today? Not so sure... |
Different times. Was a hilarious episode. | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:27 - Jun 30 with 758 views | DanTheMan |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:25 - Jun 30 by Cheltenham_Blue |
"Why shouldn't I be able to joke about how many Jews died in the Holocaust? After all, if it offends you, you can just ignore it. Neo-Nazis might find it the height of comedy."
Thats the point. You can. You might get arrested for it mind you, for inciting racial hatred, but that would be YOUR risk. |
Seems like we don't like in a post joke society then. It's just that people don't want to receive negative backlash for jokes that are considered distasteful. |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:31 - Jun 30 with 746 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:27 - Jun 30 by DanTheMan |
Seems like we don't like in a post joke society then. It's just that people don't want to receive negative backlash for jokes that are considered distasteful. |
I think there's an element of that, (people not wanting to receive negative backlash), yes.
But in the main if we are in a 'post joke world' as per the OP then this is being driven in the main by internet 'pile on's' from people who personally on an individual level find the joke offensive, or feel that they 'should' be offended on behalf of someone else.
I'm not saying that this is always undeserved by the way, you cite some prime examples in your posts, but more often than not the joke that people are offended by is far more nuanced than most of the complainers will ever realise and all they can see is the offence. [Post edited 30 Jun 2022 9:36]
| |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:33 - Jun 30 with 738 views | Guthrum |
Tom Lehrer declared that 'Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize.' - in 1973. |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:33 - Jun 30 with 733 views | noggin |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 08:24 - Jun 30 by eireblue |
No.
No. |
Who's there? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:36 - Jun 30 with 719 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:06 - Jun 30 by DanTheMan |
Alright let's take the view that "everything is fair game or nothing is".
I want to make a holocaust joke about how hilarious it was that 6 million people were industrially gassed. Maybe a few jokes about ovens or something.
Is that OK?
What about jokes where the punchline is that black people are inferior to white people?
Is that OK?
I think there are lines people will inevitably have, and those lines are probably decided on the culture at the time. Over time jokes that were considered acceptable may become unacceptable.
Maybe in your views those jokes (where the punchline is something considered heinous) are fine. I can't say I prescribe to the idea. |
Just becaues everything is fair game doesn't mean everything is funny or indeed OK, we all have our own lines in the sand.That's not what I'm suggesting but as others have said humor is subjective as is offensive.
Most people agree that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed but those lines do seem to be getting moved on a regular basis in some circles.
Are millennials not allowed to laugh at some things that older people are becaues they grew up in a different time?
As already mentioned its a about context and the point being made and if we take that Gervais example which I also find v funny, how would a certain skateboarding member of the forum take that for example (and I'm genuinely interested to know)
If we go back and look at people like Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, who pushed comedy boundaries I wonder if they would be able to do so now? Not that either would care about being shouted down on social media but I find it and interesting question.
Also, I bloody loved Bob Monkhouse, truly one of the greats . | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:39 - Jun 30 with 703 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:36 - Jun 30 by BlueandTruesince82 |
Just becaues everything is fair game doesn't mean everything is funny or indeed OK, we all have our own lines in the sand.That's not what I'm suggesting but as others have said humor is subjective as is offensive.
Most people agree that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed but those lines do seem to be getting moved on a regular basis in some circles.
Are millennials not allowed to laugh at some things that older people are becaues they grew up in a different time?
As already mentioned its a about context and the point being made and if we take that Gervais example which I also find v funny, how would a certain skateboarding member of the forum take that for example (and I'm genuinely interested to know)
If we go back and look at people like Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, who pushed comedy boundaries I wonder if they would be able to do so now? Not that either would care about being shouted down on social media but I find it and interesting question.
Also, I bloody loved Bob Monkhouse, truly one of the greats . |
"how would a certain skateboarding member of the forum take that for example (and I'm genuinely interested to know) "
I'm not. | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:40 - Jun 30 with 701 views | Darth_Koont |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:11 - Jun 30 by Cheltenham_Blue |
It really depends on the context of the joke doesn't it? If your joke is intended to mock the Nazis thats one thing, if it's about finding it funny that Jews were gassed by the Nazis thats something else.
