Conquer Club

This is a serious question to Juan:

At what point in time do you say that an event is open to jokes, if any? Should I be upset whenever somebody makes a Polish joke? They were stomped on in WWII. Six million Poles were killed in WWII. Should I be upset when people make fun of the Scots for kilts or the Irish for the potato famine?

All these events which are part of my genealogy mean absolutely nothing to me, other than being footnotes in history. They don't have an effect on current affairs, and I don't see the point in dwelling on something that has no real relevance to the present.

Do you get similarly upset when somebody makes Russian or Communist Soviet jokes (recall the Russian pogroms of the Jews, which, iirc, predate the Holocaust concentration camps)? So, while you say you had distant family that was involved in the Holocaust, really you have no claim to its effects.

Unless you can answer the above as "yes," then your position is untenable. I can only find merit in your argument if you can honestly say that any atrocious event, regardless of its time in history, is not open to jests.

-TG

betiko wrote:Image removed.

There is something really wrong about this.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Because you're not a victim of bigotry, and you want to be...

Dude, seriously. LEARN... TO... READ... I don't want to be a victim of bigotry. I'm pointing out your shit guzzling hypocrisy; that's my interest here. To get it through your brain that being offended by something is subjective, not objective and when you offend someone else during and immediately after going on a tirade about being offended yourself, you're a shit guzzling hypocrit.

No, you're playing victim. You said that I was being bigoted against Catholics when I said that the members of the Catholic Church are protecting pedophiles. If you go to Catholic Mass, then your time there is a vote for the practices of the church. If you give them money, then you're also financially supporting their actions.
You then tried to use my disgust over your Holocaust jokes as leverage to make me stop "being bigoted" against Catholics.

I am not a Jew and my heritage has nothing to do with why I'm angry that you find Holocaust jokes funny. It's that you guys will make a dozen pages of Holocaust jokes, and then tell me that it's just subjective humor. It's subjective to you, but not to the people who cannot help themselves. The more you try to argue the subjective-ness of free speech, the closer you move to subjugation from free speech.

Humor, art, displeasure, and even reality are all subjective. But that doesn't mean that every interpretation or experience is equally valid. You've gone to college; have you never read the words of Aurelius, Einstein, Voltaire, Nietzsche, or Jefferson? All great thinkers, and some of the best philosophers we've ever had... and each one of them said that ideas, beliefs, and opinions should be challenged, and often. Jefferson went so far as to say that it was our obligation to mock an untenable position. I believe it was Galileo who said "experiences should never be mocked, but bad ideas must be questioned by bold men." We've inherited a philosophical code from the great thinkers, and it's one of truth; that the line in the sand is always choice. You chose to financially support the protection of Child Molesters, so don't hide behind the guise that your religion isn't up for criticism. Or that it deserves equal respect as the living memory of the Holocaust. Or that anyone who insults you or your religion for protecting child molesters is automatically a bigot. That's weak.
I have continuously answered your cries of "IT'S MY RELIGION THOUGH!" while respectfully answering your point, and you yet you repeat yourself without consideration. It's intellectually lazy to claim that each butthurt is identical like you do, and like corporate handbooks do. You chose your religion but people's born into minorities did not choose that.

We're not talking about insulting Holocaust survivors. No one made disparaging remarks.

A few people did, yes. And of course once so many people participate and a thread reaches a certain number of posts, the whole damn thing becomes a disparaging indictment of the human spirit. It doesn't matter if you make 1,000 corny jokes about the Holocaust. In the end you've still compiled a canon of jokes that insults the living memory of the Holocaust.
But only BBS went so far as to attack me for standing up for what was right and post a three-volume book about what makes the Holocaust laughable. Hence the reason I foed him. Everyone else simply acknowledged that whatever remark they did make was in bad taste. BBS was proud.
And you argued with me that if I was going to stop my friends from making Holocaust jokes then I had no right to mock dogmatic Catholics.

How can you make this judgment when you don't know me at all? There has never been anything I posted that would make someone say "TGD doesn't care about the Holocaust or Holocaust victims" except that I made one quote in that movie thread.

And you want to know the single, biggest, most important telling thing in all this? Not one person in the McGill usergroup is in here taking your side in this thing. Not a single goddamn person.

