Jimmy Carr - The End?

[Swango1980]

Not knocking your point, but Jimmy Carr has previously said that he writes jokes to make people laugh, not to make them think.
If it makes people think, then something good might come out of it. Unfortunately, it's made other people think that trotting out old stereotyping jokes is a justified freedom of speech thing.

He is a comedians though, it is the primary part of his job. Had he simply said "the holocaust exterminated not just millions of Jews, but people in the travelling community", it would have been educational, but not a great line at a stand up comedy show.

Many of the best comedians DO get people thinking, that is what makes them so good and popular. They tell a story, or bring sensitive topics close to our minds, topics many would often try and avoid. They are often very well educated, which is generally how they are able to broach these topics. If they were pig ignorant, it would easily be picked up on by the audience.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Any comedian who apologises for a joke ends up worse off in my opinion as they lose credibility. In this situation, if he apologised it would just be about trying to quell the hysterical masses and would be disingenuous. Knowing the way he is, he won't apologise - and I believe has already said he won't anyway. So good on him.

What first surprised me about this story when it broke was the timing of it. His Dark Material was released over a month ago and no-one commented until a few days ago. Who was the person or group who suddenly decided to kick up a fuss about it, when it was already out there for several weeks? Normally these things are picked up immediately, so the delay surprised me.

I had actually watched His Dark Materials when it was first released. I didn't take particular notice of the joke at the time - it was just one in a long line of....well.....dark material. I think he's made worse jokes in the past to be honest.

To me, the joke was funny. Not because I was thinking "Ha ha yes wasn't it good that gypsies were killed in the Holocaust" - which I believe is how most people who are upset about it seem to have interpreted it. But when most of us think of the Holocaust we immediately think "Jews" and don't think of the other groups it affected. So he was joking that the bits we don't think about must therefore be "the good stuff". Made me chuckle and made me think.

As I've always said, humour is entirely subjective. Many will no doubt think that my interpretation of the joke isn't funny. Fine. That's how comedy works.

And as someone (may have been Ricky Gervais...?) once said "Just because you're offended, it doesn't mean you're right."

Why just because someone finds a joke or anything offensive do they have to labelled as “hysterical” or a “snowflake” or “bedwetter” etc?

Has anyone who’s said they disagree with the joke or is offended by it said they are “right”

It seems these days you can’t disagree or have a thought of your own without those who aren’t offended coming out with all sorts of exaggeratted language to label others.

There are many areas were any intelligent person can see something as offensive without themselves being offended.

If somebody told a joke about the 1958 Munich Air disaster I would find it offensive without personally being offended, I’m sure their would be those who’d be both offended and find the joke offensive.
Then off course we’d have those telling us the joke isn’t offensive because the joke teller is simply warning us of the dangers of Air Travel and using Munich as the example.

 

[Tashyboy]

Why just because someone finds a joke or anything offensive do they have to labelled as “hysterical” or a “snowflake” or “bedwetter” etc?

Has anyone who’s said they disagree with the joke or is offended by it said they are “right”

It seems these days you can’t disagree or have a thought of your own without those who aren’t offended coming out with all sorts of exaggeratted language to label others.

There are many areas were any intelligent person can see something as offensive without themselves being offended.

If somebody told a joke about the 1958 Munich Air disaster I would find it offensive without personally being offended, I’m sure their would be those who’d be both offended and find the joke offensive.
Then off course we’d have those telling us the joke isn’t offensive because the joke teller is simply warning us of the dangers of Air Travel and using Munich as the example.

Five paragraphs on here.

Hits the nail firmly on the head. Even on here it seems the ability to agree to disagree is a no no.
Ave said my piece on the subject, am I gonna fall out with someone or block someone over Jimmy Carr’s “ Humour”. Nope.

Have a good day everyone

 

[Swango1980]

Why just because someone finds a joke or anything offensive do they have to labelled as “hysterical” or a “snowflake” or “bedwetter” etc?

Has anyone who’s said they disagree with the joke or is offended by it said they are “right”

It seems these days you can’t disagree or have a thought of your own without those who aren’t offended coming out with all sorts of exaggeratted language to label others.

There are many areas were any intelligent person can see something as offensive without themselves being offended.

If somebody told a joke about the 1958 Munich Air disaster I would find it offensive without personally being offended, I’m sure their would be those who’d be both offended and find the joke offensive.
Then off course we’d have those telling us the joke isn’t offensive because the joke teller is simply warning us of the dangers of Air Travel and using Munich as the example.

Of course, all your doing is stating a topic that is quite clearly horrendous. Of course, when you say that, no one will say they will find it funny, because the topic is not funny. However, until you hear the specific joke on that subject, you cannot really judge whether you'll find it funny or not.

I do not find disability a funny subject, and I could easily say "I would find a joke about disability offensive", and I certainly would if it was mocking a disabled person. And yet, I know that when a several professional comedians have then gone and told a joke around disability, I have at times been in stitches.

 

[Orikoru]

Why just because someone finds a joke or anything offensive do they have to labelled as “hysterical” or a “snowflake” or “bedwetter” etc?

Has anyone who’s said they disagree with the joke or is offended by it said they are “right”

It seems these days you can’t disagree or have a thought of your own without those who aren’t offended coming out with all sorts of exaggeratted language to label others.

There are many areas were any intelligent person can see something as offensive without themselves being offended.

If somebody told a joke about the 1958 Munich Air disaster I would find it offensive without personally being offended, I’m sure their would be those who’d be both offended and find the joke offensive.
Then off course we’d have those telling us the joke isn’t offensive because the joke teller is simply warning us of the dangers of Air Travel and using Munich as the example.

I'm always reminded of Stephen Fry's words on the subject.

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so * what."

This sums up my thoughts on it really. Have no problem with someone being offended by something. "That offends me" - ok, sorry to hear that. It's when the offended try and band together and get something shut down, something that plenty of other people are enjoying without being offended - that's when it annoys me. You being offended doesn't actually have importance over those who aren't - it's just personal to you. People have lost the ability to see things in perspective and turn the other cheek to things they don't like.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I'm always reminded of Stephen Fry's words on the subject.

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so * what."

This sums up my thoughts on it really. Have no problem with someone being offended by something. "That offends me" - ok, sorry to hear that. It's when the offended try and band together and get something shut down, something that plenty of other people are enjoying without being offended - that's when it annoys me. You being offended doesn't actually have importance over those who aren't - it's just personal to you. People have lost the ability to see things in perspective and turn the other cheek to things they don't like.

So if the Gypsy community say they are offended, should we listen?

Or ignore them if they are in a minority?

No one is saying my opinion is more important than yours or anyone else, but surely you’re not suggesting this sort of thing is decided by numbers?

 

[Orikoru]

So if the Gypsy community say they are offended, should we listen?

Or ignore them if they are in a minority?

No one is saying my opinion is more important than yours or anyone else, but surely you’re not suggesting this sort of thing is decided by numbers?

I don't understand your reply, I don't know how you've read that from what I said.

 

[Swango1980]

So if the Gypsy community say they are offended, should we listen?

Or ignore them if they are in a minority?

No one is saying my opinion is more important than yours or anyone else, but surely you’re not suggesting this sort of thing is decided by numbers?

Are the gypsy community offended? Or, are people who are offended speaking on behalf of the gypsy community? If a person from the gypsy community found it offensive, should we then say that the subject must be banned from all comedy in future? Would they be speaking on behalf of their community? What happens if someone from the gypsy community found it funny? Whose opinion should we go with?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I don't understand your reply, I don't know how you've read that from what I said.

You said it’s when the offended band together to get something shut down when plenty of others are enjoying it, so in the case of Jimmy Carr, I’m asking you if it should be shut down (regardless of numbers) if the Gypsies are offended.

Plus as an after thought, there is a difference between being offended and finding something offensive.

 

[Orikoru]

You said it’s when the offended band together to get something shut down when plenty of others are enjoying it, so in the case of Jimmy Carr, I’m asking you if it should be shut down (regardless of numbers) if the Gypsies are offended.

Plus as an after thought, there is a difference between being offended and finding something offensive.

But I've already answered the question you're asking then? You've lost me anyway.

 

[Hobbit]

Are the gypsy community offended? Or, are people who are offended speaking on behalf of the gypsy community? If a person from the gypsy community found it offensive, should we then say that the subject must be banned from all comedy in future? Would they be speaking on behalf of their community? What happens if someone from the gypsy community found it funny? Whose opinion should we go with?

The speaking on behalf of is quite relevant. There are any number of minority groups that if they alone spoke out, probably, wouldn’t be heard because they are a minority. Offended on behalf of, which we quite often hear trotted out by those that look to push boundaries, is a cop out and an excuse.

A simple example; a big kid is bullying a little kid. Should someone else step in, offended on behalf of…? And that’s why offended on behalf of is often very valid. Minority groups often ‘don’t have the clout,’ and others need to step in to support them. Backhandedly denigrating the offended on behalf of just isn’t smart.

 

[Papas1982]

In comedy everything is fair game.

I would say if he was at a rememberance service or the like then yeah, maybe show some restraint.

But unless the joke is intentionally aimed at someone who is actually there. Go ahead.

Anyone who watched him, knows it's gonna get innapropriate at some point. So if you choose to watch him. You accept that. None of those offended have had it forced upon them.

We all have had things happen to us that touch a nerve, and if someone I knew made light of it then yeah I'd take offence as it's personal. But I'll watch comedians joke about all those subjects and laugh about them as much as anyone.

Since when did "stick and stones" stop working.....

 

[Blue in Munich]

Not knocking your point, but Jimmy Carr has previously said that he writes jokes to make people laugh, not to make them think.
If it makes people think, then something good might come out of it. Unfortunately, it's made other people think that trotting out old stereotyping jokes is a justified freedom of speech thing.