If its about the ridiculous notion of white supremacy thats one thing, if its about celebrating the oppression of ethnic minorities thats something else.
Its really not that difficult. Just because it involves a mention of certain topics, does not make it 'off limits', the Gestapo would be big fans of that though. [Post edited 30 Jun 2022 9:12]
|
“if it's about finding it funny that Jews were gassed by the Nazis thats something else”.
I think that’s the point isn’t it? Not generally what we’re joking about but what in particular we or the comedian find funny about it.
There are tons of jokes about the Holocaust that are ultimately not about diminishing the horror but addressing it. But there’s a world of difference between that and jokes that are about trivialising or even celebrating it.
It also occurs to me that a comedian in 1930s Germany making jokes about the Jews as they’re being targeted and the Nazis are moving towards genocide would be part of the problem. I think some of the lazy humour regarding marginalised groups is the same – risking something worse rather than shining a light on society and/or encouraging audiences to think about marginalised groups as people.
Dehumanising “humour” is dangerous and unacceptable. Humour is better than that – or at least needs to be. |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:42 - Jun 30 with 687 views | DanTheMan |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:36 - Jun 30 by BlueandTruesince82 |
Just becaues everything is fair game doesn't mean everything is funny or indeed OK, we all have our own lines in the sand.That's not what I'm suggesting but as others have said humor is subjective as is offensive.
Most people agree that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed but those lines do seem to be getting moved on a regular basis in some circles.
Are millennials not allowed to laugh at some things that older people are becaues they grew up in a different time?
As already mentioned its a about context and the point being made and if we take that Gervais example which I also find v funny, how would a certain skateboarding member of the forum take that for example (and I'm genuinely interested to know)
If we go back and look at people like Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, who pushed comedy boundaries I wonder if they would be able to do so now? Not that either would care about being shouted down on social media but I find it and interesting question.
Also, I bloody loved Bob Monkhouse, truly one of the greats . |
Millenials (of which I am one but you probably mean Gen Z) will find find that the humour of a 61 year old man is probably not aligned with their values and culture. Again, this is just standard stuff that you're right (as is Cheltenham) is maybe amplified by social media making it easier to directly criticise people.
I will say though, I don't understand how you can say everything is fair game but that some things aren't OK or lines that shouldn't be crossed. They seemed to be diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Bill Hicks I think would have been just fine, just as Ricky Gervais is now. People are allowed to criticise them. They shouldn't have to check how many other people have criticised them before doing so. | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:44 - Jun 30 with 678 views | STYG |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 08:52 - Jun 30 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Jokes are subjectives, what offends you might not offend other people.
And I liked it.
[Post edited 30 Jun 2022 8:55]
|
The problem I have found with a lot of comedy nowadays, in terms of what is acceptable, is that individuals have a platform to promote what they find offensive and get momentum behind it.
Someone like Frankie Boyle jokes about rape, incest, child abuse and so on. It's not for me, but I know plenty of people that enjoy his comedy. They are simply jokes, not what he really believes and I have the option not to go and watch him.
At the other end of the scale you have someone like Peter Kay, who makes jokes that aren't particularly deemed offensive to anyone but others won't enjoy that as it's a bit too safe.
In an ideal world, comedy would be like the heat warnings you get on spicy food. You can decide you're a 5/10 and avoid comedians who go above what you consider to be your moral line or joke about stuff you're likely to not find funny.
The issue seems to have arisen where, think it was Boyle himself who said this, that at one of his shows a couple bought tickets in the front row, knowing he would be joking about things like Maddy McCann. He joked about some absolute vile topics and the couple laughed their heads off, cancer, rape, murder, whatever it was. Then it got onto a joke about a disabled child and they had a disabled child so they got offended and stormed out and later complained.
