When does humour become offensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The best way to find out if the joke is acceptable is to tell it. You will never find a clear cut guideline anyways, as that is always shifting. Rightfully so. I do agree that one doesn't have to give a reason for why one finds a joke unacceptable. It's a subjective decision and the sum of them all (called the public discourse) will find a decision whether the joke was acceptable or not. That by the way doesn't stop you from telling the joke again or enjoying it, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. But then of course you have to live with the consequences. So maybe the question is less what jokes you mustn't / can't tell, but which ones you shouldn't tell. You know, if you want to be a decent human being .
 
Ok, here's a thought.

Do you think people should play the game Civilization?

I mean .... there's nukes in the game, mass murder, slavery. Those are also bad, right?
To be clear: I asked some very simple questions, and you don't want to answer them? Instead you're settling for an analogy involving a video game, which is a whole other thing that requires more explanation and more relating back to the simple example of rape jokes.

I didn't feel my questions were bad at all. You yourself were trying to get questions answered previously. This seems a bit different from your usual style of debate, so I'm trying to work out if it's because of my post, or simply because I'm on the other side this time.

This is true, and I feel in such cases it is well worth trying as you may find your feelings of self-evidentiary do not hold up to scrutiny. As a great man once said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
The first problem is, especially in threads like these, "trying to" leads to subpar explanations, which then get picked apart and weaponised. Not by everybody of course, but I'm sure you know as well as I do that this happens.

The second is expert knowledge (for the sake of argument, I'm referring to it as this) is difficult to disseminate by default. Someone intimately familiar with a particular thing but unable to vocalise it (or write it out) effectively doesn't mean that they're not familiar with it. It doesn't mean that they're therefore wrong.

Also I find that Einstein quote funny, because like with all things, even a simple explanation of the subjects he was a master in would require a baseline of familiarity with the topic to understand. Explaining something simply, doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting explanation therefore has a low barrier to entry (to understand). For example, a "class" is a very fundamental concept in object-oriented programming. I can explain a class simply - it's a collection of properties that describe a specific thing - but then we get onto what properties are, what relevance they have, and so on. And when we contrast "classes" vs. "functions", things get a lot more muddled unless there's some prerequisite knowledge involved.

Something as closely-linked to trauma as rape is similarly-complex. If someone tells (the generic) you they feel you shouldn't be joking about it, you should probably want to respect their wishes as an individual, unless you prioritise the things you find funny (which apparently include rape jokes) over any trauma they may be being exposed to. Which people are free to do, but then they should logically expect others to respond in turn. Some of the problem here seems to be that some folk want the freedom to say these kinds of jokes, but also don't want to hear from the people that don't find them funny. Which seems a bit rich.

I don't understand the controversy in people in this thread saying "you shouldn't say rape jokes". They should be allowed to hold that position. Any criticism of it, to me, if it goes on long enough, tends to end up going down the (ill-advised) route of suggesting the people offended either have "too thin skin", or are "looking to be offended".
 
After I count down, three rounds, in hell I'll be in good company.
 
The best way to find out if the joke is acceptable is to tell it. You will never find a clear cut guideline anyways, as that is always shifting. Rightfully so. I do agree that one doesn't have to give a reason for why one finds a joke unacceptable.
Depends what you mean by "unacceptable".
If it's "I don't find this joke funny", yeah, no reason to give. Everyone has their own sense of humor and their own sensitivities.
If it's "please don't make such jokes around me", than it's a grey area and a middle ground to find between being considerate and being tolerant.
If it's "you should not be allowed to make this joke", then YES you should have a very good reason to give.
It's a subjective decision and the sum of them all (called the public discourse) will find a decision whether the joke was acceptable or not. That by the way doesn't stop you from telling the joke again or enjoying it, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. But then of course you have to live with the consequences. So maybe the question is less what jokes you mustn't / can't tell, but which ones you shouldn't tell. You know, if you want to be a decent human being .
There is a saying here : "you can laugh about everything, but not with everyone". It's not which jokes are made, but with whom you share them.
 
Something as closely-linked to trauma as rape is similarly-complex. If someone tells (the generic) you they feel you shouldn't be joking about it, you should probably want to respect their wishes as an individual, unless you prioritise the things you find funny (which apparently include rape jokes) over any trauma they may be being exposed to. Which people are free to do, but then they should logically expect others to respond in turn. Some of the problem here seems to be that some folk want the freedom to say these kinds of jokes, but also don't want to hear from the people that don't find them funny. Which seems a bit rich.

