BBS explains why the Holocaust is funny

[Army of GOD]

There are a bunch of ideas floating around in this thread from various posters with which I do and don't agree. I sort of just want to stream of consciousness my thoughts on this.

The idea that you can use a joke "because comedy" is pretty weak. There are various types of comedy, and the quality of the comedy often has much more to do with the comic than the actual bit. Presentation, charisma, and an outside the box perspective are often much more important for successful comedy than the actual bit itself. A good comic can take a "bad joke" and make it work, and a bad comic can take a "good one" and ruin it. Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art. The criticism is part of it, and you need to be able to address it one way or the other. Anyone that says "it's just comedy" is doing it wrong.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

I don't think anyone who makes politically incorrect jokes attempts to deflect any criticism. The problem is when people want to quench any and all politically incorrect jokes, that's when shit starts and things start to become unfunny and life begins to suck.

Not to mention how Juan only cares about his "feelings" and not anyone else's. If Juan really gave a shit about everyone and not himself, he would've tried to get BigBallinStalin to change his name. Otherwise he's just spewing shit from his dick.

The amount of favoritism and inconsistency on this site is appalling. There is a 0% (count it, zero percent) chance someone would be able to keep a name like BigBallinHitler on this site, despite the fact that Stalin is responsible for killing more people.

Either it's all ok or none of it is. Otherwise you come off like an idiot.

[Neoteny]

There are a bunch of ideas floating around in this thread from various posters with which I do and don't agree. I sort of just want to stream of consciousness my thoughts on this.

The idea that you can use a joke "because comedy" is pretty weak. There are various types of comedy, and the quality of the comedy often has much more to do with the comic than the actual bit. Presentation, charisma, and an outside the box perspective are often much more important for successful comedy than the actual bit itself. A good comic can take a "bad joke" and make it work, and a bad comic can take a "good one" and ruin it. Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art. The criticism is part of it, and you need to be able to address it one way or the other. Anyone that says "it's just comedy" is doing it wrong.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

I don't think anyone who makes politically incorrect jokes attempts to deflect any criticism. The problem is when people want to quench any and all politically incorrect jokes, that's when shit starts and things start to become unfunny and life begins to suck.

Not to mention how Juan only cares about his "feelings" and not anyone else's. If Juan really gave a shit about everyone and not himself, he would've tried to get BigBallinStalin to change his name. Otherwise he's just spewing shit from his dick.

The amount of favoritism and inconsistency on this site is appalling. There is a 0% (count it, zero percent) chance someone would be able to keep a name like BigBallinHitler on this site, despite the fact that Stalin is responsible for killing more people.

Either it's all ok or none of it is. Otherwise you come off like an idiot.

Plenty of people do try to deflect criticism. Here's one from this thread.

All jokes except a small fraction of cleverly crafted word play puns are offensive to someone, somewhere. I don't see why any kind of joke would be seen as anti-Semitic. It's a joke. It's not serious.


I for one would love to hear some of them.

I also think that calling someone out as a hypocrite is a bit of a deflection too. Juan might be a hypocrite, but it is not an appropriate address of his criticisms.

Anyhow, nothing in life is as black and white as you seem to want it to be. I also don't really understand the Hitler/Stalin thing, but that's a society thing, really, and not something this site is explicitly guilty of. The site is just guilty of laziness on that front. But life is never an all or nothing thing. Never.

I don't know what Juan is trying to achieve, though I don't expect it is the quashing all non-PC jokes. From my perspective, I just lose a certain amount of respect for people who make jokes that I find to be going a bit too far. There's a sort of mental tally that my mind keeps, and it's probably not 100% accurate because it's mental, but as far as people who have disappointed me with their humor in this thread it would go, for example (least disappointed to most disappointed), Greek then Juan then BBS. And, much like Juan, I'm not afraid to point out that I think making holocaust jokes makes you a shittier person than not making holocaust jokes. BBS seems to think otherwise, and I think Juan wants to demonstrate that BBS is shitty, which is the point of this thread. I could have missed something over the last decade of pages, but that is what I'm getting out of it. I don't want to stop off-color jokes. I do want you to know that I think you accumulate shittiness for making them. Many of us are perfectly ok with that too.

[Army of GOD]

There are a bunch of ideas floating around in this thread from various posters with which I do and don't agree. I sort of just want to stream of consciousness my thoughts on this.

The idea that you can use a joke "because comedy" is pretty weak. There are various types of comedy, and the quality of the comedy often has much more to do with the comic than the actual bit. Presentation, charisma, and an outside the box perspective are often much more important for successful comedy than the actual bit itself. A good comic can take a "bad joke" and make it work, and a bad comic can take a "good one" and ruin it. Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art. The criticism is part of it, and you need to be able to address it one way or the other. Anyone that says "it's just comedy" is doing it wrong.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

I don't think anyone who makes politically incorrect jokes attempts to deflect any criticism. The problem is when people want to quench any and all politically incorrect jokes, that's when shit starts and things start to become unfunny and life begins to suck.