You said that you found humor in Holocaust jokes and you participated in all those pages.It wasn't a one time or occasional incident. I ignored it for a very long time. You're continuous jokes insulted the living memory of the Holocaust, so no, you don't care. If you did care then you would never laugh. And you wouldn't call someone hypocritical for calling you out on mocking the Holocaust because of something so weak as your person choice of religion. Equating the insulting of your participation with child molestation with insulting the victims of the Holocaust is disastrously faulty and sick. And again, I never pointed the finger at you until this argument. I didn't even know you were a Catholic.
I'm not black, but I wont hang out with a bunch of rednecks making depreciating black jokes, because I do care. I wont hang out with you because you enjoy Holocaust jokes, because I do care. You didn't care until someone told you to stop, and then you only pretended to care. Because "offense is subjective."

I got 3 PMs from different people the first time. I'm very proud of those people. Besides, none of them are here.... and that's kind of like the same lazy argument that I hear the religious make all the time.... "Can so many people be wrong?" Yeah, they can.
The KKK had millions of members. But that doesn't mean that the Mississippi Civil Rights Workers Murders were good or right. The only good and Honorable thing is to do what is right, no matter how difficult it is.

Kiss and make up boys.

saxitoxin wrote:Juan's howls of indignation are funny.

-Juan is mad his family got "slaughtered" by "the Germans" ... he felt "the Germans" should have raised a voice to Hitler. (But they were offered the world's first workman's comp program, and didn't want to risk it. So they just quietly shook their heads, said 'that's too bad' and then thronged to party mass rallies to support the Führer.)

-Juan is not so mad other people's families are getting "slaughtered" by "the Americans" ... he is meekly supple before the majesty of Obama. (Juan, too, was offered treats and goodies and didn't want to risk them. So he occasionally offers a sympathetic word on an anonymous message board before spending 10 times as many words defending the regime, or rallying to the voting booth in a coat festooned with buttons and badges displaying the Iron O logo.)

Juan's moral hypocrisy is more hilarious by the day. He's in it for #1. You're not a victim, Juan, despite your desperation to be one. You're not part of the intellectual aristocracy, though you've convinced yourself you are. You're one of the plump, unwashed masses whose ethics ebbs and sways depending on the volume of carrots or severity of the stick.

This is horrifying propaganda... please don't listen to this guy with thinking about it first.
Germans did not go to war for Hitler or participate in the Holocaust because of a workman's comp program. How insulting and maddening is it to even say so?

saxitoxin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:TA1LGUNN3R can argue from a position of authority on the matter. I do not agree with him

It doesn't take special knowledge to know that alphabet words like the N-Word or R-Word are offensive hate speech, nor does it require your agreement.

Hopefully one day you will make the choice to join those of us in civilization and stop using words like n***er, ch**k, f*g or re**rd. Since it's been widely communicated this isn't acceptable behavior in the 21st century your feigned surprise to hear that n***er or re**rd are offensive is doubly knuckle-dragging.

Further - using the Holocaust to score a gotcha in some imagined internet message board rivalry - and your crocodile teared cartwheels of outrage - is more offensive than the most offensive joke.

Threads like this make me wonder if it was a very good idea to bring the internet to Appalachia.

Ok, so you use my use of the word to score a victory, then you accuse me of using the Holocaust to score a victory.

Then you say that using the N-word or R-word is offensive and widely communicated to be unacceptable. But before you say that, you say that it's ok to make fun of the Holocaust. And then you insult the people of Appalachia for no reason. You are a dumb jerk. If the "rest of us in civilization" want to use the Holocaust for humor, then I'd rather go live with those people in Appalachia who you just mocked.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:This is a serious question to Juan:

At what point in time do you say that an event is open to jokes, if any? Should I be upset whenever somebody makes a Polish joke? They were stomped on in WWII. Six million Poles were killed in WWII. Should I be upset when people make fun of the Scots for kilts or the Irish for the potato famine?

All these events which are part of my genealogy mean absolutely nothing to me, other than being footnotes in history. They don't have an effect on current affairs, and I don't see the point in dwelling on something that has no real relevance to the present.

Do you get similarly upset when somebody makes Russian or Communist Soviet jokes (recall the Russian pogroms of the Jews, which, iirc, predate the Holocaust concentration camps)? So, while you say you had distant family that was involved in the Holocaust, really you have no claim to its effects.

