I'd say a majority of people of my generation knew not to take those kind of jokes too seriously.

 

I would describe it as a parody of that style anyway - but Iperhaps I should have guessed that people raised in an era when PC is close to a religion, would consider jokes at its expense as close to 'blasphemy'. :teresa:

I dare say you don't like the Carry On movies, or Benny Hill either, then?

 

If not, then what form of comedy do you like (genuine question)?

 

NO it's not a parody. It's offensive to the Navy, using recent events that the anti-PC brigade are all over as an excuse to bring them all up in one go.

 

I love Carry On's, there's no maliciousness in them, it's an in-joke that includes everyone, and the main targets of the humour is The British, The British Empire, the Upper Class, etc etc

 

I adore Family Guy and American Dad, two of the biggest un-pc shows of all-time, because again, there is a point to the humour (and they showcase all sections of society, the world, religion, you name it). Occasionally they go too far in their personal attacks - Amy Winehouse springs to mind - but for general comments on every aspect of the world (including rednecks Nazis as much as peace-loving hippies) there is none better.

 

On the other hand I hate South Park, never made me laugh a single time, and I hated the movie. To me, it's just being "controversial" for the sake of it, without a point.

 

Most comics in the UK do not lean to the right or support Brexit. So the idea that those who are PC have no sense of humour is just ridiculous. It's the Far Right that doesn't. They only laugh at jokes if they are attacking minorities in the same way that loathesome "comics" like Bernard Manning used to. I always hated him, nasty material with a nasty racist, homophobic aim, to belittle anyone that wasn't a fat white racist. That kind of humour is dead and buried and good riddance. I hated it at 14 and I hate it still, because even as a child I could tell the difference between playful comedy and hate-based comedy.

 

PS I am of your generation, more or less, and if anyone our age said anything quoting that article at work we would be fired if someone took offence and reported it. I'm sure racists and homphobes shit their pants laughing at it though. There's banter, and there's trying to offend. That wasn't banter.

 

If you like I can rewrite that "article" to take the piss out of Brexiters and I could probably make it just as offensive, prob take me about 10 minutes, tops..

On the other hand I hate South Park, never made me laugh a single time, and I hated the movie. To me, it's just being "controversial" for the sake of it, without a point.

 

I thought that about South Park when it started (although as I was a kid at the time, I absolutely loved all the sweariness and saying stuff you shouldn't say), but after about the 5th season it's satirical edge really started to come to the forefront, and given that they write/record an episode in 3 days, they can parody events within days of the event happening. They've satirized almost every major event of the last 15 years to some extent, and there's hardly any targets that they haven't aimed their sights at by this point.

NO it's not a parody. It's offensive to the Navy, using recent events that the anti-PC brigade are all over as an excuse to bring them all up in one go.

 

That would be called observational humour if done by a stand-up comedian.

 

Most comics in the UK do not lean to the right or support Brexit. So the idea that those who are PC have no sense of humour is just ridiculous. It's the Far Right that doesn't. They only laugh at jokes if they are attacking minorities in the same way that loathesome "comics" like Bernard Manning used to. I always hated him, nasty material with a nasty racist, homophobic aim, to belittle anyone that wasn't a fat white racist. That kind of humour is dead and buried and good riddance.

But that extreme kind of 'humour' was only ever practiced by a tiny minority, and mostly in private clubs before the 'PC police' monitored all such events 24/7, like a latterday Big Brother.

 

PS I am of your generation, more or less, and if anyone our age said anything quoting that article at work we would be fired if someone took offence and reported it.

 

That seems like an overreaction to me.

 

If you like I can rewrite that "article" to take the piss out of Brexiters and I could probably make it just as offensive, prob take me about 10 minutes, tops..

 

Go right ahead - I just laugh off 'offensive' articles, provided they are not personal attacks.

 

*****************************

 

For me, one of the more insidious aspects of political correctness is the emergence of 'professional offence-takers'. They see themselves as moral guardians, but who appear to me to be little different from internet trolls - nasty little snitches who get their kicks from stirring up trouble where none need exist.

