- Nov 23, 2005
- High above the ice
A rape joke is joking about something realWhat's the distinction? A joke about a rape, a mechanic about slavery. They're both something about a traumatic thing. You're attempting to suggest that because people are saying we shouldn't have rape jokes, we therefore shouldn't have violence in video games. Or the reverse (that because we do, we should therefore permit rape jokes). And that's not a nuanced comparison. It's one rooted in simple yes / no permissiveness. It ignores context. For example, Civilisation might be able to implement something in a way that is more constructive (to the point of the game and the history than it's trying to portray), but another game might not. See again: slavery, and how it kinda vanished from the franchise.
I said, they don't traumatise in the same way. Again, we can't really stick on slavery here because it pretty much vanished from the game. I wonder why? Violence is different because the aspect of trauma will change depending on context. People object to killing humans in video games more than they do something like demons. People object to realistic depictions of violence more than they do cartoon violence. The closer to "real" something is, the more traumatising it can be. A rape joke is joking about something real.
Genocide isn't real? Domination victory is: kill every person that doesn't have your nationality.
My point is indeed the reverse. As I already explained. Violence in video games is as related to violence in real like as rape joke are related to rape. But reference something real. Neither condones the thing they are referring to.
And there's the crux of the matter. Throughout this the argument is made, a rape joke does make implications towards the real thing. I disagree. Just as I disagree violence in video games makes implications about the real thing.
Page one, chapter one, why shouldn't people make rape jokes?So I'm not sure where you're going with this
Lets only have comedy that offends no one.because you seem to be using all the work that goes into a game to support an argument that comedians don't have to do anything except tell the jokes they want to tell. My point is that comedians should put in the work, and if their content ends up offending people, that's on them. Not the people who're offended. It's quite literally their job to create this content, so I don't think I'm imposing some kind of unrealistic standard here
If the material offends people, so what? What does "it's on them" mean? That they should change their routine? That they should feel guilty? Or maybe they shouldn't care about it when the audience laughs?
Bill Cosby is another.I mean, what is your worry here? That comedy will cease to exist? If that's the case I've got a bunch of fantastic comedians to recommend that don't need to go near edgy humour to be funny. Genuinely. James Acaster is a brilliant (British) example.
Oh I have no worry comedy will cease to exist. That is a ridiculous assumption. I'm not even worried offensive comedy will cease to exist.
I know and love James Acaster. And I do remember him jokingly namecalling people B***** and P*****. And I know some people find that offensive.