Discrimination, Humour and Hypocrisy? (possibly offensive/shocking)

[homegrownkodi]

It's late, I am kinda tired and frustrated... So there may be mistake or whole chunks missing or such things

I like my humour to have a very dark, sometimes sadistic tone to it.
I love jokes that have a strong shock value, and I also enjoy jokes
I am obviously not alone with my dark sense of humour...
But of course, there are people who take incredible offense to the jokes I enjoy, and sometimes the jokes I make.

But it frustrates me how seriously people can take such statements that are made purely for the purpose of humour.
It also frustrates me how people react to such humour so selfishly and hypocritically (that even a real word? Who cares ^^;)...
Especially considering the reason I can laugh at this stuff is because I find real discrimination so ridiculous.

People seem to think that members of a minority group have more right to make jokes about said minority group than people outside of it.
People also seem to think that it is fair to accept certain jokes unless they can relate to their own interests or beliefs for some reason...
AND PEOPLE also seem to consider jokes about some minority groups more offensive than groups about other minority groups.

[tl;dr = "I offend someone and they feel they are in the wrong because I fit into minority being offended"]
Here would be a good example of people responding to my humour too seriously with hypocrisy and selfishness;
I was sat in my media class, with my usual group of medians (that is what I call my media class members... I don't but I will now.)
-now bare in mind I make potentially offensive statements a lot, without the wit and without punchline because I just find it funny.-
Well, we are all talking and I am popping a few dead baby jokes. Not that bad huh? WELL, one subject leads to another and I make a joke about homosexuals deserving to be shot. Of course I don't mean it. That would be ridiculous. I'm not entirely sure why it would be, it just wouldn't make any sense.
One of the girls in the group promptly got up from her chair to call be a ginger, well she dropped the c-bomb on me and marched out of the room. Everyone was calling me an butt and saying this and that and one of the others in the group starts yelling at me about how she is bisexual and I shouldn't make jokes about it and all that...
At this point I am in stitches... How badly could some one have reacted to a joke? Well, anyhows - I manage to stop the abuse that was being thrown at me personally and aggressively, un-humorously with no intention other that upsetting me because I offended this girl, just by stating that I am bisexual too. About 10 minutes later I get a text from the girl apologising for what she said and that the joke didn't bother her know that she knew.
I MEAN SERIOUSLY? I offended her, and she apologised to me for it? As if she shouldn't have been offended by my joke simply because I fit into the same minority of which the joke is about?
That really frustrated me. It made little sense, it still does.
[/tl;dr]

Another example of peoples hypocrisy in humour would be peoples ability to get offended by anything that considers particular races while accepting jokes about other minorities.
Much more people obviously get offended by racism against non-white people than they do discrimination against gays, ginger people and obese people in humour. This is also ridiculous, surely if you are going to find one form of discrimination offensive in jokes you should find other forms offensive in jokes too? I mean... discrimination is discrimination no matter what, right? Wrong!
Here is an article demonstrating Frankie Boyle getting slated for making 'racial statements,' although he wasn't actually being racist, without any regard to the other discriminative jokes he had made over the duration of his TV series. In the show Frankie made jokes about gays, ginger people, cancer patients and whatever else... But somehow racism stood above them all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/23/Frankie-Boyle-tramadol-nights

SO YEAH, I think peoples attitudes towards humour has become a bit absurd.
Have people's Morales surrounding humour become a bit blurred and unconsidered... or am I wrong?
Should there be a limit to how far people should take their humour?
Is it morale of people to only let themselves be effected by things that only consider their personal interests and beliefs?
Do specific forms of discrimination deserve to be considered worse than others? (Do some people deserve to have more rights than others due to their ancestral, ethnic or genetic background? 'cus it is kind of the same question in my eyes...)

I think people have to take a step back and chill a bit, realise their is a difference between a joke and promoting hate, and realise when a joke actually crosses the line into hate. Take a long hard look at their opinions and actually realise that all people do deserve equality and should treat all people equal as such. But yeah, I am blowing something that shouldn't be a big deal out of proportion? Does it make me a hypocrite to joke about discrimination but speak out against it?

[Mr. Apple]

It's all part of this politically correct society that we've grown so accustomed to.
I personally have a very similar sense of humor, but can't step over the line too much because when people are not pleased where i am, i can get the boot.
I think it's more of a "ooohhh you said a bad word!" mentality more than anything.
Sometimes it's context 4tehwin
other times the people are too dense to know what the word joke even means

[Foxpup]

I agree with you 100%. Usually it's religious jokes that get me into trouble. People really need to lighten up.