Not to mention how Juan only cares about his "feelings" and not anyone else's. If Juan really gave a shit about everyone and not himself, he would've tried to get BigBallinStalin to change his name. Otherwise he's just spewing shit from his dick.

The amount of favoritism and inconsistency on this site is appalling. There is a 0% (count it, zero percent) chance someone would be able to keep a name like BigBallinHitler on this site, despite the fact that Stalin is responsible for killing more people.

Either it's all ok or none of it is. Otherwise you come off like an idiot.

Plenty of people do try to deflect criticism. Here's one from this thread.

All jokes except a small fraction of cleverly crafted word play puns are offensive to someone, somewhere. I don't see why any kind of joke would be seen as anti-Semitic. It's a joke. It's not serious.


I for one would love to hear some of them.

I think I misunderstood what you said. Never mind, brah.

I also think that calling someone out as a hypocrite is a bit of a deflection too. Juan might be a hypocrite, but it is not an appropriate address of his criticisms.

His criticisms lose some weight when he's guilty of them too.

Anyhow, nothing in life is as black and white as you seem to want it to be. I also don't really understand the Hitler/Stalin thing, but that's a society thing, really, and not something this site is explicitly guilty of. The site is just guilty of laziness on that front. But life is never an all or nothing thing. Never.

What? How is the site not explicitly guilty of it? Any pictures of ANY swastika (regardless of if they're from the Third Reich or not) is automatically asked to be removed while I could have a fucking picture of Jesus jerking off to the hammer and sickle and nothing would happen. The site is very guilty of it.

I don't know what Juan is trying to achieve, though I don't expect it is the quashing all non-PC jokes. From my perspective, I just lose a certain amount of respect for people who make jokes that I find to be going a bit too far. There's a sort of mental tally that my mind keeps, and it's probably not 100% accurate because it's mental, but as far as people who have disappointed me with their humor in this thread it would go, for example (least disappointed to most disappointed), Greek then Juan then BBS. And, much like Juan, I'm not afraid to point out that I think making holocaust jokes makes you a shittier person than not making holocaust jokes. BBS seems to think otherwise, and I think Juan wants to demonstrate that BBS is shitty, which is the point of this thread. I could have missed something over the last decade of pages, but that is what I'm getting out of it. I don't want to stop off-color jokes. I do want you to know that I think you accumulate shittiness for making them. Many of us are perfectly ok with that too.

To make a BBS-esque argument, we (I include myself) understand what we're doing (for the most part) when we make those sort of jokes. I definitely understand the opportunity cost of making the jokes and accept the shittiness...honestly it's a good way to filter out people that are more similar to your personality. Like, BBS and I are in the "we don't care who we offend" category of personality, you're in the "I don't want to offend anyone" category and Juan's in the "HURRDURR AOWIEJRAWOERIJAWERIAWRE" category.

But that's the beauty of the freedom of offend. If you think I'm a shitty person, you can chose to ignore me. Foe me, avoid me, whatever. But once we start banning people and limiting their freedom to offend, only the "I don't want to offend anyone" type is left which sucks for the other two types of people.

[Neoteny]

I also think that calling someone out as a hypocrite is a bit of a deflection too. Juan might be a hypocrite, but it is not an appropriate address of his criticisms.

His criticisms lose some weight when he's guilty of them too.

Not really. We trust him less, maybe, but the criticism itself may stand on its own merits.

Anyhow, nothing in life is as black and white as you seem to want it to be. I also don't really understand the Hitler/Stalin thing, but that's a society thing, really, and not something this site is explicitly guilty of. The site is just guilty of laziness on that front. But life is never an all or nothing thing. Never.

What? How is the site not explicitly guilty of it? Any pictures of ANY swastika (regardless of if they're from the Third Reich or not) is automatically asked to be removed while I could have a fucking picture of Jesus jerking off to the hammer and sickle and nothing would happen. The site is very guilty of it.

They are guilty of it in the sense that they are responding to what they think are hot button issues. As a society, we seem to care less about Stalin than about Hitler. As someone who wants to make money, CC is going to respond to that in a way that maximizes income. They are just responding to societal pressures, even if it's silly. They are in the majority of websites on this point. That was more what I meant.