 

It's like an update of the old proverb : If a tree falls in the woods, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' - e.g. if an 'offensive' comment is made, but no-one who it is targeted at hears it, then is it actually a case of no-harm, no-foul'?

 

No, an offensive joke is an offensive joke no matter who's around to hear it! If your 'jokes' are different because black or gay or whatever people are around, maybe reevaluate your 'jokes'...

I dare say you don't like the Carry On movies, or Benny Hill either, then?

 

If not, then what form of comedy do you like (genuine question)?

Both of those are before my time so I’ve never really seen them.

 

As you’ve asked a genuine question I’ll give you a genuine and complete answer. So you know for future reference what one looks like :P

 

I have a really wide taste in comedy. I’ve quite a dark sense of humour and I’m very sarcastic so I do enjoy sarcasm in my comedy. Programmes wise I watch a huge range of things from the quite millennial friendly Brooklyn 99 to run of the mill Big Bang Theory. I love 2 Broke Girls, even if their portrayals are more problematic than not. Will & Grace is a huge favourite of mine. Satire wise I adore Veep and The Thick of It. Love Parks and Rec and 30 Rock a hella lot too. From the U.K. I loved Raised By Wolves and IT Crowd. Fawlty Towers is a classic and Keeping Up Appearances is hilarious.

 

I genuinely have problems with that “satire” because it read more like a deluded racist, homophobic rant than anything. It wasn’t funny. There was no humour there. It took cheap potshots at the millennial generation for being genuinely considerate of others and their beliefs and feelings. It’s no hard. Just dae be a dick. Pretty simple life philosophy really.

 

The irony here is that while we millennial are being smacked with the snowflakes label and battered with articles about how awful we are for wanting safe spaces and deciding that allowing a racist a platform is probably no the best idea, we’re not the ones so wound up about it that were writing articles and mouthing off in the media. Who’s really the generation throwing a tantrum here. The one that says “I’d rather not platform a bigot” or the one that goes apocalyptic at the hint of the phrase “trigger/content warning”?

No, an offensive joke is an offensive joke no matter who's around to hear it! If your 'jokes' are different because black or gay or whatever people are around, maybe reevaluate your 'jokes'...

Nail on the head. They don’t have to be the one you’re telling the joke to to be offended. A racist joke is still racist even if you’re surrounded by a sea of white people

That would be called observational humour if done by a stand-up comedian.

 

But that extreme kind of 'humour' was only ever practiced by a tiny minority, and mostly in private clubs before the 'PC police' monitored all such events 24/7, like a latterday Big Brother.

That seems like an overreaction to me.

Go right ahead - I just laugh off 'offensive' articles, provided they are not personal attacks.

 

*****************************

 

For me, one of the more insidious aspects of political correctness is the emergence of 'professional offence-takers'. They see themselves as moral guardians, but who appear to me to be little different from internet trolls - nasty little snitches who get their kicks from stirring up trouble where none need exist.

 

It's like an update of the old proverb : If a tree falls in the woods, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' - e.g. if an 'offensive' comment is made, but no-one who it is targeted at hears it, then is it actually a case of no-harm, no-foul'?

1. Stand ups wouldn't do racist jokes or anti gay jokes. That is dead and gone.

 

2. Manning was on prime time and there were many like him.

 

3. It's the law. You offend you get sacked or at least a written warning after garden leave. How long since you last worked?

 

4. Trolls are the ones spreading hate pretending it's just a joke and deliberately getting off on winding up those who don't share their bollocksy views. Context is everything. If the aim is to dehumanize parts of society, say by stereotyping gay men serving their country as effeminate drug taking co**su**ers then it's perfectly reasonable to equally portray brexiteers as troglodyte knuckle dragging cavemen who hit everything they don't understand with a club. No offence meant its just a joke! It's true though. Just kidding! Or am I? Ho ho ho. LOLS.

