Jimmy Carr - The End?

[Blue in Munich]

Actually, I think it is you that doesn't get it (from the other sides perspective). This is a conversation about the ethics on using controversial subjects in comedy. I completely get that many will not find it funny. The question is, does that therefore make it wrong? The fact that you think it is wrong does not give you the right to say that people who disagree with you "just don't get it". Because, as I demonstrated, I can just say exactly the same thing back to you.

As I have mentioned, Carr and other comedians make jokes about disabilities, homosexuality, aids, cancer, rape, religion, race, etc. Do you find any of those jokes funny, or should all those topics be taken off the table? I bet there are plenty of people that would not laugh at one or more of those topics, but laughed at his holocaust joke. And, not for one second did they laugh because they think the holocaust was funny. That was clearly NOT the point of the joke.

I bet most people know the holocaust was horrendous, and are aware is was the mass extermination of Jewish people by the Nazis. However, unless you have educated yourself further, I bet less people realised that other groups were killed. That was the twist of the joke. Not that the extermination of the travelling community was a good thing, but the absurdity of putting a positive spin on it, knowing it is far from being positive. I am sure these comedians are more interested in the shocked groans rather than just belly laughs, that's what highlights how horrific these things really are.

I suspect people in society simply feel guilt if they laugh at any horrible subject, that they somehow feel that by laughing, it endorses it. However, if we just ask comedians not to make jokes around sensitive subjects, is it not just another method of forgetting about those incidents from history for many people? I know some have educated themselves about the holocaust, but many will have only really had any education on is at school (maybe), and forgotten about most of it. Many are not the type to watch documentaries or read books. So, when a comedian raises such a subject, it puts it in the forefront of people's minds. Some may even go and fo a bit of research afterwards to see why a joke was deemed so edgy.

And, why stop at stand up routines. What about movies? Should we ban all movies about sensitive subjects, especially if they are comedies or inaccurate? After all, they are also part of the entertainment industry, and made to make money.

For me, my first thought would always be "is this person being literal in their absurd views on a bad event". If they are, then maybe there is an argument that it is "hate speech" and they should suffer the consequences. Although, I'd imagine the person would only have a very small following anyway, and not be mainstream. If not, and it is clear many find the absurdness in what they say funny (the whole point of the joke), then I have no issue. It may or may not be to my tastes, but that's fine. If I enjoy the comedian, I'll watch them on TV or book a ticket. If I don't, I'll not go to their show or watch them on TV.

I'm sure many of us have said terrible things about horrible subjects in our past to families and friends. However, hopefully the context of it wasn't you found the topic literally funny, but the fact the opposite was true was what brought the amusement to it. The "I can't believe you said that" reaction, but knowing you did it for comedic effect rather than airing your warped views. Some comedians simply do that publicly rather than within their own homes. And, the audience, by and large, get the context. Sadly, there are others that forget about context, and simply judge whether the words / topic are acceptable or not

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...

...

 

[Don Barzini]

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

I personally haven't called anyone a snowflake or bedwetter. I did use the phrase "hysterical masses" though because I do find the response to this somewhat hysterical.

Jimmy Carr, the well-known stand up comedian who is famous for making near-the-knuckle gags made a near-the-knuckle gag during one of his gigs and it was first screened over a month ago. Suddenly it's headline news and people (not necessarily on this forum, but elsewhere) are calling for all sorts of punishments and restrictions on him! He made a joke. He didn't incite violence, commit hate speech or anything else. It was a joke, made in the context of a stand-up comedy show which was well advertised as containing extreme material. And the response has been over the top. People who didn't even hear the joke were condeming him!

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

Not directly perhaps. But when people are saying "This offends me and no-one should be allowed to make jokes about this sort of thing" (which a lot of people are, again not necessarily here), then it suggests to me they think they are right, or that they have some sort of right over others. People have every right to be offended by anything they want to be, but I'm afraid it isn't a trump card.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I personally haven't called anyone a snowflake or bedwetter. I did use the phrase "hysterical masses" though because I do find the response to this somewhat hysterical.

Jimmy Carr, the well-known stand up comedian who is famous for making near-the-knuckle gags made a near-the-knuckle gag during one of his gigs and it was first screened over a month ago. Suddenly it's headline news and people (not necessarily on this forum, but elsewhere) are calling for all sorts of punishments and restrictions on him! He made a joke. He didn't incite violence, commit hate speech or anything else. It was a joke, made in the context of a stand-up comedy show which was well advertised as containing extreme material. And the response has been over the top. People who didn't even hear the joke were condeming him!