I don't know what Juan is trying to achieve, though I don't expect it is the quashing all non-PC jokes. From my perspective, I just lose a certain amount of respect for people who make jokes that I find to be going a bit too far. There's a sort of mental tally that my mind keeps, and it's probably not 100% accurate because it's mental, but as far as people who have disappointed me with their humor in this thread it would go, for example (least disappointed to most disappointed), Greek then Juan then BBS. And, much like Juan, I'm not afraid to point out that I think making holocaust jokes makes you a shittier person than not making holocaust jokes. BBS seems to think otherwise, and I think Juan wants to demonstrate that BBS is shitty, which is the point of this thread. I could have missed something over the last decade of pages, but that is what I'm getting out of it. I don't want to stop off-color jokes. I do want you to know that I think you accumulate shittiness for making them. Many of us are perfectly ok with that too.

To make a BBS-esque argument, we (I include myself) understand what we're doing (for the most part) when we make those sort of jokes. I definitely understand the opportunity cost of making the jokes and accept the shittiness...honestly it's a good way to filter out people that are more similar to your personality. Like, BBS and I are in the "we don't care who we offend" category of personality, you're in the "I don't want to offend anyone" category and Juan's in the "HURRDURR AOWIEJRAWOERIJAWERIAWRE" category.

But that's the beauty of the freedom of offend. If you think I'm a shitty person, you can chose to ignore me. Foe me, avoid me, whatever. But once we start banning people and limiting their freedom to offend, only the "I don't want to offend anyone" type is left which sucks for the other two types of people.

It does indeed make an excellent filter.

[Funkyterrance]

Related to this is the idea of off-color humor. This is going to appeal to a group of people, often a large group. They are considered politically incorrect for a reason, and there is a spectrum of incorrectness. A reasonable individual recognizes that there is a certain amount of "dickishness" involved with doing the humor. It's an accepted part of the bit. To try to weasel out of that is dishonest, imo. "It's comedy" is a piss poor excuse. You're doing a joke in poor taste. Own it and move on. You've obviously already picked out some sort of tragic or whatever thing that you feel is worth being a dick about. Don't pretend you're innocent because you're literally using someone else's (this seems to apply less if it's a hardship personally experienced) hardship to make others laugh, often others that aren't experiencing said hardship. You don't get to deflect the criticism because you are (at least in theory) making art.

This is similar to the point I was making in my atrocity joke thread only admittedly in a more digestible form.

[Neoteny]

I didn't read that one.

[Funkyterrance]

I didn't read that one.

No worries, just making an observation. Perhaps your input could help.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't know what Juan is trying to achieve, though I don't expect it is the quashing all non-PC jokes.

It's not. I don't want to see any bully jokes about things that cannot be changed. I wouldn't let anyone get away with having a thread of jokes about the Irish people, or a thread about how X-User is too fat. You can make jokes amongst your friends about how one of you is too fat or their Irish-ness is too funny. But that's only if that person is ok with it, and only if someone else who is overweight or Irish isn't overhearing you and being hurt. I don't make those kinds of jokes, but if you want to do it, I'm ok with it.

and I think Juan wants to demonstrate that BBS is shitty, which is the point of this thread. I could have missed something over the last decade of pages, but that is what I'm getting out of it. I don't want to stop off-color jokes. I do want you to know that I think you accumulate shittiness for making them. Many of us are perfectly ok with that too.

That's not it. Kinda like what you say about accumulating shittyness, I didn't report the first thread, and I ignored it all for a long time. But after a certain amount of time the thread became overly offensive. That's when I told everyone to stop. BBS called me some names, said it was therapeutic to make fun of the Holocaust, and said he was a Jew so it was double-ok. That's when I decided he was a shitty person and I foed him. I've been ignoring him ever since. I immediately stopped participating in threads that he starts, and I don't look at his posts. That's what I think the foe button is for. My affirmation that he's a jerk is sincere.
BUT! Since then he's been responding to most of my posts in OT, trying to troll me and insulting my ideas. He never did that until I foed him for his Holocaust jokes... so I pretty much had no choice but to make this thread. I'm being asked by people responding to his posts why I'm afraid of him. TGD knows he is on foe, and even he was trying to say that I refuse to address BBS' criticisms in OT.
So my immediate goal wasn't to make him look shitty, but to turn and face a bully. He's mocking my posts in OT because of my reaction to his rigorous and offensive defense of his Holocaust humor he made in secret. If he want's to troll me and mock me, then I'm going to turn and face him, and let him face the issue.

It's something similar for Greek. I didn't foe him for his defense of Holocaust jokes or anything, but he thinks I'm a huge Anti-Catholic bigot and didn't foe me... I don't get that. But if he's angry at me for discussing the Catholic Church's protection of Pedophiles, then fine, I'll talk about it in this thread too. I'm not ashamed. It's weird how no one here will even quote that it's the issue between me and Greek. Instead its just "his feelings are as important as yours." Of course they are. But that doesn't mean that religion should be a "no-no" topic. And feelings don't make every issue equal. The feelings of those kids should be more important to us than the feelings of practicing Catholics who are supporting their attackers. TGD is just playing BFF and wingman to BBS; he doesn't care at all about the issue at hand, which is the living memory of the Holocaust and why it's not funny. And I don't think he cares one lick about the Catholic Church's victims either. He wont even let you talk about them without labeling you a bigot in his mind.