 

Fair enough?

 

5. The reply above this one is spot on 're jokes on minorities. If u don't have the guts to say it in front of the minorities and aren't prepared to get fired - a la Nazi demo Mob in the USA - then being a chicken shit coward hiding behind a pseudonym shows a lack of belief in what you are saying...

 

Its called two faced backstabbing.

Both of those are before my time so I’ve never really seen them.

 

As you’ve asked a genuine question I’ll give you a genuine and complete answer. So you know for future reference what one looks like :P

 

Very droll

 

I have a really wide taste in comedy. I’ve quite a dark sense of humour and I’m very sarcastic so I do enjoy sarcasm in my comedy. Programmes wise I watch a huge range of things from the quite millennial friendly Brooklyn 99 to run of the mill Big Bang Theory. I love 2 Broke Girls, even if their portrayals are more problematic than not. Will & Grace is a huge favourite of mine.

You may be surprised to hear that I am a fan of Will & Grace, too.

 

I genuinely have problems with that “satire” because it read more like a deluded racist, homophobic rant than anything. It wasn’t funny. There was no humour there. It took cheap potshots at the millennial generation for being genuinely considerate of others and their beliefs and feelings. It’s no hard. Just dae be a dick. Pretty simple life philosophy really.

 

That it was overblown was the whole point - deliberate exaggeration is the whole basis of parody. Somehow I doubt you'd have a problem with a parody of, say, Donald Trump...

 

 

Nail on the head. They don’t have to be the one you’re telling the joke to to be offended. A racist joke is still racist even if you’re surrounded by a sea of white people

 

But does that mean that people should need to carefully consider every word they speak, just in case they are overheard by someone who might possibly take offence? That is how people live under dictatorships, not democracies... :(

 

1. Stand ups wouldn't do racist jokes or anti gay jokes. That is dead and gone.

 

2. Manning was on prime time and there were many like him.

 

3. It's the law. You offend you get sacked or at least a written warning after garden leave. How long since you last worked?

 

4. Trolls are the ones spreading hate pretending it's just a joke and deliberately getting off on winding up those who don't share their bollocksy views. Context is everything. If the aim is to dehumanize parts of society, say by stereotyping gay men serving their country as effeminate drug taking co**su**ers then it's perfectly reasonable to equally portray brexiteers as troglodyte knuckle dragging cavemen who hit everything they don't understand with a club. No offence meant its just a joke! It's true though. Just kidding! Or am I? Ho ho ho. LOLS.

 

Fair enough?

 

5. The reply above this one is spot on 're jokes on minorities. If u don't have the guts to say it in front of the minorities and aren't prepared to get fired - a la Nazi demo Mob in the USA - then being a chicken shit coward hiding behind a pseudonym shows a lack of belief in what you are saying...

 

Its called two faced backstabbing.

 

1. So what *are* legitimate targets for stand-ups, nowadays?

 

2. TV's had 'off' switches - in fact they still do...

 

3. What happens if the people you complain to, also don't consider it a big deal?

 

4. I take the 'water off a ducks back' line to such insults - you must know that letting trolls know they're getting to you, only encourages them.

 

5. That's a fair comment, as long as it works both ways.

1. So what *are* legitimate targets for stand-ups, nowadays?

 

2. TV's had 'off' switches - in fact they still do...

 

3. What happens if the people you complain to, also don't consider it a big deal?

 

4. I take the 'water off a ducks back' line to such insults - you must know that letting trolls know they're getting to you, only encourages them.

 

5. That's a fair comment, as long as it works both ways.

1. Anything that doesnt show you hold repulsive and illegal beliefs. Try watching tv..

2. Hate speech is illegal. It wasnt then.

3. Then you get situations like the bbc and jimmy saville. Im sure you approve of how that was handled...

4. No, YOU constantly say people have the right to troll. Replying to a troll with a "get what you give" remark doesnt make you a troll, its making a point which you miss entirely.

