When does humour become offensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What'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.
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.

So I'm not sure where you're going with this
Page one, chapter one, why shouldn't people make rape jokes?

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
Lets only have comedy that offends no one.

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?
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.
Bill Cosby is another.

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.
 
While there are comedic settings which can be expected to not offend anyone, those usually take more intellectual work, exactly because you don't have the emotional investment carrying the joke.
Similar to how intellectual literature is far rarer than emotional literature. That itself, of course, in neither case (literature or comedy) guarantees that lack of emotional backing will help things - if anything, it will make things more eclectic.

There is also another element to laughing, it's not just having fun. Often one laughs with predicaments - because they involve others, so he/she is safe at some basic level. It's why people may laugh (say) when watching someone taking a bad fall in a comedy show; it's a symbol of far away failure.
Some even laugh at real falls - as in that recent game where morons built towers out of supermarket baskets and some harmed themselves in pretty nasty ways by falling. I personally felt sad and sympathetic, but clearly very many saw it as funny and the clips went viral.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you'd hear/read rape jokes in any setting which isn't either really stupid/jerkish, or some extreme dark comedy (which can include stuff about murder and worse things, and is very rare; maybe cyanide and happiness and Gooby pls had such stuff). So I wouldn't think that rape jokes are something routine/common at all.
There have been rape jokes on UK national broadcast TV, but I guess I should not link here. Apparently a sexual assault joke almost made it into Space Jam 2, and the woman in that scene, who has been a victim of sexual harassment and has spoken out against it, was upset it was cut.
 
A rape joke is joking about something real
Genocide isn't real? Domination victory is: kill every person that doesn't have your nationality.
The reality of them is abstracted away, though of course every person will have their level of comfort with such topics. Another difference is you buy a video game knowing what it is upfront. It's pretty obvious Civilisation involves fighting other civilisations, it's seen throughout the franchise and throughout the marketing materials. This takes us back to trigger warnings with things like comedy shows, where people can engage more safely at their own discretion. Because otherwise you don't know upfront.
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.
Violence in video games has been extensively studied, and claims by disbarred legal acts have been thoroughly debunked. AmazonQueen has a post on the previous page that illustrates the difference in comedy well enough.

Violence existing in a video game isn't justification for violence anywhere else. The same goes for justifying rape jokes (anywhere else). The whole point is that it is intensely contextual - analogies are flawed at the best of times, and I'd say this analogy isn't anywhere near the best.

As an aside, if your problem is the literalism: the emphatic "you cannot make rape jokes" whereas reality may suggest there can be rape jokes in the appropriate context, you just made a literal statement with regards to "neither condones the thing". They could do. You don't know. You can't generalise every joke ever made. Saying they're all okay seems to be as problematic as your objections to saying none of them are.
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.
You can disagree as much as you want. Humour is frequently predicated on personal experience. Poor humour tends to come at the explicit expense of other people; with no humanisation between the comedian and their audience. See: all the references to punching down. If someone is making a rape joke, and it comes from a position of ignorance, the odds are higher that it's going to be a poor joke. The odds are higher that it will resonate with condoning more than it won't.
Page one, chapter one, why shouldn't people make rape jokes?
Because it can trigger a trauma response in people who are exposed to it.
Lets only have comedy that offends no one.
This is as bad as "let's not have any forum rules". Nobody's suggesting that because some things are dark enough for people to object to, that all shades of dark should be removed. I know for a fact behaviour means something to you given your general posting history. So why is comedy magically immune? Why are you consistently removing all nuance from peoples' arguments and positions on this specific topic?
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?
They can do what they want, and in return, people can judge them how they want. You seem to object to the judgement. Why? Shouldn't people be able to express it?
 
It is. And contextually it can be argued that humour specifically about rape is offensive. Because we have at least one rape survivor posting.
What about jokes about death ? Sickness ? Car accidents ? How many cancer, or accident survivors here ? How many people who had to watch a loved one die ? Do we consider that the entirety of gallows humour should be unacceptable ?