That joke on a scale of 1-10 wasn't as offensive to the majority of people but it was the most offensive one to them. So they take to social media, others who would not normally see Boyle's comedy as it sickens them hear the joke, they become offended and the whole thing snowballs.
Even when I don't find certain types of comedy funny or enjoy laughing at missing children or murdered women, ultimately other people do. There have always been offensive jokes and humour is a massive part of society, people having a release from the day to day life and so on.
I think people have a right not to say things people will find offensive, but in the context of a comedy show where people are paying to essentially see that, then I believe it has a right to exist. The same with pornography. It shouldn't be handed out in schools but if people choose to access it then it should be available to them.
Society is evolving to the lowest common denominator where if 1 person in 100 finds something offensive then that person thinks that thing should be banned, whilst I'd argue more than half of people should find something offensive then it's probably a better indicator of whether it is actually offensive. A girl I work with has seen Jim Jeffries about 20 times, despite his whole act being misogynistic and being about negative stereotypes of woman and using pretty strong language to describe them. She is entitled to find him as hilarious as another woman is to find his disgusting.
Rightly we have laws that stop you going up to people and saying certain things that are deemed to be offensive or hateful. But if people are paying to go and see someone because they enjoy listening to them say those things in private, then I personally don't see that it needs policing.
The issue is where a joke, no matter how offensive, is in context (like the Gervais Trans joke to a large degree - where later in the show he explains his true feelings about Trans people) and a snippet is taken out of context, shared online and the world piles in.
That joke was intended for people that find it funny, in a private setting, not for those who find it offensive.
It's another slippery slope. If you stop one person saying what they want to say, then where does it stop? As long as they aren't breaking laws, and they aren't or all comedians would be doing porridge, then 'the show must go on'. [Post edited 30 Jun 2022 9:45]
|  | | |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:49 - Jun 30 with 652 views | WeWereZombies |
What's the secret of great comedy?
I will be posting the answer at 03:51 GMT on 28th August |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:51 - Jun 30 with 636 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:49 - Jun 30 by WeWereZombies |
What's the secret of great comedy?
I will be posting the answer at 03:51 GMT on 28th August |
What year? | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:56 - Jun 30 with 627 views | WeWereZombies |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:51 - Jun 30 by Cheltenham_Blue |
What year? |
I will post that on 28th August too. | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:07 - Jun 30 with 609 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:42 - Jun 30 by DanTheMan |
Millenials (of which I am one but you probably mean Gen Z) will find find that the humour of a 61 year old man is probably not aligned with their values and culture. Again, this is just standard stuff that you're right (as is Cheltenham) is maybe amplified by social media making it easier to directly criticise people.
I will say though, I don't understand how you can say everything is fair game but that some things aren't OK or lines that shouldn't be crossed. They seemed to be diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Bill Hicks I think would have been just fine, just as Ricky Gervais is now. People are allowed to criticise them. They shouldn't have to check how many other people have criticised them before doing so. |
I say it becaues to me tbe question as to CAN you and SHIULD you are 2 different things and as others says there is also nuance and context.
So for me personally I think you can joke about anything but your probably only should if the context, tone and nuance are right. I don't think that viewpoint is at odds with its self but of course others may well disagree.
I'd also say TY to all who have enagbed with the topic thus far, it had far more discussion than I thought it would | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:14 - Jun 30 with 595 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:33 - Jun 30 by Guthrum |
Tom Lehrer declared that 'Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize.' - in 1973. |
Not sure I can accept that from someone who advocated Poisoning Pigeons in the Park? |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:15 - Jun 30 with 595 views | DanTheMan |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:07 - Jun 30 by BlueandTruesince82 |
I say it becaues to me tbe question as to CAN you and SHIULD you are 2 different things and as others says there is also nuance and context.
So for me personally I think you can joke about anything but your probably only should if the context, tone and nuance are right. I don't think that viewpoint is at odds with its self but of course others may well disagree.