5. Works for me. I express my opinions on every topic to everyone with no regard to who they are. That includes my managers employers and politicians who i work for. People know they will always get an honest and accurate answer, with the risk of uncomfortable truths and a dose of cynicism. My opinion is, if you express your opinion to me, i can express mine back. There is no ambiguity with me and no deceit. I say what i think, tempered with a regard to peoples feelings, which i always give a priority. As long as that person isnt hurting other people. Then they get both barrels.

1. Anything that doesnt show you hold repulsive and illegal beliefs. Try watching tv..

2. Hate speech is illegal. It wasnt then.

3. Then you get situations like the bbc and jimmy saville. Im sure you approve of how that was handled...

4. No, YOU constantly say people have the right to troll. Replying to a troll with a "get what you give" remark doesnt make you a troll, its making a point which you miss entirely.

5. Works for me. I express my opinions on every topic to everyone with no regard to who they are. That includes my managers employers and politicians who i work for. People know they will always get an honest and accurate answer, with the risk of uncomfortable truths and a dose of cynicism. My opinion is, if you express your opinion to me, i can express mine back. There is no ambiguity with me and no deceit. I say what i think, tempered with a regard to peoples feelings, which i always give a priority. As long as that person isnt hurting other people. Then they get both barrels.

 

1. Technically, holding any kind of belief isn't illegal - only expressing/acting on it. As for TV the subject doesn't seem to come up in the Snooker/Natural History documentaries/Sitcoms that are my preferred viewing.

2. That still doesn't mean you are compelled to report it

3. I suspect you had that example prepared for a long while - just waiting to be used.

4. Not quite accurate - there is a difference between expressing opinions you genuinely believe in (however repugnant they might be), and simply saying whatever you want in order to deliberately upset/offend.

5. That is exactly my position, too - but it is a lot safer to do if your opinions are not controversial in the first place.

1. Technically, holding any kind of belief isn't illegal - only expressing/acting on it. As for TV the subject doesn't seem to come up in the Snooker/Natural History documentaries/Sitcoms that are my preferred viewing.

2. That still doesn't mean you are compelled to report it

3. I suspect you had that example prepared for a long while - just waiting to be used.

4. Not quite accurate - there is a difference between expressing opinions you genuinely believe in (however repugnant they might be), and simply saying whatever you want in order to deliberately upset/offend.

5. That is exactly my position, too - but it is a lot safer to do if your opinions are not controversial in the first place.

1. Its still repulsive either way and modern comedians are not.

2. Irrelevant comment

3, no i didnt. I dont need to prepare anything in advance. I speak what i think when i thunk it and it takes me seconds.

4. How do you know i didnt believe what i said anymore than you know what anyone else believes when they post something that you agree with or what their motives are. Claiming to be telepathic again i see....

5. So you want to be free to voice offensive opinions but be free of any consequences of holding them. Thats why we have laws protecting people from people who dont care about the consequences of their selfish actions.

 

3 minutes to reply. I can go on forever because i have logic on my side and concerns about other people....

1. Its still repulsive either way and modern comedians are not.

2. Irrelevant comment

3, no i didnt. I dont need to prepare anything in advance. I speak what i think when i thunk it and it takes me seconds.

4. How do you know i didnt believe what i said anymore than you know what anyone else believes when they post something that you agree with or what their motives are. Claiming to be telepathic again i see....

5. So you want to be free to voice offensive opinions but be free of any consequences of holding them. Thats why we have laws protecting people from people who dont care about the consequences of their selfish actions.

 

3 minutes to reply. I can go on forever because i have logic on my side and concerns about other people....

 

1. I've never been keen on stand-up comedy, and my liking has grown ever less over the years

2. I don;t think it was - few people like snitches/whistleblowers

3. I wish i had that luxury - I have to carefully construct my comments to avoid misinterpretation (*) - unfortunately it often doesn't work.

 

(*) I can only go so far in this without losing the whole point, though.