Unless you can answer the above as "yes," then your position is untenable. I can only find merit in your argument if you can honestly say that any atrocious event, regardless of its time in history, is not open to jests.

-TG

I probably shouldn't be throwing my two cents in but I think you are strongly comparing apples and oranges. There is a big difference between jokes against a vague generalization (such as groups of people) and jokes against a specific instance (such as an event). A Scots joke, a Polish joke, even a Nazi joke is completely different from a Holocaust joke, or a 911 Joke or a Wounded Knee joke.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Comedians don't have Holocaust Joke Sets, and they don't have 9-11 Joke Sets. But they do have Religious Joke Sets... because you can choose what you believe, but you cannot choose the events that happen to you. And again, I've never made a joke about Catholicism ever. Have I previously insulted Catholicism? Probably. And that's not a joke. But do Catholics deserve the same sensitivity as Holocaust victims? God damn it, no.

Is it possible for a joke about, say, the Crusades to not be in bad taste? I think that JB's indignation about using the Holocaust as a source of joke material has some sense, but it is not possible to think of these things in one simple way. We might always be horrified by what happened, but that doesn't mean it couldn't also be funny or harmless in a certain light (what happened to the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrifying and in some sense a genocide, yet we have "nuclear spoils" on this site). The Holocaust is still real to many who are alive today, or the direct descendants of those people; my father's parents were both concentration camp survivors, and that had a deep impact on how my father was raised (and therefore myself). But that is not what defines me. With time and cultural distance these things become less directly insulting, even if they are obviously horrific upon reflection. Juan, you have to be careful about striking the right balance between impressing upon people the importance of never letting genocides happen again, while at the same time remembering that it is in human nature to be irreverent about such things as a coping mechanism.

Not enough time has gone by. I was raised by my grandparents, one was a survivor of Nazi Aggression and the other was attacked by the KKK.
In Eastern Europe, there is even less public tolerance, and many more survivors still around. In fact in Illinois we had a community built for survivors after the war. There has got to be at least a million people alive today who were raised by Holocaust survivors. If you want to widen the net to people who experienced it first hand, then the number is going to be much bigger. And they are spread around the western globe.
Furthermore, it wasn't like genocide stopped happening. There are people on this very website who survived the Bosnian Genocide of the 90s, and I doubt they would find Holocaust jokes to be funny either. In fact I know that they don't. America is separated by an ocean, but that doesn't make it ok for us to offend the rest of the world with sh*tty jokes. That's why I and others have made clear the distinction about where the jokes should stop. Society is not so far removed from these events that it's become ok not to respect them.

tzor wrote:I probably shouldn't be throwing my two cents in but I think you are strongly comparing apples and oranges. There is a big difference between jokes against a vague generalization (such as groups of people) and jokes against a specific instance (such as an event). A Scots joke, a Polish joke, even a Nazi joke is completely different from a Holocaust joke, or a 911 Joke or a Wounded Knee joke.

The jokes in question were Nazi jokes, specifically puns on movie titles using terms from Third-Reich era Germany. The thread started in OT here, got locked, and was resumed in a private forum. This whole thread is a reaction to what happened in the mk. II thread (which happened, like, over a year ago).

So my post is relevant w/in this context.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:This is a serious question to Juan:

At what point in time do you say that an event is open to jokes, if any? Should I be upset whenever somebody makes a Polish joke? They were stomped on in WWII. Six million Poles were killed in WWII. Should I be upset when people make fun of the Scots for kilts or the Irish for the potato famine?

All these events which are part of my genealogy mean absolutely nothing to me, other than being footnotes in history. They don't have an effect on current affairs, and I don't see the point in dwelling on something that has no real relevance to the present.

Do you get similarly upset when somebody makes Russian or Communist Soviet jokes (recall the Russian pogroms of the Jews, which, iirc, predate the Holocaust concentration camps)? So, while you say you had distant family that was involved in the Holocaust, really you have no claim to its effects.

Unless you can answer the above as "yes," then your position is untenable. I can only find merit in your argument if you can honestly say that any atrocious event, regardless of its time in history, is not open to jests.

-TG

I think that I've already answered most of this, but I suppose that I've written enough that nobody is reading it.

I don't know at what point it becomes ok to make jokes about deaths in History. I did stand-up comedy for a while, but I really don't know the answer. Certainly it's always in bad taste to make fun of someone's death, acutely so if they were murdered. Though there is probably a grey area for jokes about a dictator's or jerk's deaths...