Not directly perhaps. But when people are saying "This offends me and no-one should be allowed to make jokes about this sort of thing" (which a lot of people are, again not necessarily here), then it suggests to me they think they are right, or that they have some sort of right over others. People have every right to be offended by anything they want to be, but I'm afraid it isn't a trump card.

I didn’t say you had used all those terms it was a general point, in much the same way you have used generic terms.

I don’t believe people should make jokes of the Holocaust as I don’t find any humour in the subject, much the same way I don’t believe people should make jokes about the IRA blowing up kids in Warrington or Hillsborough or a few other examples I’d find offensive, it doesn’t mean I’m right, it’s just my opinion and I don’t believe I or anyone else is using it as a trump card in the same way I don’t believe those saying no subject should be off limits for comedy are using it either.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I disliked intensely, indeed abhorred, what he said, but I wasn't surprised.

However, when I heard the full 'I'm educating' context I find myself more willing to 'forgive' him (no point in my getting het up about it in any case) in the hope that he sees the error of his ways in trying to use the 'educating' stuff as a means of mitigating the risk he recognised he would run when making such a 'joke'. I am not at all convinced by his 'I'm educating' line...but am willing to accept it as an error on his part if he changes his ways and does not try and use it in future as cover for other unacceptable views - views put across as jokes but made simply to shock.

BTW - most on here should know by now why I must look to 'love' and so to forgive the words and actions of those who hurt or offend me. And so it is for me with Carr.

 

[Robster59]

I've avoided commenting on this because I am genuinely torn on this matter. There should be freedom of speech. Quell that, and where does it end? Who decides what can and can't be said? There has to be a right for people to challenge the system but there also has to be a perspective and respect for people.
All I will say on this is, at the moment, I am listening to a docudrama on Radio 4 on the Nuremberg trials. It's quite disturbing, and what it does for me is that this particular joke overstepped the mark. It wasn't attacking convention, it wasn't challenging the system. It was a joke designed to shock, and to attack thousands of people who were killed simply because of who they were. And it also, IMO, belittled all those killed in the holocaust as they were used as the basis of that joke.
There are some things that shouldn't be used as the basis of a joke. And the genocide of millions of people is one of them.

 

[Fade and Die]

I think context is definitely a big part of it and often a joke pulled from a two hour show sounds far worse than if you’ve heard all the preamble. Don’t know if that’s the case here.

I also think personal context is a big part of it. So an offensive joke about some person might be funny to you, less so if it was someone close to you.

I’ll phrase this clumsily I’m sure, but in the case of the 9/10 rape joke I’d suggest those that find it funny don’t see themselves as potentially being the odd one out in that scenario.

I think you have phrased it clumsily as it seems that you are saying all men that would laugh at that gag see themselves as Rapists? (Probably football fans too eh?)

I’m in the camp that nothing is off limits but the comedian takes a risk by telling a near the knuckle joke, he wants to equally offend and delight but sometimes it goes wrong.( Roy Chubby Brown was attacked on stage in Bradford after making jokes about the fire only a few weeks before.)

I’ve heard comics making jokes about The Yorkshire Ripper, Soham, Madeline Mcann, and loads more. All awful and offensive and not all my cup of tea but all received riotously.

As Maureen Lipton says “laughter is best when forbidden”

https://amp.theguardian.com/culture...risks-wiping-out-comedy-claims-maureen-lipman

 

[Swango1980]

I didn’t say you had used all those terms it was a general point, in much the same way you have used generic terms.

I don’t believe people should make jokes of the Holocaust as I don’t find any humour in the subject, much the same way I don’t believe people should make jokes about the IRA blowing up kids in Warrington or Hillsborough or a few other examples I’d find offensive, it doesn’t mean I’m right, it’s just my opinion and I don’t believe I or anyone else is using it as a trump card in the same way I don’t believe those saying no subject should be off limits for comedy are using it either.