 

4. Are you suggesting you can't tell the difference between trolls and sincere (if offensive) posters, then?

 

5. Only the first part of your above sentence applies. I've *never* suggested that posting offensively should be consequence-free. In fact I've always maintained that overt prejudice is easier to deal with, since it is out in the open, so you know who to be wary of.

1. I've never been keen on stand-up comedy, and my liking has grown ever less over the years

2. I don;t think it was - few people like snitches/whistleblowers

3. I wish i had that luxury - I have to carefully construct my comments to avoid misinterpretation (*) - unfortunately it often doesn't work.

 

(*) I can only go so far in this without losing the whole point, though.

 

4. Are you suggesting you can't tell the difference between trolls and sincere (if offensive) posters, then?

 

5. Only the first part of your above sentence applies. I've *never* suggested that posting offensively should be consequence-free. In fact I've always maintained that overt prejudice is easier to deal with, since it is out in the open, so you know who to be wary of.

2. Blaming the victim not the one breaking the law. Sounds about (far) right...

4. No, i'm staying the fact that you can't. Half of them are bots...

5. Yes Hitler held the same view that overt prejudice was the best way to bring about freedom of speech and democracy. As do all dictators in history. Nothing discourages racists more than being allowed to spread lies and hate freely. Guaranteed to put them off. Definitely doesnt encoursge them to gather together, go out in hate groups with torches and murder the nearest anowflake and beat up the first black man they come across. I think we can safely be sure that could never happen.

 

I assume you would be happy then with calls to hang brexiters from lamp posts, and deleriously content that they start with you? After all, its just expressing an opinion and the best way to fight this sort of thing is for all of us who didnt vote for brexit to be exposed as brexit-lamp-post-hangers. Just geting out of our system and in no way intent on gathering to commit brexitocide.

 

Im being facetious, just to be clear, no misunderstanding. Its easy to hold extreme views when you feel securely safe from smart non violent people. Not so secure if you are the target of extreme nut jobs. You are promoting the causes of the latter by fatuous arguments for freedom of expression. We arent stupid, seen it all before. Its the start of the END of democracy not the ultimate climax.

2. Blaming the victim not the one breaking the law. Sounds about (far) right...

 

Im being facetious, just to be clear, no misunderstanding. Its easy to hold extreme views when you feel securely safe from smart non violent people. Not so secure if you are the target of extreme nut jobs. You are promoting the causes of the latter by fatuous arguments for freedom of expression. We arent stupid, seen it all before. Its the start of the END of democracy not the ultimate climax.

 

IMO the victims would be those accused of 'Thoughtcrime'

 

We both seem to consider each other's views as being the 'slippery slope' to dictatorship - but America has had a free-speech amendment for over 200 years without becoming a dictatorship...

 

Another storm in a teacup...

 

'Dreaming of a white campus?': 'Snowflake students' force University College London to apologise for 'racist' Tweet warning of wintery weather

 

University College London posted a tweet to let its students know it was open

It chose to reference the famous festive song 'White Christmas' by Bing Crosby

UCL was forced to apologise for the tweet and said it 'chose words very poorly'

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-51...-apologise.html

 

**************

 

OK, the wording may have been clumsy, but anyone with even an ounce of common sense could tell they were were referring to snow, not skin colour! :rolleyes:

Edited December 14, 20177 yr by vidsanta

How the far right choose to highlight trivia and appwarance of reasonability to promote hatred and nazi styled propaganda

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dail...4b0ce3b344492f2

How the far right choose to highlight trivia and appwarance of reasonability to promote hatred and nazi styled propaganda

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dail...4b0ce3b344492f2

 

Unless you are accusing the Mail of being extreme-right, I don't see the relevance?

Unless you are accusing the Mail of being extreme-right, I don't see the relevance?

Same technique. Seen the front page of the mail today? Ps they dont support nazis overtly since they got caught out last time round.

 

Covertly, though?

Unless you are accusing the Mail of being extreme-right, I don't see the relevance?

Where would you place it? It can hardly be described as somewhere near the political centre.