[Shabbernigdo]

there should be some limits imo
Just because they have the write to say what ever they want dosent mean they should.

[Shim]

I agree with you 100%. Usually it's religious jokes that get me into trouble. People really need to lighten up.

People take those as offenses and direct insults to what they believe. It angers me as well.

[Alsek]

I'll start by saying i find PC incredibly annoying.  I also have a very dark and generally morbid sense of humor.

But you have to learn to pick your battles with people.  If you're going to start fights over things,  make it over stuff that actually matters.  There's no reason to go out of your way to push people.

  If you're going to tell a joke,  make sure the audience will find it funny.  It's like making a blond joke in a cheerleader's convention.  What are you hoping to accomplish?  Who were you expecting would find it funny?

Tell the same joke at maybe a hunting club and you're bound to get a few chuckles.

It's just something i've had to learn as someone who doesn't understand the politically correct / multicultural viewpoint.  People are absurd and easily offended in general...  over everything.


Just be aware of your surroundings and know the people you're with.

[Alexandre]

This is a fun topic.  As both a gay and an improv comedian, I have a bit I can say about this.

Being able to tell jokes about a minority because you're part of it is called "insider privilege." I'm a strong believer in insider privilege.  When a gay tells a gay joke, they don't do so in a hateful manner.  When a non-gay does, though, it could be hateful.  The danger comes with stereotypes -- whereas people within the group know that stereotypes are not true, people outside of it might not.  Jokes made by outsiders, then, have the potential to perpetuate harmful stereotypes (specifically stereotypes that lead to hate crimes).

As a comedian, I believe that nothing is sacred.  However, the audience is key.  Do people know I'm gay?  If they don't, they won't understand that I'm part of the "in crowd" if I make a gay joke.  If I'm performing for a white crowd, I'm white enough that everyone will appreciate white jokes.  If I performed for a black crowd, I could not get away with black jokes at all.

I'm not sure if it should be that way or not, but I'm okay with it.  I just need to know my audience before making a joke.  Simply put, every joke can be funny if used in the right situation -- however, it depends on the deliverer understanding the situation, not on the audience appreciating it.

[WhiteShepherd]

This subject touched home here a lot on my moderation duties I have had to deal with in the past.  So I have weighted view on the subject.

I myself am a comedian (of late practice) and love creative and or raunchy humor alike.  However I think the inconvenient truth is that sometimes people who tell jokes are sometimes the ones who can't relate to their audience?

It's true that the audience at first glance may seem to have double standards.  But it's important to not forget that as people we all have different experiences and therefore different perceptions of what something means to us.  To use an extreme example on perceptions, if someone was to say “A Nazi met a Jew” joke some people might find that funny.  Whereas a survivor from Auschwitz may be deeply haunted and yet others again offended.

Individuals are very different and we have no control no control over the vast differences in how people perceive. So if our true goal is for our audience to enjoy the joke once discovered we need to at least try and understand their differences in likes dislikes and perceptions.

One of the reasons I stress the very importance of understanding your audience's feelings is because without caring for how others feel means it is not a joke but a prank.

A “joke” is something with a twist shock and or surprise than when discovered is meant to give amusements/enjoyment to all parties involved.

A “prank” is meant to get humor at the expense of someone.  Sometimes cruel and sometimes not.   It's the intent of the delivery.

Just try and remember the difference and keep it a joke.  Keeping that connection to your audience will help most of the time. 

  WhiteShepherd

[Yip]

Not all discrimination is equal. There are cases where it's perfectly fine to discriminate, but there has to be a valid reason for it. For example, we discriminate based on age all the time by setting limits on what 'underaged' people can and can't do. However, these limitation are generally there for good reason.

When discrimination is wrong is when it fosters an "us vs them" mentality where hate can thrive. Using discriminatory jokes for humor will only work if it's clear that it isn't meant as hateful. Thus the "insider privilege" Alexander was talking about. If you are one of those in the group targeted, then it's pretty clear that you don't mean it in a hateful manor.  For example, you mention jokes about dead babies. If people had any reason to think you had intentions of actually killing babies, it doesn't matter if you say it in 'joke' form, people are still going to react negatively.  Remember that a lot of so called 'jokes' breed hate.

Personally, I rarely get offended by such things. However, I find shock humor to be completely dumb. And I honestly can't see why anyone finds it funny. In fact I'd say finding humor in such things is a sign of immaturity (if not stupidity).  And while I agree that people shouldn't be so quick to get offended/disgusted, I also think that people shouldn't purposely try to offend/disgust. And that's EXACTLY what you are doing when you use shock humor.  Now this is not to say that potentially "shocking" material should be off limits, but that the joke shouldn't rest on the "shock" of it.