[Juan_Bottom]

All of my statements are 100% accurate. All of his statements are lies. It's really as simple as that.

He's lying.
I don't know that he wasn't offended by discussions of the Catholic Church's protection of Child Molesters... I'm just saying that I don't care that he was offended by that talk. I call bullshit that he would tell me that he thinks Holocaust Jokes are funny, but will stop making them just because I'm offended... so I should stop talking about the Catholic Church in exchange. I wasn't even making jokes, I was discussing the acts the church was involved in. That's patronizing & condescending to me, and trivializing to both the victims of molestation and the Holocaust.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

10-4
Like I said, I don't exactly understand the offense behind the word, when so many other words have been co-opted and watered down by society. Words like gay, imbecile, sucks, simple, and many others. But I don't need to understand; Argument from Authority.

See: Dr. Strangelove.

According to Juan this movie shouldn't be funny.

-TG

Why? It's a fictitious story that mocked an environment of fear and chaos?

Not to mention how Juan only cares about his "feelings" and not anyone else's. If Juan really gave a shit about everyone and not himself, he would've tried to get BigBallinStalin to change his name. Otherwise he's just spewing shit from his dick.

The amount of favoritism and inconsistency on this site is appalling. There is a 0% (count it, zero percent) chance someone would be able to keep a name like BigBallinHitler on this site, despite the fact that Stalin is responsible for killing more people.

Either it's all ok or none of it is. Otherwise you come off like an idiot.

I'm sorry you unthink that way.
Please, name some other times when I've told you to stop making jokes. Or to stop insulting me personally. Have I reported Saxi in this thread or told him to stop insulting me personally?
Saying that every issue is exactly the same is intellectually lazy, as I already said. There is no black and white. And if you are going to come here and argue that every butthurt is exactly the same, then I'll say that you're being intellectually lazy.

Saying that it's all or nothing in comedy is just something dumb people say to justify being a jerk.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why? It's a fictitious story that mocked an environment of fear and chaos?

I seem to recall something about a quarter million Nipponese being vaporized and who knows how many in the years after who were killed by cancer, leukemia, etc., not to mention radiation poisoning leading to birth defects.

Pretty much Dr. Strangelove was making light of the suffering of victims of atomics. How is this different than the original movie-pun thread? Because they're east Asian and not the perennially persecuted Jew?

-TG

[Neoteny]

I don't know what Juan is trying to achieve, though I don't expect it is the quashing all non-PC jokes.

It's not. I don't want to see any bully jokes about things that cannot be changed. I wouldn't let anyone get away with having a thread of jokes about the Irish people, or a thread about how X-User is too fat. You can make jokes amongst your friends about how one of you is too fat or their Irish-ness is too funny. But that's only if that person is ok with it, and only if someone else who is overweight or Irish isn't overhearing you and being hurt. I don't make those kinds of jokes, but if you want to do it, I'm ok with it.

and I think Juan wants to demonstrate that BBS is shitty, which is the point of this thread. I could have missed something over the last decade of pages, but that is what I'm getting out of it. I don't want to stop off-color jokes. I do want you to know that I think you accumulate shittiness for making them. Many of us are perfectly ok with that too.

That's not it. Kinda like what you say about accumulating shittyness, I didn't report the first thread, and I ignored it all for a long time. But after a certain amount of time the thread became overly offensive. That's when I told everyone to stop. BBS called me some names, said it was therapeutic to make fun of the Holocaust, and said he was a Jew so it was double-ok. That's when I decided he was a shitty person and I foed him. I've been ignoring him ever since. I immediately stopped participating in threads that he starts, and I don't look at his posts. That's what I think the foe button is for. My affirmation that he's a jerk is sincere.
BUT! Since then he's been responding to most of my posts in OT, trying to troll me and insulting my ideas. He never did that until I foed him for his Holocaust jokes... so I pretty much had no choice but to make this thread. I'm being asked by people responding to his posts why I'm afraid of him. TGD knows he is on foe, and even he was trying to say that I refuse to address BBS' criticisms in OT.
So my immediate goal wasn't to make him look shitty, but to turn and face a bully. He's mocking my posts in OT because of my reaction to his rigorous and offensive defense of his Holocaust humor he made in secret. If he want's to troll me and mock me, then I'm going to turn and face him, and let him face the issue.