I'd also say TY to all who have enagbed with the topic thus far, it had far more discussion than I thought it would |
I think that point (I think you can joke about anything but your probably only should if the context, tone and nuance are right) are what people are usually offended or dislike about certain jokes.
It does all eventually boil down to there are certain things that as a society people won't joke about on the whole. There are some things that are controversial, there are others that are perfectly fine.
It's up to an individual to decide where the line is. I think it's fine to criticise people for making jokes that they feel may be genuinely harmful.
And yes, it's been a pleasant debate :) | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:15 - Jun 30 with 595 views | unbelievablue |
I will never quite understand someone being offended at a joke made by a comedian at a gig that the offendee didn't attend. |  |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:18 - Jun 30 with 589 views | unbelievablue |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 09:44 - Jun 30 by STYG |
The problem I have found with a lot of comedy nowadays, in terms of what is acceptable, is that individuals have a platform to promote what they find offensive and get momentum behind it.
Someone like Frankie Boyle jokes about rape, incest, child abuse and so on. It's not for me, but I know plenty of people that enjoy his comedy. They are simply jokes, not what he really believes and I have the option not to go and watch him.
At the other end of the scale you have someone like Peter Kay, who makes jokes that aren't particularly deemed offensive to anyone but others won't enjoy that as it's a bit too safe.
In an ideal world, comedy would be like the heat warnings you get on spicy food. You can decide you're a 5/10 and avoid comedians who go above what you consider to be your moral line or joke about stuff you're likely to not find funny.
The issue seems to have arisen where, think it was Boyle himself who said this, that at one of his shows a couple bought tickets in the front row, knowing he would be joking about things like Maddy McCann. He joked about some absolute vile topics and the couple laughed their heads off, cancer, rape, murder, whatever it was. Then it got onto a joke about a disabled child and they had a disabled child so they got offended and stormed out and later complained.
That joke on a scale of 1-10 wasn't as offensive to the majority of people but it was the most offensive one to them. So they take to social media, others who would not normally see Boyle's comedy as it sickens them hear the joke, they become offended and the whole thing snowballs.
Even when I don't find certain types of comedy funny or enjoy laughing at missing children or murdered women, ultimately other people do. There have always been offensive jokes and humour is a massive part of society, people having a release from the day to day life and so on.
I think people have a right not to say things people will find offensive, but in the context of a comedy show where people are paying to essentially see that, then I believe it has a right to exist. The same with pornography. It shouldn't be handed out in schools but if people choose to access it then it should be available to them.
Society is evolving to the lowest common denominator where if 1 person in 100 finds something offensive then that person thinks that thing should be banned, whilst I'd argue more than half of people should find something offensive then it's probably a better indicator of whether it is actually offensive. A girl I work with has seen Jim Jeffries about 20 times, despite his whole act being misogynistic and being about negative stereotypes of woman and using pretty strong language to describe them. She is entitled to find him as hilarious as another woman is to find his disgusting.
Rightly we have laws that stop you going up to people and saying certain things that are deemed to be offensive or hateful. But if people are paying to go and see someone because they enjoy listening to them say those things in private, then I personally don't see that it needs policing.
The issue is where a joke, no matter how offensive, is in context (like the Gervais Trans joke to a large degree - where later in the show he explains his true feelings about Trans people) and a snippet is taken out of context, shared online and the world piles in.
That joke was intended for people that find it funny, in a private setting, not for those who find it offensive.
It's another slippery slope. If you stop one person saying what they want to say, then where does it stop? As long as they aren't breaking laws, and they aren't or all comedians would be doing porridge, then 'the show must go on'. [Post edited 30 Jun 2022 9:45]
|
A very well reasoned post.
Re: Gervais, I have no issue with the Trans stuff in terms of being offended (either myself or on behalf of the Trans community), but I do find it very un-funny, and turned off his latest stand-up because of it. If that's the comedy he's leaning towards peddling (e.g. I'm allowed to say what I want about Trans people in the name of comedy har har har) then he's no longer of much interest to me to be honest.
In fact I've never thought his stand up was very good. | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:57 - Jun 30 with 547 views | STYG |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:18 - Jun 30 by unbelievablue |
A very well reasoned post.
Re: Gervais, I have no issue with the Trans stuff in terms of being offended (either myself or on behalf of the Trans community), but I do find it very un-funny, and turned off his latest stand-up because of it. If that's the comedy he's leaning towards peddling (e.g. I'm allowed to say what I want about Trans people in the name of comedy har har har) then he's no longer of much interest to me to be honest.
In fact I've never thought his stand up was very good. |
This for me is the key thing.
Raab winking at Rayner yesterday was ridiculous. He's an MP at his place of work and that behaviour comes across as slimy and sexist. But if Jim Jeffries is doing it to a woman in the front row of his comedy show, a woman who has gone there knowing he's that type of comedian, then it's a very different context and this is what society struggles with. Context.
I used to love Gervais and still do enjoy After Life and some of the other stuff he's been involved in but I'm not a fan of his latest show and felt similar watching it. I agree he should be able to joke about what he wants and I believe that ultimately there's a reasonable conversation to be had to say why, if he jokes about everything else, should the Trans community be protected from that cover all joking, but it did feel more like it was something he'd not attacked before, so he decided to make it a focal point this time around and it felt a bit too much of an attack. When those kind of jokes are spread around a bit they feel like jokes. When they are so centred around a group, it's hard to defend.
As I may have mentioned before, through my wife's work we have a very mixed group of friends and acquaintances. One was born a man, is trans and dresses entirely as a mermaid. They found the Gervais stuff hilarious and defended it on social media and 2 or 3 of their trans friends agreed and about 10 were massively offended.
But one Twitter user on either side of the argument will post their feelings and it'll gain massive traction and when it's someone offended, it's easy to believe that every trans person, or gay person or black person shares that view, when it's so much more individual to that persons experience and, like the couple at the Boyle show I mentioned, it's hard for anyone else looking in to know what is genuinely offensive and what is over-sensitivity on the part of the individual, let alone the fact that it's been said at a comedy show where people know it's to be expected, not on the One Show or an ITV advert where it's intended to cause offence.
Like I said, people don't find a porn magazine, take a photo and post it on Twitter saying it's disgusting and the magazine needs to be shut down do they? So it seems odd to do it with anything else you don't agree with but have stumbled across. But again, as a straight, white, middle aged man, it's not for me to determine what others who have suffered racism, transphobia, sexism or homophobia should feel, but it is worth remembering that some people are offended because what is said is offensive generally and others because it's struck a nerve with them individually and not the majority and that's where it gets tricky.
The other week there was a furore on Twitter because someone recalled a story about Prince Charles I think calling someone a monkey and people went mental. It turned out the person he was speaking about was white but nobody seemed to check that before calling him a racist. So again, comedy struggles when it's shared outside it's intended audience, because you lose context and it can become offensive at that stage, if it wasn't before. | | | |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 11:23 - Jun 30 with 518 views | Icantbelieveyousaidt |
Do we now live in a post joke world? - not at all. A good joke will always be a good joke.
What’s the opposite of social media?
Social life. | | | |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 11:38 - Jun 30 with 486 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 10:57 - Jun 30 by STYG |
This for me is the key thing.
Raab winking at Rayner yesterday was ridiculous. He's an MP at his place of work and that behaviour comes across as slimy and sexist. But if Jim Jeffries is doing it to a woman in the front row of his comedy show, a woman who has gone there knowing he's that type of comedian, then it's a very different context and this is what society struggles with. Context.