I don't understand the controversy in people in this thread saying "you shouldn't say rape jokes". They should be allowed to hold that position. Any criticism of it, to me, if it goes on long enough, tends to end up going down the (ill-advised) route of suggesting the people offended either have "too thin skin", or are "looking to be offended".
If someone says "Do not tell me rape jokes" then I will not require them to provide justification, and it would be bad to tell them rape jokes. If someone says "Do not tell rape jokes in your rape survivors support group where all members find comedy a good way to deal with trauma" I will ask for justification. If that someone cannot provide any justification I think I am OK in not obeying them.
 
There is a saying here : "you can laugh about everything, but not with everyone". It's not which jokes are made, but with whom you share them.

That's a pretty good saying.
 
If someone says "Do not tell me rape jokes" then I will not require them to provide justification, and it would be bad to tell them rape jokes. If someone says "Do not tell rape jokes in your rape survivors support group where all members find comedy a good way to deal with trauma" I will ask for justification. If that someone cannot provide any justification I think I am OK in not obeying them.
Sure, it's contextual. The problem here (man, I'm using that phrase too much) is that the context is this CFC OT thread. So any reference to any hypothetical is still made, in-thread, to the people reading it. So the association is there for any engaged reader or participant, regardless of whether they want it to be or not.

Okay, I'm getting meta again. Wasn't my intention :D

But that's the problem in discussing something like this, where these examples are used. And a rape joke is an example, it isn't the driving impetus of the thread. We could discuss offensive humour without having to metaphorically die on the hill of this example that's picked up a few pages of traction for whatever reason. But some folks don't want to, because they either don't see a problem, or (hopefully more likely) don't weight the problem as heavily as those it hurts do. The question is: how do we explore that?
 
Sure, it's contextual. The problem here (man, I'm using that phrase too much) is that the context is this CFC OT thread. So any reference to any hypothetical is still made, in-thread, to the people reading it. So the association is there for any engaged reader or participant, regardless of whether they want it to be or not.
And the context of the thread is a "discussion about offensive humour". In which people act offended that questions about offensive humour are asked, and insult others on this basis.
If someone actually had made a rape joke, it would have been different, but no one has made any, so that's a lot of "being offended" on the very principle.
But that's the problem in discussing something like this, where these examples are used. And a rape joke is an example, it isn't the driving impetus of the thread. We could discuss offensive humour without having to metaphorically die on the hill of this example that's picked up a few pages of traction for whatever reason. But some folks don't want to, because they either don't see a problem, or (hopefully more likely) don't weight the problem as heavily as those it hurts do. The question is: how do we explore that?
The fact that a number of people don't even want to explore that and simply assume "people should conform to what I dictate or they are terrible persons" is kinda an exploration in itself.
 
The question is: how do we explore that?
This is a core question. I tend to view everything as a science problem, in that the only way to handle it is to explain your working in an open way that can be examined and critiqued by the community. Pretty much than any claim that is made should be justified. I understand this is not everyones view, and I could well be wrong that this is always the right approach.
 
If you can't understand why you shouldn't tell or laugh at rape jokes, then you seriously need to do some deep reflection on what type of person you are.
If you can't explain why you shouldn't tell or laugh at rape jokes, etc etc.

By the way, should you be stereotyping 50% of the population?
 
If someone says "Do not tell me rape jokes" then I will not require them to provide justification, and it would be bad to tell them rape jokes. If someone says "Do not tell rape jokes in your rape survivors support group where all members find comedy a good way to deal with trauma" I will ask for justification. If that someone cannot provide any justification I think I am OK in not obeying them.
Rape survivors (I am one) do not tell rape jokes. This doesn't need to be said.
 
To be clear: I asked some very simple questions, and you don't want to answer them? Instead you're settling for an analogy involving a video game, which is a whole other thing that requires more explanation and more relating back to the simple example of rape jokes.

I didn't feel my questions were bad at all. You yourself were trying to get questions answered previously. This seems a bit different from your usual style of debate, so I'm trying to work out if it's because of my post, or simply because I'm on the other side this time.
I simply missed them.
Would you have less issue if the proposal was "nobody can make rape jokes"? I'm not saying you'd have no issue, I'm just trying to gauge where the problem sits. Whether it's on the "men can't" or "no rape jokes", primarily.
No, I wouldn't have less issue.

I made the game analogy, because even though we may use slaves in the game or nuke a city, or genocide a people, neither of those actions mean you support any of them in real life. It's a game.

If you make a rape joke, that also doesn't reveal a single thing about how you think about rape. It's a joke.

The issue is that first we need to establish why people shouldn't make rape jokes. Whether it's just me, only men, or anyone rather depends on that discussion.
 