You shouldn't make fun of the Polish for just for being Polish. They didn't choose to be born in Poland. That doesn't mean that you should be fighting mad whenever someone makes a stupid joke, but if the jokes continue on and on, then you should ask them to stop.

Why would you make fun of the Irish for being starved to death?
Kilts can probably pretty much be made fun indefinitely, because it's a choice to wear them.

If you don't know if a joke is appropriate, just ask yourself if the person made a choice. If someone wakes up with bad hair, that's funny. If they wake up missing a kidney, that's not funny.


I have repeatedly said that I am not claiming that my heritage gives me special powers. Why do you people keep saying that? I was raised directly by survivors; I did not have distant relatives involved that I know of. I bring that up to explain my voracious defense here, because these people in my life taught me the seriousness of the situation. I empathize wholly with those who survived and continue to do so, and that's why I say the Holocaust jokes need to stop. I'm not claiming heretical privileges, only explaining why I would go so far, and that our society is not removed from the Holocaust. Over 6 million people were massacred 70 years ago. It's not that long ago, and it's not funny. Our own grandparents and parents were unwilling participants. And many other have been caught up in other slaughters in Europe, Africa, and Asia since then. Only North America has avoided a Mass slaughter of a minority... unless you consider our government's refusal to aid the Gay community during the 80s. But that's kinda stretching it. We have stood by while genocides happened, and we have endorsed them as well. And none of it is funny.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that I've already answered most of this, but I suppose that I've written enough that nobody is reading it.

I don't know at what point it becomes ok to make jokes about deaths in History. I did stand-up comedy for a while, but I really don't know the answer. Certainly it's always in bad taste to make fun of someone's death, acutely so if they were murdered. Though there is probably a grey area for jokes about a dictator's or jerk's deaths...

You shouldn't make fun of the Polish for just for being Polish. They didn't choose to be born in Poland. That doesn't mean that you should be fighting mad whenever someone makes a stupid joke, but if the jokes continue on and on, then you should ask them to stop.

Why would you make fun of the Irish for being starved to death?
Kilts can probably pretty much be made fun indefinitely, because it's a choice to wear them.

If you don't know if a joke is appropriate, just ask yourself if the person made a choice. If someone wakes up with bad hair, that's funny. If they wake up missing a kidney, that's not funny.


I have repeatedly said that I am not claiming that my heritage gives me special powers. Why do you people keep saying that? I was raised directly by survivors; I did not have distant relatives involved that I know of. I bring that up to explain my voracious defense here, because these people in my life taught me the seriousness of the situation. I empathize wholly with those who survived and continue to do so, and that's why I say the Holocaust jokes need to stop. I'm not claiming heretical privileges, only explaining why I would go so far, and that our society is not removed from the Holocaust. Over 6 million people were massacred 70 years ago. It's not that long ago, and it's not funny. Our own grandparents and parents were unwilling participants. And many other have been caught up in other slaughters in Europe, Africa, and Asia since then. Only North America has avoided a Mass slaughter of a minority... unless you consider our government's refusal to aid the Gay community during the 80s. But that's kinda stretching it. We have stood by while genocides happened, and we have endorsed them as well. And none of it is funny.

Still, I think what you are failing to realize is that your opinions regarding these varied examples are not universally accepted. Don't you see the huge contradiction in chastising others for being disrespectful when you have a tendency to be this way yourself?

saxitoxin wrote:[snipped]

Juan_Bottom wrote:You are a dumb jerk.

That's better. You come across as more legitimate when you write like yourself instead of writing with the flowery elucidations of someone you're clearly not.

Juan_Bottom wrote:In fact in Illinois we had a community built for survivors after the war.

Yes. You're such a brave survivor/victim. Please regale us with more stories of your courageous struggle.

These contortionist attempts to attach yourself to the Holocaust for the benefit of a fantasy message board rivalry are probably the grossest thing I've ever read online.

Yea, this is like the Holocaust version of InsomniaRed.

DoomYoshi wrote:Yea, this is like the Holocaust version of InsomniaRed.

+250 SxBx

Funkyterrance wrote:Still, I think what you are failing to realize is that your opinions regarding these varied examples are not universally accepted. Don't you see the huge contradiction in chastising others for being disrespectful when you have a tendency to be this way yourself?