[homegrownkodi]

I'm not saying people can't take things too far, but it should be obvious when someone is joking and not intending to be malicious. In fact, often it is obvious.
"Is he joking this comedian? This comedian up on the big comedy stage, is he joking?" -Frankie Boyle made sarcastic statements, something like that on stage once I think on one of his tours.

'Insider privilages' only seems to enforce division and descrimination. Giving rights to some but not to others and implying it's okay assuming the intent of their statements and jokes purely on the minority group's they do or do not fit into. To assume that someone doesn't intend to upset people just because he/she can belong to the same minority as those people is ludicrous.

The big problem is, peoples determinations to take every little thing personally if they can. It helps people imagine themselves to be important. You could say they are 'determined to stimulate their own hilariously imagined impression of self importance.' This is also the reason people choose to conform to the stereotypes and labels that are often being played on in such humour. If anything it is people conforming to these stereotypes to breed hate, and make the people who don't choose to live their lives based on stuff like their ethnicity or sexuality look bad.
People don't have to take inpersonal jokes personally, they choose to.

I can understand that if you wish to get into comedy, or even when making jokes around others you need to be aware of how people may feel about the jokes you are making. If you are trying/wanting to be polite anyways. xD
So I agree mith both Alsek and Alexandre on that one...
But that doesn't stop it from being hypocritical of them to laugh at one joke targeting a minority and not a joke targeting another minortiy. Even when people don't belong to the minority group in a joke, they tend to find some humour about that specific minorty group more disgusting and less appropriate that humour about another... Even when it's two jokes that are essentially the same. It's a bit like saying "I love eating chicken, because I am not a chicken. It's immoral that you kill turkeys for food btw."
...Only it isn't, it's actually people saying "It's okay to laugh about homosexuality, but religion is a no go!"

Plus, on the matter of religion... People who get offended over jokes made about such things frustate me purely because it demonstrates how poorly they can deal with their beliefs and values being challenged... BUT it also annoys the lawnmower out of me when people feel the obsession to challenge peoples beliefs as well, and do it too much. This doesn't tend to be the case in comedy, however.

And lol, it's humour. It doesn't need to be mature to be enjoyed, and judging people on what they enjoy is stupid in its self, because that's discrimination... Am I right? Although in saying that I am judging people on what they think is stupid... Which is kinda the same thing so it's like a vicious circle. lol
But seriously, it really doesn't need to be mature. I watch cartoons, some people consider that to be immature but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it nor is it fair for me to be, nor should I expect to be judged for enjoying cartoons.

But the fact is, a joke isn't actually discrimination. It's a joke and has no real affect on peoples lives unless people choose for it to.
If you don't enjoy it, you don't enjoy it. No one is making you, but you don't have to consider it evil and feel it must be destroyed. :c
I would 'blargh' on but I have to get ready for college and this is kinda long anyhows...

[Yip]

When I said "immature", I meant "not fully developed". In other words, something that people should strive to go beyond. Enjoying cartoons does not require being immature, especially in the sense I was using it.

You trying to point out hypocrisy, but what about the hypocrisy of defending "shock humor" in which the sole point is to "shock" people with what is usually regarded as disgusting/offensive and then complaining that people are getting disgusted/offended by it?  I completely agree that people often take offense at things too easily. However, that doesn't mean it's ok to go around purposely throwing out stuff that's -meant- to shock and offend people.

And yes, "jokes" can be hateful. For example, I've once heard someone "joke" about how all the gays should be rounded up and put on an island, that way we could bomb the island and be rid of them.  Although this was said in the form of a joke, I know this person is homophobic and at least in some way meant it. Comments like that allow an "us vs them" attitude to thrive.


(BTW, please try to keep wall-of-text to a minimum. Just saying 'cause I find your posts here to be on the verge of being too long to read. And the length of the post is not an indicator of how well you defended your position. i.e. saying more doesn't necessarily make your points clearer. In fact, its generally clearer if you can say the same thing with less.)

[homegrownkodi]

It's my informal writing, it becomes kinda... I go on a lot.
I find it funnerrr that way, if I just ramble on I mean.
I didn't mean for it to be frustrating, so I am sorry if it was.