The irony of the education argument is that those laughing won’t be educated by it and those not laughing are already educated enough to see the problem.

 

[Swango1980]

The speaking on behalf of is quite relevant. There are any number of minority groups that if they alone spoke out, probably, wouldn’t be heard because they are a minority. Offended on behalf of, which we quite often hear trotted out by those that look to push boundaries, is a cop out and an excuse.

A simple example; a big kid is bullying a little kid. Should someone else step in, offended on behalf of…? And that’s why offended on behalf of is often very valid. Minority groups often ‘don’t have the clout,’ and others need to step in to support them. Backhandedly denigrating the offended on behalf of just isn’t smart.

I agree that minority groups need support from those outside the minority groups. But, I just wondered have the travelling community as a whole expressed their offence at the joke, and asked support from the masses? Or, are some from the masses simply taking it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the minorities?

An individual who expresses they were offended by something, and then explains they are offended on behalf of other people is also a cop out. It is often individuals who feel they are taking the moral high ground, and feel they can define what is right and what is wrong.

In terms of the bullying, yes I'd be offended for the little kid, and like to think I'd stick up for him. But, that would be because my assessment of that situation would be that the big kid is very much taking pleasure from the pain of the small kid. He is not bullying him to highlight to others how bullying is wrong. He is doing it to feel powerful, and to get laughs from other people who also like to see the little kid suffer. I'd also be very critical if I felt the same of Jimmy Carr, that he was bullying the travelling community and he was wanting everyone to laugh at their expense. However, that is not how I see the context. I see it that he has highlighted a devastating issue from our history, and he needs the audience to be shocked for his joke to work. If the audience were not shocked, then I'm sure he'd consider that joke a failure.

 

[Swango1980]

The irony of the education argument is that those laughing won’t be educated by it and those not laughing are already educated enough to see the problem.

You mean the better people? The ones that have a right to tell the rest of us what is right and what is wrong? The ones that have a right to tell us where the line is, and to tell the rest of us we do not get it and therefore do not know where the line is? I love those people...

 

[Deleted member 16999]

But I've already answered the question you're asking then? You've lost me anyway.

No you haven’t!

To quote you:
"That offends me" - ok, sorry to hear that. It's when the offended try and band together and get something shut down, something that plenty of other people are enjoying without being offended - that's when it annoys me. You being offended doesn't actually have importance over those who aren't - it's just personal to you.

So my question is/was what if the You, in the bit in bold is a Gypsy?

 

[Swango1980]

I think the offence is the point. It’s not big and it’s not clever but there are lots of people out there who like being offensive. I think it’s fine to form an opinion of those people.

Take rape jokes, for example. I struggle with these and I wonder who could possibly find them funny. I guess rapists probably find them funny. So when someone tells a rape joke I wonder why and I think “what a horrible person”. Or words to that effect.

It’s amazing to me that mods have apparently “cleaned up” this thread but left the rape joke in place.

Hmmm, maybe not. Rapists probably take the subject very seriously, in completely the wrong way, sadly. I'm sure millions of people have laughed at such jokes told by mainstream comedians? Are they all horrible people, or do they laugh because they are fully aware of how awful the subject is and they understand the context in which the statement (joke) was made?

 

[Orikoru]

No you haven’t!

To quote you:
"That offends me" - ok, sorry to hear that. It's when the offended try and band together and get something shut down, something that plenty of other people are enjoying without being offended - that's when it annoys me. You being offended doesn't actually have importance over those who aren't - it's just personal to you.

So my question is/was what if the You, in the bit in bold is a Gypsy?

? It makes no difference? I'm seriously lost with this line of questioning, I thought I was perfectly clear. If a person finds something offensive that doesn't give them any extra rights to completely shut it down for those who don't.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

? It makes no difference? I'm seriously lost with this line of questioning, I thought I was perfectly clear. If a person finds something offensive that doesn't give them any extra rights to completely shut it down for those who don't.

It does if it’s personal, and yes there will be those who have personnel connections that won’t be bothered by the joke, that still doesn’t mean you simply ignore the offended one because someone else enjoyed it.

He should at least have the common decency or respect to acknowledge what he said.

 

[Orikoru]

It does if it’s personal, and yes there will be those who have personnel connections that won’t be bothered by the joke, that still doesn’t mean you simply ignore the offended one because someone else enjoyed it.

He should at least have the common decency or respect to acknowledge what he said.

My opinion hasn't changed, I still think they probably should have cut the joke from the publicly accessible broadcast but he still has the right to make that joke at his shows. If you pay your money for a Jimmy Carr ticket you can expect to hear some offensive humour. If it ends up that you are the target for a joke then tough luck, you have to take it on the chin. Again repeating myself from earlier, but I can understand if people want that joke cut from the show, but 'cancelling' the whole thing and the man himself is miles too far.