I've answered this question several times already? Pretty much in every single post that I've made actually. And so quickly again - they are universally accepted, though not always spoken. You saw the short list of people that I gave who've given us this philosophy, and again I will point at digital media. Nobody on TV, Radio, or whatever will spend 40 minutes doing Holocaust jokes, 9-11 jokes, or jokingly bully someone. They can and do spend that much time discussing religion though. And that's because of the diving line of choice. You choose religion, you do not choose to be hated by being born into a minority.
Don't you see the glaring problem that comes with saying that the Holocaust deserves equal respect as religion? It's intellectually lazy to say that every butthurt is equal. Or that every idea is equal. If a religion promotes pedophilia, and I say that's stupid... is this "disrespect" equal to a joke on Holocaust victims? The real disrespect is raping the kids, and saying that nobody can question that without being a bigot. I don't question the integrity of the believer... they do believe in what they believe. Like with JBII's Agnosticism, I attack the belief, but not the believer. He and I are on good terms & I don't have a problem with him at all.
It's for those reasons why, as I've already stated twice, I'VE NEVER MADE A CATHOLIC JOKE, EVER. We all reserve the right to criticize any bad belief that hurts people... Even if that belief is part of your sacred and unquestionable religion... Or even if that belief is that the Holocaust happened so long ago that it's funny now... If that's bigotry, then I'm a bigot. I just don't understand why Americans will so desperately argue that other people's religions are not discussable. I was literally criticizing the financial support of pedophiles, and now I'm being called a hypocrite because laughing at the Holocaust is somehow the same thing.

saxitoxin wrote:These contortionist attempts to attach yourself to the Holocaust for the benefit of a fantasy message board rivalry are probably the grossest thing I've ever read online.

This is two-sided, because after the fact BBS attached himself to the Holocaust by claiming he was a jew so he could make fun of it. I brought up the fact that I was raised by survivors to show you that this did not happen a million years ago. Some people here, you actually, seem to think that it was sooooo long ago that no one cares.

You said that the Holocaust can be a source of joke material. Now for the second time you claim special Holocaust privilege... You don't even know anything about the subject matter, as you claim that your German ancestors murdered the Jews to get at their material wealth. Well, that unless you're just so bored with this place that you're not even trying to sound like a plausible person anymore.

Other than that, Whatever. You're not even a real person, so what do I care that you attack me personally? What am I going to do? Attack your pretend girlfriend? It's like fighting online with Santa Clause about whether or not I've been a good boy.

DoomYoshi wrote:Yea, this is like the Holocaust version of InsomniaRed.

You remind me of Patrick Durreister. "I don't like to read, but I have an opinion and I'm gonna share it."

And even if I were only to say "you guys, my whole family was murdered in X-Genocide, so stop!" That wouldn't be good enough for you? You would continue to torture them with jokes? There is at least one person in this forum who was hunted during the Bosnian Genocide of the 90s. Certainly they feel a certain pain when you joke about the Holocaust as well. I know that I already brought this up, but your total lack of compassion is so flabbergasting. You're such an insensitive jerk... I'm going to ask them if I can share their message to me about this because you need to see it.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Don't you see the glaring problem that comes with saying that the Holocaust deserves equal respect as religion? It's intellectually lazy to say that every butthurt is equal. Or that every idea is equal. If a religion promotes pedophilia, and I say that's stupid... is this "disrespect" equal to a joke on Holocaust victims? The real disrespect is raping the kids, and saying that nobody can question that without being a bigot. I don't question the integrity of the believer... they do believe in what they believe. Like with JBII's Agnosticism, I attack the belief, but not the believer. He and I are on good terms & I don't have a problem with him at all.

The problem is only glaring from your perspective though, the butthurt is the operative issue here, not the subject matter. It's been opined that you are overreacting to jokes made here but it's hard to see any defense for you when you make the import of the subject entirely dependent on your personal opinions. Choice, no choice, it doesn't make as much difference as you would like it to since again it's all basically subjective. Someone could say that so and so being murdered during the holocaust was just a drop in the bucket and you shouldn't be so concerned over it in the grand scheme of things. We are talking about emotional issues here so which is logically more valid by any side doesn't really enter into it.