"Joke: a triviality not to be taken seriously."
This definition puts me under the impression that jokes are not intended to be serious.
I never claimed it was okay to just go throwing it in peoples faces... Or did I? I hope I didn't ^^;
I am just stating that I feel people should not take impersonal jokes so personally.
Maybe it got lost in my ridiculously long post?

"Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold."
I'm just saying people shouldn't approach such humour so seriously, even if shock humour is suppose to shock audiences. That's not hypocritical.
Stating that people shouldn't see it okay to accept some ;prejudice but get insulted by other types of prejudice in jokes isn't hypocritical either.

[Yip]

First off, to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you about people being hypocritical with regards to one form of discrimination over another. That's something that'd I'd have to look at on an individual basis as I could see how it may or may not be hypocritical depending on the circumstances.

"Joke: a triviality not to be taken seriously."

That's true, but people commonly use the joke format to cover when they want to say something that would otherwise be completely unacceptable. I'm not saying that in itself is bad, but it does mean that you can often tell things about the person by what they say in their jokes even if it's not meant to be serious.  To use my "ship the gays to an island" example from earlier, I seriously doubt the person was actually advocating the slaughter of thousands of people, but there is a definite message of "I wish these people didn't exist" and it's clear that this person views homosexuals as "lesser beings".

I never claimed it was okay to just go throwing it in peoples faces... Or did I? I hope I didn't ^^;

You sort of did by supporting "shock humor". The whole point of "shock humor" is to shock people, which means throwing things in people's faces that you know some will find disgusting or offensive.  Again, I have no problem with humor going into taboo territory, but there needs to be something more there. Merely going into taboo territory doesn't make it funny, and that's all that "shock humor" does.

[homegrownkodi]

So it just depends on circumstances.
That does make perfect sense, and is also completely true.

I'm not sure you can claim that that is all shock humour does though.
And you can't really claim that it isn't funny because such a majority appreciate it. Shows like Family Guy for example are incredibly popular. If people don't find such humour funny, they should avoid it and just accept that other people can, will and do enjoy it.

There is certainly a difference between humour and abuse, and humour can certainly progress into abuse...
But as long as people aren't being harmed or maliciously targeted or any loss is being caused by humour, or anything for that reason, people shouldn't feel the unnecessary desire to prevent it, or put a stop to it.

[Yip]

I'm not sure you can claim that that is all shock humour does though.

I can because that's what defines it as shock humor. Of course, things are rarely cut into clear categories, so there are going to be things that you might call 'shock humor' which do include more than simply going into taboo territory. But I'm specifically talking about the 'shock' attribute, and all that is it going into taboo territory.

If people don't find such humour funny, they should avoid it and just accept that other people can, will and do enjoy it.

Normally I do avoid it. (for example, I don't watch family guy since it's almost all based on shock humor and pop culture references, neither of which I find funny.)  But I was bring it up here because it is relevant to the topic.  Specifically, you shouldn't complain about people being offended when saying things you know can be seen as offensive (for example, with shock humor).

One thing I will say for shock humor though, although I can't see why the hell people find it funny, at least it is getting people to think about these taboo things, and maybe we can eventually move past the taboos that have no good reason for being there.  Here's the reason I call shock humor immature: if you are able to look beyond taboos such that the taboo nature doesn't affect you, then there is no humor present. It's like...  for breakfast I ate...  yogurt!   Is that funny? No of course not. It's just mundane.

At some level, I could see how one might laugh at the silliness of some taboos. But that doesn't seem to be the focus of most shock humor.

[furtopia02]

To the OP:  Really, imo, if someone suspects what they are going to say might be of just IS flat out offensive to someone present or that might be present - they just shouldn't say it, and they especially shouldn't say it then cry about it when the other person is offended by it. I just see it as firing a gun in a lightly populated area in random directions.. yeah, it probably wont hit someone, but it might, and it might seriously hurt someone. Best to look where you are firing.

[homegrownkodi]

for breakfast I ate...  yogurt!

That made me laugh. I don't know why, but I am sure it has something to do with the ellipsis. Mundane can be funny.

That doesn't prove my opinion on peoples reactions to such humour being absurd to be wrong.
Nor my opinion that shock humour is nothing more than humour and should be treated as such.
Nor my feelings about peoples hypocritical attitudes towards humour, although you did say you agree with me on that one.
Which are the opinions I raised and what I wanted to discuss. At least I don't see statements like "Shock humour isn't funny." or "Shock humour is immature." or even, "Shock humour is suppose to be offensive." as good arguements against my opinions. Stuff like that isn't going to sway me. ^^;

Shock humour is suppose to use potentially offensive subjects as humourous. Not directly offend people. And it isn't intended to be malicious or hateful, it is humour. It's all about how people choose to percieve it.

