Moderator: Community Team
betiko wrote:Image removed.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Because you're not a victim of bigotry, and you want to be...
Dude, seriously. LEARN... TO... READ... I don't want to be a victim of bigotry. I'm pointing out your shit guzzling hypocrisy; that's my interest here. To get it through your brain that being offended by something is subjective, not objective and when you offend someone else during and immediately after going on a tirade about being offended yourself, you're a shit guzzling hypocrit.
We're not talking about insulting Holocaust survivors. No one made disparaging remarks.
How can you make this judgment when you don't know me at all? There has never been anything I posted that would make someone say "TGD doesn't care about the Holocaust or Holocaust victims" except that I made one quote in that movie thread.
And you want to know the single, biggest, most important telling thing in all this? Not one person in the McGill usergroup is in here taking your side in this thing. Not a single goddamn person.
saxitoxin wrote:Juan's howls of indignation are funny.-Juan is mad his family got "slaughtered" by "the Germans" ... he felt "the Germans" should have raised a voice to Hitler. (But they were offered the world's first workman's comp program, and didn't want to risk it. So they just quietly shook their heads, said 'that's too bad' and then thronged to party mass rallies to support the Führer.)
Juan's moral hypocrisy is more hilarious by the day. He's in it for #1. You're not a victim, Juan, despite your desperation to be one. You're not part of the intellectual aristocracy, though you've convinced yourself you are. You're one of the plump, unwashed masses whose ethics ebbs and sways depending on the volume of carrots or severity of the stick.
-Juan is not so mad other people's families are getting "slaughtered" by "the Americans" ... he is meekly supple before the majesty of Obama. (Juan, too, was offered treats and goodies and didn't want to risk them. So he occasionally offers a sympathetic word on an anonymous message board before spending 10 times as many words defending the regime, or rallying to the voting booth in a coat festooned with buttons and badges displaying the Iron O logo.)
saxitoxin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:TA1LGUNN3R can argue from a position of authority on the matter. I do not agree with him
It doesn't take special knowledge to know that alphabet words like the N-Word or R-Word are offensive hate speech, nor does it require your agreement.
Hopefully one day you will make the choice to join those of us in civilization and stop using words like n***er, ch**k, f*g or re**rd. Since it's been widely communicated this isn't acceptable behavior in the 21st century your feigned surprise to hear that n***er or re**rd are offensive is doubly knuckle-dragging.
Further - using the Holocaust to score a gotcha in some imagined internet message board rivalry - and your crocodile teared cartwheels of outrage - is more offensive than the most offensive joke.
Threads like this make me wonder if it was a very good idea to bring the internet to Appalachia.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:This is a serious question to Juan:
At what point in time do you say that an event is open to jokes, if any? Should I be upset whenever somebody makes a Polish joke? They were stomped on in WWII. Six million Poles were killed in WWII. Should I be upset when people make fun of the Scots for kilts or the Irish for the potato famine?
All these events which are part of my genealogy mean absolutely nothing to me, other than being footnotes in history. They don't have an effect on current affairs, and I don't see the point in dwelling on something that has no real relevance to the present.
Do you get similarly upset when somebody makes Russian or Communist Soviet jokes (recall the Russian pogroms of the Jews, which, iirc, predate the Holocaust concentration camps)? So, while you say you had distant family that was involved in the Holocaust, really you have no claim to its effects.
Unless you can answer the above as "yes," then your position is untenable. I can only find merit in your argument if you can honestly say that any atrocious event, regardless of its time in history, is not open to jests.
-TG
Metsfanmax wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Comedians don't have Holocaust Joke Sets, and they don't have 9-11 Joke Sets. But they do have Religious Joke Sets... because you can choose what you believe, but you cannot choose the events that happen to you. And again, I've never made a joke about Catholicism ever. Have I previously insulted Catholicism? Probably. And that's not a joke. But do Catholics deserve the same sensitivity as Holocaust victims? God damn it, no.