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's for those reasons why, as I've already stated twice, I'VE NEVER MADE A CATHOLIC JOKE, EVER. We all reserve the right to criticize any bad belief that hurts people... Even if that belief is part of your sacred and unquestionable religion... Or even if that belief is that the Holocaust happened so long ago that it's funny now... If that's bigotry, then I'm a bigot. I just don't understand why Americans will so desperately argue that other people's religions are not discussable. I was literally criticizing the financial support of pedophiles, and now I'm being called a hypocrite because laughing at the Holocaust is somehow the same thing.

It could be argued that, depending on the nature of the criticizm(mockery, for instance), that making a criticism could be far more tasteless than a joke that was, while inconsiderate, was not meant to be mean-spirited
And I've got to mention that I don't know of any modern religions that "promote" pedophilia, that's just ridiculous...

Funkyterrance wrote:And I've got to mention that I don't know of any modern religions that "promote" pedophilia, that's just ridiculous...

Have you been reading my posts in this thread at all?

tgd said that I was being bigoted for attacking his church for not cooperating during investigations of pedophilia. tgd says that I am bigoted for attacking the church's protection of the people who covered up the rapes. And the bigotry also comes from saying that Catholic's support the rape because they are paying into the church, and voting for the protection of pedophiles whenever they visit Catholic Church.

You can't just keep arguing from the assumed position that tgd is right without addressing the underlying issue that I was attacking his financial and personal support of pedophiles, and he's defending it by saying "but it's my religion." You need to take a stand. Is pedophilia open to criticism even if it's part of religion? If yes, then tgd is wrong and the subject matter is important. That doesn't make me right, but that does make him wrong.

And of course you know of churches that promote pedophilia. There are Mormon Churches here in the US who have been in the news recently for marrying children, and we all know that in the Middle East young girls are married off. In some remote parts of Africa, teenage girls are a form of currency. In Saudi Arabia it's legal to jail a girl of 11 for refusing marriage. In Rwanda, Etheopia, Kyrgyzstan and other nations girls are kidnapped for the purpose of marriage/rape, with the consent of the government. And if you weren't aware this was going on under the protection of religious freedom, then at least you're aware now.

Funkyterrance wrote:The problem is only glaring from your perspective though, the butthurt is the operative issue here, not the subject matter.

Ok so here we go again, you are arguing that all butthurts are exactly equal.... That's so silly. If someone is depressed for 20 years because their pet snail was run over by a car, that's something to be sympathetic to. But it's not as deserving of sympathy as if their whole family died in a car accident.
You're just wrong. The subject matter is the most important issue here. It's more important than anyone's feelings.

But let's forget all those great thinking men that I named, and assume that society and learned men never formed an opinion about this. I'll entertain your logic for a moment although I don't think it fair that you never entertain my points. Where do we draw the line?

Funkyterrance wrote:We are talking about emotional issues here so which is logically more valid by any side doesn't really enter into it.

Yes it does.
You just said that emotion is more important than reason and logic, and that's just silly. It's silly and dumb.
Let's say a detective concludes that Bill killed his wife. Is it a good defense for Bill to say that he knew it was wrong to kill his wife, but his emotions took control? Or is he even more guilty because he was fully aware of the consequences actions but was unwilling or unable to control them?


I just cannot get over the fact that you guys are saying that Pedophilia should not be criticized because its thegreekdog.

Funkyterrance wrote:And I've got to mention that I don't know of any modern religions that "promote" pedophilia, that's just ridiculous...

Some may disagree.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Ok so here we go again, you are arguing that all butthurts are exactly equal.... That's so silly. If someone is depressed for 20 years because their pet snail was run over by a car, that's something to be sympathetic to. But it's not as deserving of sympathy as if their whole family died in a car accident.
You're just wrong. The subject matter is the most important issue here. It's more important than anyone's feelings.

But you're just using the same example, one being more severe than the other. That's not an accurate comparison. A more accurate comparison would be between the mocking of a person's belief system who is currently alive and them getting their feelings hurt and someone making a joke about the victimization of someone who is dead and gone. It all revolves around your own personal belief system so yes, it is all subjective. It could be argued that scenario A is actually more logically deserving of sympathy and/or sympathy.
So what you're saying is that if anyone can come up with an argument that shows that, logically speaking, your scenario is actually less deserving of respect then you will accept it? Or would your emotions/opinions/belief system cause you to see this argument as irrelevant?

Funkyterrance wrote:We are talking about emotional issues here so which is logically more valid by any side doesn't really enter into it.