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant, particularly the last part. I have no issues with confronting someone with something you feel strongly about.

It's something similar for Greek. I didn't foe him for his defense of Holocaust jokes or anything, but he thinks I'm a huge Anti-Catholic bigot and didn't foe me... I don't get that. But if he's angry at me for discussing the Catholic Church's protection of Pedophiles, then fine, I'll talk about it in this thread too. I'm not ashamed. It's weird how no one here will even quote that it's the issue between me and Greek. Instead its just "his feelings are as important as yours." Of course they are. But that doesn't mean that religion should be a "no-no" topic. And feelings don't make every issue equal. The feelings of those kids should be more important to us than the feelings of practicing Catholics who are supporting their attackers. TGD is just playing BFF and wingman to BBS; he doesn't care at all about the issue at hand, which is the living memory of the Holocaust and why it's not funny. And I don't think he cares one lick about the Catholic Church's victims either. He wont even let you talk about them without labeling you a bigot in his mind.

I can't really say I understand greek's perspective on this either. I'm not exactly sure what any of you want to achieve here. I mostly just like the three of you most of the time, and I wish we could all stop being angry and be a family again.

Also, Juan, stop calling people/ideas/whatever retarded.

10-4
Like I said, I don't exactly understand the offense behind the word, when so many other words have been co-opted and watered down by society. Words like gay, imbecile, sucks, simple, and many others. But I don't need to understand; Argument from Authority. [/quote]

I'm not quite comfortable being the authority on it. But I trust the people who are offended by the word more than the people who are self-righteous about doing whatever the f*ck they feel like doing because they can, and f*ck anyone who is offended.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's an insane stretch of the imagination. You're just looking for any reason you can think up to make me look hypocritical.

I just googled "Does Dr. Strangelove insult the Japanese" and a few other variations of that, and yeah, you're just making stuff up to make me out to be a hypocrite.

Dr. Strangelove does not make light of "the suffering of Atomics." I'm not sure that you've seen the film or just kinda know the jist of it? It's a comedy about the absurdness of a using a delicate stalemate and mutually assured destruction to maintain peace.

I mostly just like the three of you most of the time, and I wish we could all stop being angry and be a family again.

And days of Auld Lang Syne. =(

I'm not quite comfortable being the authority on it. But I trust the people who are offended by the word more than the people who are self-righteous about doing whatever the f*ck they feel like doing because they can, and f*ck anyone who is offended.

It wasn't you or Saxi, it was tailgunner who first caught it and forced me to look at it. He's the one I say is the Authority here... I don't know any Mentally Challenged people or anything, so what would I know? His word hold more weight than any of ours. I said as much when I responded to his criticism.

[Neoteny]

I'm cool with that.

[Army of GOD]

This thread is Jewish. Err, I mean black. Err, I mean gay. Err, I mean retarded. Err, I mean fat. Err, I mean short.

We can still make fun of short people, right?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

That's an insane stretch of the imagination. You're just looking for any reason you can think up to make me look hypocritical.

I just googled "Does Dr. Strangelove insult the Japanese" and a few other variations of that, and yeah, you're just making stuff up to make me out to be a hypocrite.

Dr. Strangelove does not make light of "the suffering of Atomics." I'm not sure that you've seen the film or just kinda know the jist of it? It's a comedy about the absurdness of a using a delicate stalemate and mutually assured destruction to maintain peace.

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb trivializes the threat of nuclear attack by making the situation comical. (The title itself proclaims love for a nuclear bomb)

I doubt any Japanese who had family destroyed by the bombs or had little ones born with defects would find the threat of a nuclear explosion comical.

That is basically your argument against the movie-pun thread. You are saying that participants of that thread (myself included) are insulting Holocaust victims by making Third Reich terms comical, when you should know that was nobody's intent. How does trivializing the threat of nuclear war (which the Japanese in particular can relate to) differ from trivializing the Holocaust?

My intent is not to demonize you or call you hypocrite; I'm merely pointing out a double standard.

-TG

[DoomYoshi]

This thread is Jewish. Err, I mean black. Err, I mean gay. Err, I mean retarded. Err, I mean fat. Err, I mean short.

We can still make fun of short people, right?

Yes, classism and skillism are still allowed in American culture because there is this myth that people can choose to be gifted athletes or rich or whatever.

[thegreekdog]

All of my statements are 100% accurate. All of his statements are lies. It's really as simple as that.

He's lying.
I don't know that he wasn't offended by discussions of the Catholic Church's protection of Child Molesters... I'm just saying that I don't care that he was offended by that talk. I call bullshit that he would tell me that he thinks Holocaust Jokes are funny, but will stop making them just because I'm offended... so I should stop talking about the Catholic Church in exchange. I wasn't even making jokes, I was discussing the acts the church was involved in. That's patronizing & condescending to me, and trivializing to both the victims of molestation and the Holocaust.