Is it possible for a joke about, say, the Crusades to not be in bad taste? I think that JB's indignation about using the Holocaust as a source of joke material has some sense, but it is not possible to think of these things in one simple way. We might always be horrified by what happened, but that doesn't mean it couldn't also be funny or harmless in a certain light (what happened to the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrifying and in some sense a genocide, yet we have "nuclear spoils" on this site). The Holocaust is still real to many who are alive today, or the direct descendants of those people; my father's parents were both concentration camp survivors, and that had a deep impact on how my father was raised (and therefore myself). But that is not what defines me. With time and cultural distance these things become less directly insulting, even if they are obviously horrific upon reflection. Juan, you have to be careful about striking the right balance between impressing upon people the importance of never letting genocides happen again, while at the same time remembering that it is in human nature to be irreverent about such things as a coping mechanism.
tzor wrote:I probably shouldn't be throwing my two cents in but I think you are strongly comparing apples and oranges. There is a big difference between jokes against a vague generalization (such as groups of people) and jokes against a specific instance (such as an event). A Scots joke, a Polish joke, even a Nazi joke is completely different from a Holocaust joke, or a 911 Joke or a Wounded Knee joke.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:This is a serious question to Juan:
At what point in time do you say that an event is open to jokes, if any? Should I be upset whenever somebody makes a Polish joke? They were stomped on in WWII. Six million Poles were killed in WWII. Should I be upset when people make fun of the Scots for kilts or the Irish for the potato famine?
All these events which are part of my genealogy mean absolutely nothing to me, other than being footnotes in history. They don't have an effect on current affairs, and I don't see the point in dwelling on something that has no real relevance to the present.
Do you get similarly upset when somebody makes Russian or Communist Soviet jokes (recall the Russian pogroms of the Jews, which, iirc, predate the Holocaust concentration camps)? So, while you say you had distant family that was involved in the Holocaust, really you have no claim to its effects.
Unless you can answer the above as "yes," then your position is untenable. I can only find merit in your argument if you can honestly say that any atrocious event, regardless of its time in history, is not open to jests.
-TG
Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that I've already answered most of this, but I suppose that I've written enough that nobody is reading it.
I don't know at what point it becomes ok to make jokes about deaths in History. I did stand-up comedy for a while, but I really don't know the answer. Certainly it's always in bad taste to make fun of someone's death, acutely so if they were murdered. Though there is probably a grey area for jokes about a dictator's or jerk's deaths...
You shouldn't make fun of the Polish for just for being Polish. They didn't choose to be born in Poland. That doesn't mean that you should be fighting mad whenever someone makes a stupid joke, but if the jokes continue on and on, then you should ask them to stop.
Why would you make fun of the Irish for being starved to death?
Kilts can probably pretty much be made fun indefinitely, because it's a choice to wear them.
If you don't know if a joke is appropriate, just ask yourself if the person made a choice. If someone wakes up with bad hair, that's funny. If they wake up missing a kidney, that's not funny.
I have repeatedly said that I am not claiming that my heritage gives me special powers. Why do you people keep saying that? I was raised directly by survivors; I did not have distant relatives involved that I know of. I bring that up to explain my voracious defense here, because these people in my life taught me the seriousness of the situation. I empathize wholly with those who survived and continue to do so, and that's why I say the Holocaust jokes need to stop. I'm not claiming heretical privileges, only explaining why I would go so far, and that our society is not removed from the Holocaust. Over 6 million people were massacred 70 years ago. It's not that long ago, and it's not funny. Our own grandparents and parents were unwilling participants. And many other have been caught up in other slaughters in Europe, Africa, and Asia since then. Only North America has avoided a Mass slaughter of a minority... unless you consider our government's refusal to aid the Gay community during the 80s. But that's kinda stretching it. We have stood by while genocides happened, and we have endorsed them as well. And none of it is funny.
saxitoxin wrote:[snipped]
Juan_Bottom wrote:You are a dumb jerk.
Juan_Bottom wrote:In fact in Illinois we had a community built for survivors after the war.
DoomYoshi wrote:Yea, this is like the Holocaust version of InsomniaRed.
Funkyterrance wrote:Still, I think what you are failing to realize is that your opinions regarding these varied examples are not universally accepted. Don't you see the huge contradiction in chastising others for being disrespectful when you have a tendency to be this way yourself?
saxitoxin wrote: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.