Juan_Bottom wrote:You just said that emotion is more important than reason and logic, and that's just silly. It's silly and dumb.

No I didn't. I implied that the logical aspect of an emotional response is going to be based on an individual's opinions and therefore doesn't transfer over neatly from person to person.
I'm not saying one is more important, I'm saying that you are basing your logical argument on your belief system and more importantly on the assumption that your belief system is more valid than someone else's belief system. Another person may think it's "silly and dumb", logically speaking, to be offended by jokes about the Holocaust, no matter what horrible way you may be associated with it. This is potentially a very good argument but I'm not going to impose it on you because I think logic is more or less irrelevant regarding the emotional responses of others.

Funkyterrance wrote:But you're just using the same example, one being more severe than the other.

By saying that one is more sever than the other you're also admitting that the 'pain' inflicted is not socially accepted as equal. That was my point.
i.e. the pain inflicted when insulting someone's choice to believe that Bigfoot is real is not the same as the pain inflicted by making a racial stereotype at someone.

Like the belief in Bigfoot, all untenable positions can and should be ridiculed or questioned. That's not to say that you should question the integrity of the believer for believing in it, but that you should question the integrity of the belief itself. I've never attacked anyone here just because they are a Catholic or whatever. There is no honesty in that.

Funkyterrance wrote: It all revolves around your own personal belief system so yes, it is all subjective.

Even if it is subjective, society has already decided, has it not? We have some kind of inherited sympathy mechanism that is largely the same everywhere? Why can a comedian safely do 40 minutes of religious jokes, but cannot do 40 minutes of Holocaust jokes?

Funkyterrance wrote:So what you're saying is that if anyone can come up with an argument that shows that, logically speaking, your scenario is actually less deserving of respect then you will accept it?

It's not a question of what deserves more respect....I mean, how many times have I raised a fuss over stupid jokes or whatever? You're only crossing the line when you're making fun of someone or something where no choice is involved. Of course it's intellectually lazy to say that everything over that line is all equal, but since we all agree that it's completely wrong to make fun of it, I don't think it's important to grade these things. By which I mean, I'm not going to do the math to figure out if it's worse to sexually harass someone than it is to mock the Holocaust. It's all wrong and it should never happen.
But some insults on this site have offended me, particularly those aimed at Atheism or those directed at me personally just for being a Socialist. But I am aware that these offenses are minor, and I should suck it up. That kind of butthurt is faaaaaaar less deserving of respect than, say,.. joking about someone's abduction. Emotions and desires may be the wind and the tide, but your brain must take the helm of the ship.

I'm saying that you are basing your logical argument on your belief system and more importantly on the assumption that your belief system is more valid than someone else's belief system.

Interesting... but where do you find fault? I know that I cannot find fault... society itself and our great philosophers have already made their minds up, and I agree with them. All I've heard in opposition is that emotional responses are unpredictable, and they are, but that doesn't necessarily make them relevant. Maybe someone freaks out because you make fun of apples... but that doesn't make their reaction respectable... unless maybe something traumatic happened with apples that was out of their control or something.

Juan_Bottom wrote:i.e. the pain inflicted when insulting someone's choice to believe that Bigfoot is real is not the same as the pain inflicted by making a racial stereotype at someone.

NO. The pain inflicted by calling someone stupid for believing in bigfoot could very well be the same as the pain inflicted by making a racial stereotype and this example embodies everything that is wrong with your argument.

Funkyterrance wrote: It all revolves around your own personal belief system so yes, it is all subjective.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Even if it is subjective, society has already decided, has it not? We have some kind of inherited sympathy mechanism that is largely the same everywhere? Why can a comedian safely do 40 minutes of religious jokes, but cannot do 40 minutes of Holocaust jokes?

That's a pretty naive assumption as of course it again depends on the audience and their personal belief systems.

Funkyterrance wrote:So what you're saying is that if anyone can come up with an argument that shows that, logically speaking, your scenario is actually less deserving of respect then you will accept it?

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not a question of what deserves more respect....I mean, how many times have I raised a fuss over stupid jokes or whatever? You're only crossing the line when you're making fun of someone or something where no choice is involved. Of course it's intellectually lazy to say that everything over that line is all equal, but since we all agree that it's completely wrong to make fun of it, I don't think it's important to grade these things.

But this whole discussion has more or less proven that all don't agree it's completely wrong to make fun of it. You've got to accept this fact before you can move on with this train of thought.

I'm saying that you are basing your logical argument on your belief system and more importantly on the assumption that your belief system is more valid than someone else's belief system.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Interesting... but where do you find fault? I know that I cannot find fault... society itself and our great philosophers have already made their minds up, and I agree with them. All I've heard in opposition is that emotional responses are unpredictable, and they are, but that doesn't necessarily make them relevant. Maybe someone freaks out because you make fun of apples... but that doesn't make their reaction respectable... unless maybe something traumatic happened with apples that was out of their control or something.

The point about the logical path that each person uses to arrive a their personal belief system not being universal has already been made: It doesn't matter. What matters is how we behave having understood this.

(Posted in another topic but applies here as well)

Ever read any Heinlein? In "Stranger in a Strange Land," Mike the Martian did not understand humor. As part of trying to get Mike comfortable with his humanity and culture on this strange-to-him world (despite genetically he was human, he was born on Mars, raised by Martians, so was "Martian" in thinking) they took him to the zoo. There, he saw a big ape pummel a medium-sized ape who turned around and pummelled a smaller ape, and it made Mike laugh and he finally understood humor.

“I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much . . . because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting.”

Think about any joke, ANY joke, you've ever heard.. someone is ALWAYS "hurt" by it to some degree.

_sabotage_ wrote:Kiss and make up boys.

I'm just going to ignore it, simply because I'm not permitted to post anything from the threads we're discussing. All of my statements are 100% accurate. All of his statements are lies. It's really as simple as that.

There are a bunch of ideas floating around in this thread from various posters with which I do and don't agree. I sort of just want to stream of consciousness my thoughts on this.

The idea that you can use a joke "because comedy" is pretty weak. There are various types of comedy, and the quality of the comedy often has much more to do with the comic than the actual bit. Presentation, charisma, and an outside the box perspective are often much more important for successful comedy than the actual bit itself. A good comic can take a "bad joke" and make it work, and a bad comic can take a "good one" and ruin it. Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art. The criticism is part of it, and you need to be able to address it one way or the other. Anyone that says "it's just comedy" is doing it wrong.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

Neoteny wrote:There are a bunch of ideas floating around in this thread from various posters with which I do and don't agree. I sort of just want to stream of consciousness my thoughts on this.

The idea that you can use a joke "because comedy" is pretty weak. There are various types of comedy, and the quality of the comedy often has much more to do with the comic than the actual bit. Presentation, charisma, and an outside the box perspective are often much more important for successful comedy than the actual bit itself. A good comic can take a "bad joke" and make it work, and a bad comic can take a "good one" and ruin it. Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art. The criticism is part of it, and you need to be able to address it one way or the other. Anyone that says "it's just comedy" is doing it wrong.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

See: Dr. Strangelove.

According to Juan this movie shouldn't be funny.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Neoteny wrote:There are a bunch of ideas floating around in this thread from various posters with which I do and don't agree. I sort of just want to stream of consciousness my thoughts on this.

The idea that you can use a joke "because comedy" is pretty weak. There are various types of comedy, and the quality of the comedy often has much more to do with the comic than the actual bit. Presentation, charisma, and an outside the box perspective are often much more important for successful comedy than the actual bit itself. A good comic can take a "bad joke" and make it work, and a bad comic can take a "good one" and ruin it. Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art. The criticism is part of it, and you need to be able to address it one way or the other. Anyone that says "it's just comedy" is doing it wrong.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

See: Dr. Strangelove.

According to Juan this movie shouldn't be funny.

-TG

I'm not necessarily against the idea that using a particular subject matter can be funny. Just that depending on the subject matter, using it to be funny will understandably draw criticism, and one should be able to satisfactorily address that criticism. What people find funny and why jokes cross the line are two different categories that will often overlap. People laugh at race jokes. People laugh at religious jokes. People laugh at ironic jokes. People laugh at holocaust jokes. People laugh at bad puns. People laugh at rape jokes. And people laugh at jokes about people dying. There is a spectrum of acceptability, and that spectrum is necessarily subjective.

Dr. Strangelove had quite a bit to say about its subject matter, and was using humor to get that point across. This is more acceptable to many people than, say, just trying to get a rise out of people on an internet forum.