Keep telling yourself that and maybe you'll make it true. I've copypasted all the quotes from all of the threads in this forum and in the McGill forum for future reference. Basically, you're a hypocritical shithead.

I can't really say I understand greek's perspective on this either. I'm not exactly sure what any of you want to achieve here. I mostly just like the three of you most of the time, and I wish we could all stop being angry and be a family again.

I can't speak for BBS or JB, but what I'm trying to achieve is what I tried to achieve like 2 years ago. As "internet friends," when JB asked us to stop doing something, for whatever his reason, I stopped. Despite his protestations to the contrary, I can understand how and why he could be offended by the thread in question. It's not for anyone to make a judgment call as to whether someone is offended or not by a particular post, specifically with respect to an issue such as the Holocaust or Nazism. It's not a matter of "should JB be offended." It's a matter of "since I'm 'internet friends' with JB and he's offended, I'm going to stop." That's what I did. I expected the same treatment in return, but was not given the same treatment. I asked JB (and pimpdave) to stop posting such denigrating anti-Catholic threads. They did not. I expected the same collegial treatment I gave to JB from JB and was not given it. I was given a myriad of reasons why the situations were different, but JB didn't seem to understand how the situations were the same.

I was over the whole thing until JB brought it up again in this thread. I'll be over it again, but I'm not sure I can be in a big family with JB since he will not give me the same respect and deference that I've given him.

And yeah, it's the internets, and who cares. It's not keeping me up at night or worrying me. But if I go back and read those threads (which I did before posting here, lawyer that I am), I remain flabbergasted by JB's insistence that his mockery and disgusting posts about Catholics is not something he would stop if I asked him to, even though we were supposed to be "internet friends."

[Neoteny]

That's fair enough, I think. I don't recall the anti-Catholic threads in question, but the only thing I can think of that would make the situation different would be if they were intended to be serious discussions of Catholicism.

I do see a difference between a Hitler joke thread and a thread discussing priestly indiscretions. If the latter were serious, it would be uncomfortable, but likely necessary discussion. But a thread using the priests to make fun of Catholics or some such would be roughly equivalent.

[thegreekdog]

That's fair enough, I think. I don't recall the anti-Catholic threads in question, but the only thing I can think of that would make the situation different would be if they were intended to be serious discussions of Catholicism.

I do see a difference between a Hitler joke thread and a thread discussing priestly indiscretions. If the latter were serious, it would be uncomfortable, but likely necessary discussion. But a thread using the priests to make fun of Catholics or some such would be roughly equivalent.

I guess a few responses. First, the threads in question were not serious discussions of Catholicism (JB would disagree). I've participated in serious discussion of Catholicism (and am willing to participate in said discussions). Second, they were not threads making fun of Catholics, although maybe they were intended that way. There was not, for example, a thread with fake movie names making fun of priests (which ultimately I would have been fine with). They also, I might note, were threads both here (around the time I was a moderator) and in McGill.

In any event, all that above is not ultimately the point. The point is that if I asked JB to stop, like he asked me to stop, I expected him to stop, like I stopped. Since that's not what happened, JB is a douchebag. We should treat our internet friends with at least a modicum of respect, or at least follow the Golden Rule (treat people like you want to be treated). I treated JB like he wanted to be treated, he did not reciprocate. If he wanted to have a serious discussion about the Catholic Church and its various abuses, he could have created a thread or participated in one of the various threads on the subject of religion (that doesn't have to do with creationism) that abound in this forum. Instead he posted in various of pimpdave's "let's see how much I get away with" Catholic threads and the private McGill usergroup (which is not really intended for serious discussions, generally).

I'm not asking you to take a side, I'm just trying to illustrate the problem I have with JB so that people don't misunderstand. It's like this... Your best friend said "Stop punching me in the arm all the time" and you stopped, because he's your friend. And ten minutes later your friend starts punching you in the leg. You say "Stop," and he says, "No" and continues to punch you in the leg. When you tell your other friends he's a douchebag, he says "Punching Neoteny in the leg is not the same as when he punched me in the arm because punching in the arm is more hurtful and because punching in the leg has more validity than punches to the arm."

[saxitoxin]

These contortionist attempts to attach yourself to the Holocaust for the benefit of a fantasy message board rivalry are probably the grossest thing I've ever read online.

This is two-sided, because after the fact BBS attached himself to the Holocaust by claiming he was a jew so he could make fun of it. I brought up the fact that I was raised by survivors to show you that this did not happen a million years ago. Some people here, you actually, seem to think that it was sooooo long ago that no one cares.

You said that the Holocaust can be a source of joke material. Now for the second time you claim special Holocaust privilege... You don't even know anything about the subject matter, as you claim that your German ancestors murdered the Jews to get at their material wealth. Well, that unless you're just so bored with this place that you're not even trying to sound like a plausible person anymore.

(in regard to underlined portion) Where did I say that?

(in regard to red portion) Where did I say that?

(in regard to purple portion) Where did I say that?

You're really coming across as a bit of a lunatic, Insomnia-Juan, now that you're just throwing helicopter punches in every direction at anyone who happens to make eye contact with you. It's clear this thread didn't go like you were hoping it would go. But you've dug in your heels, doubled down and decided to continue your disgusting use of the most horrible event of the 20th century as a prop for your imaginary internet message board rivalries. Gross.

Have you been reading my posts in this thread at all?

AKA

"Why won't anyone listen to me?!?!!"

Your ranting in this thread has been so utterly bizarre that it's difficult to sit through. If you're now going to use that as a new point of complaint against the collection of supposed adversaries you imagine are out to get you, I think we've delved into a whole new level of crazy, Insomnia-Juan.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not asking you to take a side, I'm just trying to illustrate the problem I have with JB so that people don't misunderstand. It's like this... Your best friend said "Stop punching me in the arm all the time" and you stopped, because he's your friend. And ten minutes later your friend starts punching you in the leg. You say "Stop," and he says, "No" and continues to punch you in the leg. When you tell your other friends he's a douchebag, he says "Punching Neoteny in the leg is not the same as when he punched me in the arm because punching in the arm is more hurtful and because punching in the leg has more validity than punches to the arm."

"More validity." I like that--a comical way to "justify" to violence.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's an insane stretch of the imagination. You're just looking for any reason you can think up to make me look hypocritical.

I just googled "Does Dr. Strangelove insult the Japanese" and a few other variations of that, and yeah, you're just making stuff up to make me out to be a hypocrite.

Dr. Strangelove does not make light of "the suffering of Atomics." I'm not sure that you've seen the film or just kinda know the jist of it? It's a comedy about the absurdness of a using a delicate stalemate and mutually assured destruction to maintain peace.

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb trivializes the threat of nuclear attack by making the situation comical. (The title itself proclaims love for a nuclear bomb)

I doubt any Japanese who had family destroyed by the bombs or had little ones born with defects would find the threat of a nuclear explosion comical.

That is basically your argument against the movie-pun thread. You are saying that participants of that thread (myself included) are insulting Holocaust victims by making Third Reich terms comical, when you should know that was nobody's intent. How does trivializing the threat of nuclear war (which the Japanese in particular can relate to) differ from trivializing the Holocaust?

My intent is not to demonize you or call you hypocrite; I'm merely pointing out a double standard.

-TG

1) It's simply not true that the movie trivializes the threat of Nuclear attack: it's a critique of the absurd seriousness of it.

2) There is and there was 0 criticism of the movie in Asia for that reason. I checked.

3) There was no threat of an Atomic attack before the bombs were dropped, because the Japanese didn't know that they existed

4) The Japanese were the bad guys, the aggressors; they enslaved the people that they conquered and forced their own people to commit suicide rather than be taken.

5) It was a different culture/atmosphere between '45 and when the movie came out.

6) If the Japanese had the power to build an atomic bomb, they would have hit us first. Several Japanese military officers wrote that it would have been dishonorable for America to not use the bomb.

Most of these don't address your point because I'm just making anticipations for later. So mainly I want to again and again repeat myself: The movie is not a trivialization of the threat of Nuclear War, and no one in Asia took offense to it. I believe at this point that you're the only person in the entire world who's connected the dots this way. Please google and read up on the important message of the film. You've missed the point of the film.
I also already addressed your point of intent several pages ago. It doesn't matter how light-heated or corny your jokes are, there comes a point when the accumulation of jokes alone is offensive; when you've got a thread the length of a book all about holocaust jokes. Obviously there is some agreement here on CC, because your first thread was locked & I'm not the one who even reported it.

[Juan_Bottom]

TGD is really watering-down the seriousness of the allegations on both sides.
I haven't said anything more offensive in private than I have in this thread, and I've said some pretty offensive, but true, things about the Catholic Church in this thread. I'm not a different person depending on which forum I'm in, though I may clean up my language. I've argued pretty much this same style/argument over the Totenkopf avi, but I guess I wasn't a hypocrite then. At least no one called me one.
Should the Totenkopf be banned as a avatar??

Check out this thread. Here's thegreekdog arguing that the totenkopf, a symbol of terror for millions of Eastern Europeans, should be protected by CC no matter how many people it offends. That's page 1 & 2. By pages 3 & 4 he's arguing exactly as I argued in this thread, that there are various degrees of butthurt, though I alone say that religion should not be protected from criticism.
But I should not offend tgd's religion, because respect. I hate to drag this thread out here, but it's been sitting in the back of my mind bugging me. TGD doesn't care about Holocaust victims, he's just trying to leverage me into not talking about the Catholic Church's member's participation in the protection of rapists and to protect his friend BBS.
The golden rule that tgd talks about is just being patronizing and condescending because he doesn't actually care about other people. It doesn't sound "nice" to tell someone that you enjoy Holocaust jokes but you have to stop so you don't hurt their feelings. And to throw a "so you better stop insulting Catholics" as a chaser is bizarre. There's nothing golden about that.

[thegreekdog]

TGD is really watering-down the seriousness of the allegations on both sides.
I haven't said anything more offensive in private than I have in this thread, and I've said some pretty offensive, but true, things about the Catholic Church in this thread. I'm not a different person depending on which forum I'm in, though I may clean up my language. I've argued pretty much this same style/argument over the Totenkopf avi, but I guess I wasn't a hypocrite then. At least no one called me one.
Should the Totenkopf be banned as a avatar??

Check out this thread. Here's thegreekdog arguing that the totenkopf, a symbol of terror for millions of Eastern Europeans, should be protected by CC no matter how many people it offends. That's page 1 & 2. By pages 3 & 4 he's arguing exactly as I argued in this thread, that there are various degrees of butthurt, though I alone say that religion should not be protected from criticism.
But I should not offend tgd's religion, because respect. I hate to drag this thread out here, but it's been sitting in the back of my mind bugging me. TGD doesn't care about Holocaust victims, he's just trying to leverage me into not talking about the Catholic Church's member's participation in the protection of rapists and to protect his friend BBS.
The golden rule that tgd talks about is just being patronizing and condescending because he doesn't actually care about other people. It doesn't sound "nice" to tell someone that you enjoy Holocaust jokes but you have to stop so you don't hurt their feelings. And to throw a "so you better stop insulting Catholics" as a chaser is bizarre. There's nothing golden about that.

Criticism and butthurt are not synonyms.
Holocaust victims and grandchildren of potential Holocaust victims are not synonyms.
So for the fifth or sixth time (from me), try to refrain yourself from equating criticism with trolling and denigration and try to refrain from equating "movie title jokes about Nazism" with "enjoying joking about Holocaust victims." These things are not like each other.

You've already dragged out the "TGD doesn't care about Holocaust victims" a few other times in this thread. My response question, which you have yet to answer, is what, apart from the one movie title I posted in the thread in question, leads you to believe I do not care about Holocaust victims? I would enjoy hearing how you've reached this conclusion.

I did enjoy that thread and I have not denied it. I did stop to avoid hurting your feelings, which is precisely what you asked me and everyone else to do.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

1) It's simply not true that the movie trivializes the threat of Nuclear attack: it's a critique of the absurd seriousness of it.

According to you, any time you don't give the Nazis or Holocaust the gravitas they deserve, it's mocking Jews; how does treating nuclear warfare (by making the situation a joke) similarly not translate over?

3) There was no threat of an Atomic attack before the bombs were dropped, because the Japanese didn't know that they existed

And yet many Japanese lived in fear for years after the attack, afraid they'd be bombed again. How do you think Godzilla came about?

4) The Japanese were the bad guys, the aggressors; they enslaved the people that they conquered and forced their own people to commit suicide rather than be taken.

5) It was a different culture/atmosphere between '45 and when the movie came out.

6) If the Japanese had the power to build an atomic bomb, they would have hit us first. Several Japanese military officers wrote that it would have been dishonorable for America to not use the bomb.

4- That's easy to say from your Westerner perspective; to the Japanese just before the war, they were retaliating against a country that had been oppressing them for hundreds of years (China, Manchuria), and during the war, they were retaliating against Western influence, which they believed would destroy their culture. You're now affixing your late 20th century values onto a completely alien culture, as if people born in the 80's have objective mores.

5- Isn't this what I argued in the first place? How is a 19 year difference (bombing-movie release) somehow make it less poignant than the 70+ year difference between cheesy movie pun thread and Holocaust?

6- Somehow this excuses the bomb, which was dropped on civilians? Remember, the war pretty much destroyed the Japanese economy. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was because of the pride of army vs. navy and militaristic counselors. Hirohito did not want the war to continue, nor did the Japanese civilians. They knew they were going to lose before the war. Dropping the bomb on them was an act of kicking them while they were down to beat them into submission.

As for the 0 criticism point, that's exactly my point; I picked a movie that, while seemingly doing the same thing you accused the pun thread participants of doing, didn't cause an outrage. Why? Because nobody gives a shit. Get over it.

-TG