DoomYoshi wrote:Yea, this is like the Holocaust version of InsomniaRed.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Don't you see the glaring problem that comes with saying that the Holocaust deserves equal respect as religion? It's intellectually lazy to say that every butthurt is equal. Or that every idea is equal. If a religion promotes pedophilia, and I say that's stupid... is this "disrespect" equal to a joke on Holocaust victims? The real disrespect is raping the kids, and saying that nobody can question that without being a bigot. I don't question the integrity of the believer... they do believe in what they believe. Like with JBII's Agnosticism, I attack the belief, but not the believer. He and I are on good terms & I don't have a problem with him at all.
Juan_Bottom wrote:It's for those reasons why, as I've already stated twice, I'VE NEVER MADE A CATHOLIC JOKE, EVER. We all reserve the right to criticize any bad belief that hurts people... Even if that belief is part of your sacred and unquestionable religion... Or even if that belief is that the Holocaust happened so long ago that it's funny now... If that's bigotry, then I'm a bigot. I just don't understand why Americans will so desperately argue that other people's religions are not discussable. I was literally criticizing the financial support of pedophiles, and now I'm being called a hypocrite because laughing at the Holocaust is somehow the same thing.
Funkyterrance wrote:And I've got to mention that I don't know of any modern religions that "promote" pedophilia, that's just ridiculous...
Funkyterrance wrote:The problem is only glaring from your perspective though, the butthurt is the operative issue here, not the subject matter.
Funkyterrance wrote:We are talking about emotional issues here so which is logically more valid by any side doesn't really enter into it.
Some may disagree.Funkyterrance wrote:And I've got to mention that I don't know of any modern religions that "promote" pedophilia, that's just ridiculous...
Juan_Bottom wrote:Ok so here we go again, you are arguing that all butthurts are exactly equal.... That's so silly. If someone is depressed for 20 years because their pet snail was run over by a car, that's something to be sympathetic to. But it's not as deserving of sympathy as if their whole family died in a car accident.
You're just wrong. The subject matter is the most important issue here. It's more important than anyone's feelings.
Funkyterrance wrote:We are talking about emotional issues here so which is logically more valid by any side doesn't really enter into it.
Juan_Bottom wrote:You just said that emotion is more important than reason and logic, and that's just silly. It's silly and dumb.
Funkyterrance wrote:But you're just using the same example, one being more severe than the other.
Funkyterrance wrote: It all revolves around your own personal belief system so yes, it is all subjective.
Funkyterrance wrote:So what you're saying is that if anyone can come up with an argument that shows that, logically speaking, your scenario is actually less deserving of respect then you will accept it?
I'm saying that you are basing your logical argument on your belief system and more importantly on the assumption that your belief system is more valid than someone else's belief system.
Juan_Bottom wrote:i.e. the pain inflicted when insulting someone's choice to believe that Bigfoot is real is not the same as the pain inflicted by making a racial stereotype at someone.
Funkyterrance wrote: It all revolves around your own personal belief system so yes, it is all subjective.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Even if it is subjective, society has already decided, has it not? We have some kind of inherited sympathy mechanism that is largely the same everywhere? Why can a comedian safely do 40 minutes of religious jokes, but cannot do 40 minutes of Holocaust jokes?
Funkyterrance wrote:So what you're saying is that if anyone can come up with an argument that shows that, logically speaking, your scenario is actually less deserving of respect then you will accept it?
Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not a question of what deserves more respect....I mean, how many times have I raised a fuss over stupid jokes or whatever? You're only crossing the line when you're making fun of someone or something where no choice is involved. Of course it's intellectually lazy to say that everything over that line is all equal, but since we all agree that it's completely wrong to make fun of it, I don't think it's important to grade these things.
I'm saying that you are basing your logical argument on your belief system and more importantly on the assumption that your belief system is more valid than someone else's belief system.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Interesting... but where do you find fault? I know that I cannot find fault... society itself and our great philosophers have already made their minds up, and I agree with them. All I've heard in opposition is that emotional responses are unpredictable, and they are, but that doesn't necessarily make them relevant. Maybe someone freaks out because you make fun of apples... but that doesn't make their reaction respectable... unless maybe something traumatic happened with apples that was out of their control or something.
“I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much . . . because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting.”
_sabotage_ wrote:Kiss and make up boys.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote: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.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Neoteny wrote: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.
See: Dr. Strangelove.
According to Juan this movie shouldn't be funny.
-TG
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users