If somebody uses 'joke format' to say something they are really thinking, than that invalidates it as a joke. It isn't a joke if they actually mean what they say when they make direct statements without punchloines or wit.

It doesn't prove it was logical or correct of the girl to immidiately choose not to be offended by my joke when she realised I fit into the same minority that she did. Nor that it is right for people to consider racist jokes as more offensive than other jokes aimed at other minority groups made by comedians such as Jim Jefferies or Frankie Boyle.

At least, I don't think it does. Maybe I am just being dim and missing the actual point of your arguments?
Maybe my opinions or points which I was trying to raise were hard to find in my long posts. xD
But I feel I should try and re-establish what the opinions and points and whatever I have raised are.
This thread does seem to be getting a little off topic in a way which I don't feel helps anyones arguements.

And Brent, I don't understand how, "People should be careful that what they say won't offend people." is a valid arguement against the opinions I raised, even if it a good/valid point to make in general.
Am I being too stubborn/dim and missing points which you guys have clearly demonstrated in your posts? ^^;

[Yip]

for breakfast I ate...  yogurt!

That made me laugh. I don't know why, but I am sure it has something to do with the ellipsis. Mundane can be funny.

Ok, so you find have found humor there, but we can agree that that wasn't shock humor, yes? Just want to make sure we are using the same definition for "shock humor".

Shock humour is suppose to use potentially offensive subjects as humourous. Not directly offend people. And it isn't intended to be malicious or hateful, it is humour. It's all about how people choose to percieve it.

I highlighted the important part here. It doesn't matter that it as meant as humorous and isn't directly meant to offend, it's still purposely saying something that you damn well know could be offensive and doing so because it could be offensive. Therefore you shouldn't be complaining when they do see it as offensive.  That's the point I was making there.

As for the idea that someone would be more offended by one kind of discrimination than another, that doesn't necessarily make the person hypocritical. It doesn't matter if you see all discrimination is the same, the key factor is whether that individual sees all discrimination is the same.

[homegrownkodi]

Your point with the first bit there is what?
I find Shock Humour funny. So many people do. It is funny, even if you can't appreciate it and it would be aimless to argue that it isn't funny...

Shock humour is suppose to use potentially offensive subjects as humourous. Not directly offend people. And it isn't intended to be malicious or hateful, it is humour. It's all about how people choose to percieve it.

I highlighted the important part here. It doesn't matter that it as meant as humorous and isn't directly meant to offend, it's still purposely saying something that you damn well know could be offensive and doing so because it could be offensive. Therefore you shouldn't be complaining when they do see it as offensive.  That's the point I was making there.

As for the idea that someone would be more offended by one kind of discrimination than another, that doesn't necessarily make the person hypocritical. It doesn't matter if you see all discrimination is the same, the key factor is whether that individual sees all discrimination is the same.

Yes, okay. That makes sense, but I still don't feel it proves that peoples reactions to humour aren't ridiculous.
I have never been able to understand how someone can take something so impersonally personally.
Obviously, peoples reactions to humour actually frustrate me. I don't understand how someone at their own comedy show's jokes can be any justification for them getting physically assaulted on stage. (which is why I started this thread.)
I don't understand why people actively choose to hunt down such humour and then complain about it. If you don't like it, avoid it it's really just that simple.
It doesn't seem logical that someone can stop finding something offensive when the person saying it can fit into the group the person is speaking about.
To go to a comedy show and then complain about the context is just... silly.
To choose to watch a show that features offensive humour, especially considering that these shows do come with warnings, is ridiculous.

People arguing against discrimination while discriminating? That sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
To not see, as you reffered to it earlier, all jokes with a perceivable "Us vs Them" mentality as either equally acceptable or unnacceptable is discrimination in its own right.
And being discriminative while complaining about discrimination is hypocritical.

[Feather_Claw]

I think (yaay remembering a class in college) that it has to do with the power dynamics.

A joke from a minority aimed towards the majority (people with the power) is less offensive than vice-versa because of power dynamics. Also, the minority is allowed to make jokes about themselves because there's no power dynamic in it.

Its kind of like how some friends who are female will jokingly call each other slurs that if a man addressed them as he'd get slapped and the woman in question would feel extremely threatened or insulted.

Now, I agree people need to lighten up and if we're going to get rid of all the -isms that the 'group in power' in terms of colour, gender, sex, religion etc needs to become just another group....but it might not be feasible.