That is an interesting example. I grew up in N Ireland during the troubles. The things that happened were awful, on both sides of the political fence. My cousins lived and were out in Warrington at the time of that bombing ironically (thankfully not hurt). I remember first coming to England in 2005, and randomly in some village pub whilst watching the football, a group of guys started singing pro IRA songs (not instigated because they heard my accent or something like that). I'd call that offensive, and certainly the context wasn't "they are singing those songs to highlight the atrocities they committed". I only hoped they sang those songs in ignorance. I wouldn't buy a ticket to watch them perform, and society would not give them a platform to make it into the mainstream.

However, as you can imagine, I have heard many many stand up routines about terrorism. It is almost a guarantee coming from a Northern Irish comic. I've also heard Billy Connolly joke on the subject. Am I offended? Absolutely not. Because I know the context has nothing to do with being pro terrorism. It makes fun of it, even if it is told in a way that, if read literally, would seem it was condoning it.

 

[RichA]

It all depends how we are defining comedy.

Just because somebody laughs and you say you were joking should it offer the protection of freedom of speech or expression? I've witnessed people laughing at some horrific things.

I'm not especially talking about Jimmy Carr and this episode - just the concept being repeated that anything goes in the name of comedy.
I'm not suggesting censorship or anyone being banned - just that it's bizarre to imply that anyone taking issue with it is wrong because it's a protected art form.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I wonder how funny comedy would be if every comedian avoided any subject remotely contentious or 'edgey'.

 

[greenone]

I wonder how funny comedy would be if every comedian avoided any subject remotely contentious or 'edgey'.

If Micheal McIntyre is anything to go by it wouldn't be.

 

[Swango1980]

If Micheal McIntyre is anything to go by it wouldn't be.

Haha, I was about to type that response as well. The most extreme sitcoms may be things like "My Family". I presume Dad's Army would be completely and utterly unacceptable, there is nothing funny about WW2.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

There are plenty of comics who don't do edgy. McIntyre is the obvious but also Tim Vine, Milton Jones. I'm pretty sure Peter Kay doesn't push those boundaries from memory.

Going back, Ken Dodd was the same, Barry Cryers jokes shown after his death were not nasty. It's perfectly possible to be very, very funny without being cruel.

 

[2blue]

DaveR said:
I wonder how funny comedy would be if every comedian avoided any subject remotely contentious or 'edgey'.

greenone said: If Micheal McIntyre is anything to go by it wouldn't be.

Haha, I was about to type that response as well. The most extreme sitcoms may be things like "My Family". I presume Dad's Army would be completely and utterly unacceptable, there is nothing funny about WW2.

Well that was easy.... nor remotely contentious or 'edgey'.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Well that was easy.... nor remotely contentious or 'edgey'.

???

 

[2blue]

???

Swango found Greengo's response funny.... Haha
None of it was remotely contentious or 'edgey

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Swango found Greengo's response funny.... Haha
None of it was remotely contentious or 'edgey

OK, that's not how I read it. If I understood it correctly greenone doesn't think comedy would be funny if nothing edgy or contentious was said.

 

[Swango1980]

Swango found Greengo's response funny.... Haha
None of it was remotely contentious or 'edgey

To clarify, funny in a text chat sort of way. No offence to Greenone, but I probably would pay to watch him if that statement was part of his stand up routine

 

[HampshireHog]

I think you have phrased it clumsily as it seems that you are saying all men that would laugh at that gag see themselves as Rapists? (Probably football fans too eh?)

I read it as she is saying that none of the men who laugh at that joke see themselves as the victim. I think she is right.

 

[Tashyboy]

There are plenty of comics who don't do edgy. McIntyre is the obvious but also Tim Vine, Milton Jones. I'm pretty sure Peter Kay doesn't push those boundaries from memory.

Going back, Ken Dodd was the same, Barry Cryers jokes shown after his death were not nasty. It's perfectly possible to be very, very funny without being cruel.

When I emigrated from Rochdale to Mansfield back in 1970. We used to hang around with kids from all over the UK. I spent hours listening to Mike Harding, Bobby Knutt and someone called Billy Connolly On LPs. We would cry laughing.

 

[RichA]

When I emigrated from Rochdale to Mansfield back in 1970. We used to hang around with kids from all over the UK. I spent hours listening to Mike Harding, Bobby Knutt and someone called Billy Connolly On LPs. We would cry laughing.

Billy Connolly. He has had me crying with laughter since I first saw him on TV 40 years ago. I have a fondness for him that I don't usually get for celebs of any flavour.