I mean, I'm not hung up on using this select example in principle. But the reason provided to not use it are the very reason it actually is relevant to the thread, so I find it as sort of counter-productive.
If I said "yes", would you concede the point? :p
Only insofar that anything someone does always reveals something about them. It's just another "so general it's meaningless" truth. What's actually relevant is precisely the reason behind. Because to me, that's where the core of the entire discussion is.
A lot of comedy is about self-censorship. It's about knowing when to say something, and when not to. Self-censorship is inherent to the medium. A good joke can't just be a good joke, it has to land well. That's why a lot of routines involve warming up the audience. It's a social engagement; humanising the relationship between the comedian and their audience (to whom the comedian, though maybe famous, is still a stranger in personal terms).
Sorry, but conflating "warming up the audience" with "self-censoring" is a bit too much of a stretch for me.
 
Well, they wouldn't be something I find funny or interesting. I do recall a very dark/brutal comic by Cyanide and Happiness, which was about murder.
Have you watched Jam? It is very weird, but I think you may find it funny. You can find whole episodes on youtube. It is "comedy with a purpose", but that purpose is sometimes a bit hard to determine. I do not think the rape jokes are the most offensive bit.
 
What about jokes about death ? Sickness ? Car accidents ? How many cancer, or accident survivors here ? How many people who had to watch a loved one die ? Do we consider that the entirety of gallows humour should be unacceptable ?
The point isn't a slippery slope. There are some things in society that are regularly considered beyond the pale. This is an accepted, non-controversial part of being in a society.

The point here is you can't generalise. You can't take rape and say "okay so what about car accidents", because they're different things that people will relate to differently. The line of acceptable offense in humour is always moving. But a reasonable stance to take is to respect people who do object, with the inherent assumption they are doing for good reason. Maybe that's the problem you're referring to. But to take this thread as an example, I do not doubt Mary mentioning what happened to her. I believe it to be fact, emphatically. So her stance is resonant with good faith, even if you may find it strict.
Only insofar that anything someone does always reveals something about them. It's just another "so general it's meaningless" truth. What's actually relevant is precisely the reason behind. Because to me, that's where the core of the entire discussion is.
Well, exactly. The point I was responding to was a claim that making a joke reveals nothing about a person. Of course it does. That's all there was to that point.

The reason behind is relevant, but the impression I was getting from Ziggy was that the reason didn't exist. That it was "just" a joke. I could be wrong of course, but hopefully this makes more sense now.
Sorry, but conflating "warming up the audience" with "self-censoring" is a bit too much of a stretch for me.
To explain further, the point about self-censorship relates entirely to the comedian's relationship with their audience. Any particular comedian will have a range of material, and will typically select from it for a particular routine. Choosing to not use a rape joke because it might resonate poorly with an audience is natural. There will be other material to use.

Something being televised obviously makes this a lot more complicated, but again, that's something the comedian should be aware of upfront. It's their problem to solve.
 
Last edited:
The reality of them is abstracted away, though of course every person will have their level of comfort with such topics. Another difference is you buy a video game knowing what it is upfront. It's pretty obvious Civilisation involves fighting other civilisations, it's seen throughout the franchise and throughout the marketing materials. This takes us back to trigger warnings with things like comedy shows, where people can engage more safely at their own discretion. Because otherwise you don't know upfront.
A rape joke isn't abstract?

Violence in video games has been extensively studied, and claims by disbarred legal acts have been thoroughly debunked. AmazonQueen has a post on the previous page that illustrates the difference in comedy well enough.
You mean the post I replied to?

Violence existing in a video game isn't justification for violence anywhere else. The same goes for justifying rape jokes (anywhere else). The whole point is that it is intensely contextual - analogies are flawed at the best of times, and I'd say this analogy isn't anywhere near the best.
There you go again. "The same goes for justifying rape jokes"
Violence existing in a video game isn't justification for violence anywhere else.
Rape jokes isn't justification for rapes.

This is as bad as "let's not have any forum rules". Nobody's suggesting that because some things are dark enough for people to object to, that all shades of dark should be removed.
But the shades of dark which are dark enough for people to object to should?

Should any dark shade be removed?
 
Moderator Action: Closed for now for review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom