Guy from Scotland faces year in prison for training his dog (to do the Nazi salute)

[Kozmos]

At best, this guy lacks imagination to see how people would react to this prank. No. Gassing people is no joke, no matter how you cut it.

I feel like there is such a gigantic divide in humour between East and West. Like national stereotype joke is the basis of good cross-regional friendship in the Balkans.

 

[aelf]

Some Europeans clearly think that saying "Gas the Jews" (not as a reference to something that was done historically or said by someone else) is an acceptable thing to proclaim. But if that's the hill you choose to die on, maybe consider moving to the USA? Just like how you would advocate Islamic fundamentalists move to places like Saudi Arabia, no?

I'd like to see those, and I'd like to see how they determine if somebody is a feminist.

Just think of it as the alt-right and their moderate supporters on this forum having gone completely hysterical and are equating SJWs and feminists with anything that is bad.

 

[Katie88]

Some Europeans clearly think that saying "Gas the Jews" (not as a reference to something that was done historically or said by someone else) is an acceptable thing to proclaim. But if that's the hill you choose to die on, maybe consider moving to the USA?

The only people dying in this thread are those who can't understand why people shouldn't be criminalized for making jokes.

 

[Katie88]

If he'd done a similar stunt which was Islam related, wouldn't he have realized it could cost him a lot, in the wake of Charlie-Hebo?

And I think he's learning how much this is going to cost him.

Well, one positive thing we can say about Scottish Council of Jews (or whatever the organization's name is) is that they didn't send some guys to commit a massacre in response to being offended. But their actions are hardly likely to make people better disposed towards Jews and may well have the opposite effect. Which is rather ironic, I suppose.

 

[Yeekim]

If he'd done a similar stunt which was Islam related, wouldn't he have realized it could cost him a lot, in the wake of Charlie-Hebo?

How do you say that as if it is a good thing?
"There are extremist religious nutjobs out there who execute people for drawing cartoons. Let's emulate their reaction more widely!"
What am I not getting here?

Some Europeans clearly think that saying "Gas the Jews" (not as a reference to something that was done historically or said by someone else) is an acceptable thing to proclaim.

You're claiming the clown under question did not say this "as a reference to something that was done historically or said by someone else" but rather to promote the idea? To incite his viewers?

 

[aelf]

The only people dying in this thread are those who can't understand why people shouldn't be criminalized for making jokes.

Pls learn2english

You're claiming the clown under question did not say this "as a reference to something that was done historically or said by someone else" but rather to promote the idea? To incite his viewers?

He certainly wasn't discussing the Holocaust nor was he talking about somebody else saying the phrase, was he?

Someone could ask people to kill you and then claim it's a joke, but that wouldn't sit well with everyone who's the target, would it?

 

[Katie88]

Pls learn2english

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I must have misinterpreted your statements and you actually understand that it was a joke and that people should allowed to tell jokes without being prosecuted or having to move to the US(!).

 

[Borachio]

How do you say that as if it is a good thing?
"There are extremist religious nutjobs out there who execute people for drawing cartoons. Let's emulate their reaction more widely!"
What am I not getting here?

I understand your confusion. And of course I don't recommend that people are executed for drawing cartoons.

My point was that he would no doubt have realized that an Islamic related stunt similar to this would have provoked a potentially lethal reaction from Muslims.

I doubt he thought about this that carefully, but maybe he thought that picking on the Jews would be a softer target. And in fact they aren't. They will pursue you as relentlessly as the Muslims, though they tend to do it legally these days.

Count Dunkula was just trying to be edgy. And it's possible that in this case he was trying too hard. (All the while snickering at his own "joke".)

Just where can a line be drawn in his proclaimed crusade for free speech?

Would it be OK to publicly advocate the murder of someone as long as you claim you only mean it as a joke?

And if it isn't, why would it OK to publicly advocate genocide as long as you're "only joking"?

(Not that I think he actually meant to publicly advocate genocide. That's a matter for him to convince the court of, though. And if that wasn't his intention, he's still guilty of treating the matter in a trivial manner, which for some reason people whose friends and relatives actually were gassed are likely to take somewhat amiss, to understate it. And my main point is that he could have, and should have, realized this. Perhaps, though, he did. And this is all a publicity stunt to further his "comedy" career. I would expect it to backfire rather badly.)

 

[Katie88]

He was trying to provoke his girlfriend, not Jews.

And he wasn't advocating genocide or harm or violence. That's just silly.

(Nice edit there!).

 

[Kyriakos]

He was trying to provoke his girlfriend, not Jews.

And he wasn't advocating genocide or harm or violence. That's just silly.

What if his gf was actually jewish?
/wotatwist ^^

 

[Katie88]

What if his gf was actually jewish?
/wotatwist ^^

Then he would be trying to provoke a Jew, not Jews.

 

[Borachio]

(Nice edit there!).

OK. Sorry about that.

I tend to post something, and then keep on thinking.

It's a failing of mine, I know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, if I held you in high esteem it would seem less likely that I would call your position a pretense. So one possible reason for you to "not believe I think it is a pretense" would be "because the high esteem I hold you in would keep me from thinking that." I think there are far more likely reasons for you to not believe that I think that, most of them based on the rapidly failing hope that anyone is taking you at your word and not thinking that your position is just a pretense.

You realise I'm not the guy in the video right? In what way is his "pretence" that he is joking in any way mine?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

An appropriate punishment would be to retrain the dog, and make a video apologizing

Are you serious? What business of anyone else's is it what the dog is trained to respond to? Do you think the dog is ACTUALLY a Nazi now?

 

[Katie88]

OK. Sorry about that.

I tend to post something, and then keep on thinking.

It's a failing of mine, I know.

Not a problem at all. Just wanted to point it out because otherwise people might think I didn't read your post properly, and we can't have that!

To address your point, treating something serious in a trivial manner (or the reverse) is one of the cornerstones of comedy. More broadly, we make jokes about sensitive subjects all the time, including war and death . So it's not clear to me why a particular subject should be off-limits, unless someone is actually encouraging violence, etc.

 

[Borachio]

I agree that it is a cornerstone of comedy.

I dispute that this was anything akin to comedy. Though he did mean it to be, he has patently failed.

Times have changed substantially.

The Irish "joke" has completely disappeared from the comedy platform, for instance.

And I wonder if Jewish people being gassed was ever in vogue.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My point was that he would no doubt have realized that an Islamic related stunt similar to this would have provoked a potentially lethal reaction from Muslims.

I doubt he thought about this that carefully, but maybe he thought that picking on the Jews would be a softer target.

Or... he wanted to turn his dog into a Nazi to annoy his girlfriend and, as the Nazis aren't really as famous for gassing Muslims, "picking on" the Muslims wouldn't have made the slightest bit of sense.

And are you arguing that because there's an increased risk of being beheaded by terrorists if you "pick on" one group, that the state should step in with custodial sentences if you "pick on" other groups in order to balance things out? How about we just recognise beheading by terrorists as a bad thing and just be happy that other groups don't tend to be that insane.

 

[Borachio]

No. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying he wouldn't have dared to pick on the Muslims.

He did dare pick on the Jews.

And I'm saying he's very foolish (though probably not fatally so) for doing it in public.

I'm saying nothing about what should happen to him now.

 

[Katie88]

I agree that it is a cornerstone of comedy.

I dispute that this was anything akin to comedy. Though he did mean it to be, he has patently failed.

Times have changed substantially.

The Irish "joke" has completely disappeared from the comedy platform, for instance.

But all you're saying there is that such jokes are unfashionable and that you didn't find it funny. Neither did I, but so what? Several people in this thread said they found it funny. People have different tastes, and that's fine. None of that is really relevant to whether someone should be taken to court over making a joke.

And I wonder if Jewish people being gassed was ever in vogue.

That's just too easy! I'll leave readers to make the obvious joke for themselves.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I dispute that this was anything akin to comedy. Though he did mean it to be, he has patently failed.

Well I watched the video again to refresh my memory* and I still found it funny, so it worked for me.

But I don't know how many times I have to say this... How many people find something funny (or don't) isn't a metric for deciding if the thing was meant to be taken seriously! I mean come on. "I didn't find it funny" isn't an argument, it's a complete irrelevance.

* or get my daily dose of Nazi propaganda, depending on how paranoid you are.