I used to love Gervais and still do enjoy After Life and some of the other stuff he's been involved in but I'm not a fan of his latest show and felt similar watching it. I agree he should be able to joke about what he wants and I believe that ultimately there's a reasonable conversation to be had to say why, if he jokes about everything else, should the Trans community be protected from that cover all joking, but it did feel more like it was something he'd not attacked before, so he decided to make it a focal point this time around and it felt a bit too much of an attack. When those kind of jokes are spread around a bit they feel like jokes. When they are so centred around a group, it's hard to defend.
As I may have mentioned before, through my wife's work we have a very mixed group of friends and acquaintances. One was born a man, is trans and dresses entirely as a mermaid. They found the Gervais stuff hilarious and defended it on social media and 2 or 3 of their trans friends agreed and about 10 were massively offended.
But one Twitter user on either side of the argument will post their feelings and it'll gain massive traction and when it's someone offended, it's easy to believe that every trans person, or gay person or black person shares that view, when it's so much more individual to that persons experience and, like the couple at the Boyle show I mentioned, it's hard for anyone else looking in to know what is genuinely offensive and what is over-sensitivity on the part of the individual, let alone the fact that it's been said at a comedy show where people know it's to be expected, not on the One Show or an ITV advert where it's intended to cause offence.
Like I said, people don't find a porn magazine, take a photo and post it on Twitter saying it's disgusting and the magazine needs to be shut down do they? So it seems odd to do it with anything else you don't agree with but have stumbled across. But again, as a straight, white, middle aged man, it's not for me to determine what others who have suffered racism, transphobia, sexism or homophobia should feel, but it is worth remembering that some people are offended because what is said is offensive generally and others because it's struck a nerve with them individually and not the majority and that's where it gets tricky.
The other week there was a furore on Twitter because someone recalled a story about Prince Charles I think calling someone a monkey and people went mental. It turned out the person he was speaking about was white but nobody seemed to check that before calling him a racist. So again, comedy struggles when it's shared outside it's intended audience, because you lose context and it can become offensive at that stage, if it wasn't before. |
That's similar with Dave Chappele who following the criticism of one his shows did a whole bit about the friendship he developed with a Trans woman who he mentored a little bit after she came to one of shows. It was both funny and moving to the point of bringing a genuine tear to the eye of this poster.
The outrage he received was magnified by social media and when his friend defended him the avalanche of gate directed at her from what most would consider her own community proved too much | |
| |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 11:46 - Jun 30 with 470 views | STYG |
| Do we now live in a post joke world? on 11:38 - Jun 30 by BlueandTruesince82 |
That's similar with Dave Chappele who following the criticism of one his shows did a whole bit about the friendship he developed with a Trans woman who he mentored a little bit after she came to one of shows. It was both funny and moving to the point of bringing a genuine tear to the eye of this poster.
The outrage he received was magnified by social media and when his friend defended him the avalanche of gate directed at her from what most would consider her own community proved too much |
I've seen all of Chapelle's stuff on Netflix and he talked about this on one of them didn't he?
If I recall, he made trans jokes which people attacked assuming he was transphobic, he pointed out his close friendship with a trans person, who as you say defended him, then they were piled on and I believe took their own life?
So essentially this trans person had no issues with Chapelle's jokes, which they found to be just jokes and not how he felt, but they couldn't cope with other people telling them they should be offended because they were.
This bizarre situation occurred when the person deemed to be the subject of the joke was aggressively defending the joke against people who were offended and not trans. Believe Gervais did something similar about ending up defending a bigot's right to free speech against people whom he largely agreed with.
If I recall Chappelle promised his trans friend to look after their daughter and how now become very close to them?
The whole thing highlights how people confuse the subject of a joke, which can be about a thing without attacking that thing. In this case Chappelle believed massively in trans rights, but found elements of trans funny and made jokes about them, the same way most of us find humour in pretty much everything else, no matter how dark.
The Gervais joke about the Kardashian crashing their car is testament to this. It was a cleverly constructed joke playing on the stereotype of women drivers, but because it was about Bruce Jenner (I think?) people assumed it was transphobic when it clearly was not. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