Rape survivors (I am one) do not tell rape jokes. This doesn't need to be said.
Some survivors of sexual assault find comedy helpful. You may not, but you cannot extrapolate that to everyone.
 
This is a core question. I tend to view everything as a science problem, in that the only way to handle it is to explain your working in an open way that can be examined and critiqued by the community. Pretty much than any claim that is made should be justified. I understand this is not everyones view, and I could well be wrong that this is always the right approach.
It's because you come from a perspective of privilege, and think that everything needs to be explained to your satisfaction. This isn't your fault: it's a product of the world in which we were raised. But once you become aware of this, then you can start to understand how you are not entitled to approve of everything before it is accepted.

What you have to do is learn to defer judgment. Realising "I do not understand this, but I accept it anyway because it matters to other groups and I am not the supreme authority."

We do not have to explain basic concepts like how all people should be treated as equals and that women should be respected.
 
Some survivors of sexual assault find comedy helpful. You may not, but you cannot extrapolate that to everyone.
Here is where intent and situation comes into play.

Should you try to intentionally hurt rape victims by making jokes about rape? Of course not. If the intent is to hurt, that in itself makes that unacceptable.

But what was stated was a general sentiment: you should not make rape jokes.
 
...or laugh?

At something terrible? Nah, people will laugh. Laughter is not pleasure at the situation. Often enough no where near.

In the case of rape jokes I have heard the implication is the women was "gagging" for it or should think herself lucky someone was willing to rape her. They were pleasure at the situation.
 
He might listen to more than one person, speaking from experience, that is worthy of respect.

Gross, innit AmazonQueen? How does one reconcile aggressive sexual impulse when it lives in your brain? All the time? Intrusive thoughts? Depends on the age of my life. Oh it's foul up in here sometimes. I can mock parts of myself, though. But not with everyone, no.
 
And the context of the thread is a "discussion about offensive humour". In which people act offended that questions about offensive humour are asked, and insult others on this basis.
If someone actually had made a rape joke, it would have been different, but no one has made any, so that's a lot of "being offended" on the very principle.
Except it's not "on principle". Like I said, rape is linked (pretty much directly) to trauma. You can't correctly assume either way, so personally (and of course nobody is bound to this) I make the assumption that is least likely to hurt others, however unintentionally. Sometimes that means I'm being more cautious than I have to be. But that's how I go about respecting potential trauma. Because you literally never know.

If it was a thread literally discussing rape, I'd be making a different argument. We're not. A rape joke is a singular example which can absolutely be discarded for the benefit of all participants, because surely there'll be plenty more examples for us to rely on to prove any points we need to make. There is no need for participants to exclude themselves because the examples chosen are harmful, when we can simply choose different examples.

No, I wouldn't have less issue.

I made the game analogy, because even though we may use slaves in the game or nuke a city, or genocide a people, neither of those actions mean you support any of them in real life. It's a game.

If you make a rape joke, that also doesn't reveal a single thing about how you think about rape. It's a joke.

The issue is that first we need to establish why people shouldn't make rape jokes. Whether it's just me, only men, or anyone rather depends on that discussion.
The problem is, the mediums aren't equivalent. Nevermind the fact there actually has been a lot of discussion in the CFC community alone about the validity of things like slavery and so on, where people do hold positions of "should" and "should not", violence as portrayed in video games is dissimilar from something like rape. They're both "bad things", but they're not analogous. They don't traumatise in the same way; the psychological triggers are different. Also, notably, Civilisation abstracts a lot of its violence away. It's hard to do that with something like rape.

And yes, making a rape joke absolutely reveals something about you. It reveals that you're comfortable joking about rape. The reason for this could vary dramatically, but this is like claiming using a particular racial slur reveals nothing about the user. Of course it does. But what it reveals differs depending on who's using it (along racial lines, typically).
But what was stated was a general sentiment: you should not make rape jokes.
If you don't know your audience, which is likely true a lot of the time, perhaps this is actually good advice to follow? Unintentional hurt is still hurt, even if there's nobody directly to blame. It's not like somebody watches comedy with the foreknowledge that a rape joke's going to pop up.

Though this does make another case for trigger warnings, which would be helpful in-context to the entire thread. Unfortunately they're often opposed despite having basically zero impact on anybody who doesn't need them. They, like many other things, have been made a "culture war" thing. Kinda sucks.

EDIT
You really think that's the implication of a rape joke?

Really?
Making light of something, which is what jokes do, is inherently a way to normalise the thing (which isn't by itself a bad thing - it's contextual). So while this doesn't have to be the implication of every rape joke, I don't understand your objection to that it could be the implication of a subset of all rape jokes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom