Twig Posted July 17, 2012 Oh, Mencia's the hack. I remember that now. Heard more than a few comedians bitch about him. Hacks should be shut down because they're dirty thieves, but that's another discussion entirely. U: I answered your question later in my post: "Every audience member has the power and the right to be offended, but they don't have the power or right to shut things down." Although in the case of Tosh, I guess she did have the power, because he never got to finish his joke. Yay for her. That article quote doesn't answer my question. WHO decides what is and isn't funny? You, through that quote, provide a sort of definition of funny, but it's completely arbitrary. Humor is subjective. Every single human being has a different since of humor. Much of it overlaps, of course, or comedians would never be successful in the first place, but that doesn't mean everyone shares the same idea of what is funny. So, again... WHO? Is it you? Is it me? Is it Tosh? Is it the Properly God-Fearing President of Our Glorious United States of America? Who is it? P.S., You say you don't want to talk about Tosh, but you've now linked TWO articles about him! The second of which contains some seriously ridiculous hyperbole! Jus' sayin'! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Limones Posted July 17, 2012 Yeah, the second article definitely does, I dislike the thresher analogy and I don't agree with all of the article, but I like the list at the end that shows how a joke about rape can be funny as opposed to mean and harmful. These are just things I linked that coincidentally are both about Tosh, which we are not talking about, and about oppressive humor in general, which is what we're talking about and can easily be divorced from Certain Current Events. I don't want to talk about it because I don't think her heckling was cool at all, but his comeback was just terrible, so pretty much everyone sucks and bleh to that whole thing. I think that everyone absolutely has the right to tell someone else to shut up, even though it is rude. I also think people should be able to tell shitty psychopathic jokes, even though it is rude. I don't think that the joke teller has more of a right to talk than the shutter-upper, if the shutter-upper can't escape the joke teller's joke telling. The first one to infringe on rights is the joke teller, if the joke is mean-spirited. If the joke is so bad that it's being seen as an aggression, it is absolutely reasonable to respond to it as one. No, of course there's no hard definition for what's funny. I just cannot fathom a straight up racist/sexist joke being funny, only if they're more about sexism/racism. But I'm sure there's people who can. Eh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 17, 2012 Everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, but they open themselves up for retaliation when they do so, justified or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted July 17, 2012 Well, that's all for tonight on BIG TALK. We've SOLVED the ISSUE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 17, 2012 My best friend is from Carthage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted July 17, 2012 On 7/17/2012 at 8:53 AM, Rodi said: Well, that's all for tonight on BIG TALK. We've SOLVED the ISSUE. You're welcome, world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted July 17, 2012 I find this to be a common source of misunderstanding in all sorts of apparent disagreements: group A are unhappy with how some people act, and group B think people should be entitled to act that way. These two, while suggesting differing underlying viewpoints, are not actually mutually exclusive. A lot of the time group A has no interest in legislation; they are just hoping for what they see as a better world, and are attempting to bring it about by explaining their point of view. Group B, however, misunderstands, and recoils at the idea of restriction of freedom. People are entitled to be unpleasant, but no-one has to like them for it, or respect their decision to do so. But that's probably all obvious, and besides, the IMPORTANT ISSUE is already RESOLVED. Sorry! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 18, 2012 It's funny, because at first I wasn't sure if I was A or B. Then I read your second description of "Group A" and thought you were talking about me (because that's how I feel!*)... Then I saw that, no, Group B is actually supposed to be me! *My idea of a better world is one in which people can say whatever the fuck they want without repercussion. A natural consequence (and characteristic) of this world is that people wouldn't be angry, and maybe that would even result in a complete LACK of, shall we say, politically incorrect statements. Obviously an impossible dream, but I like to dream big??! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laxan Posted July 18, 2012 On 7/18/2012 at 2:42 AM, Twig said: *My idea of a better world is one in which people can say whatever the fuck they want without repercussion. A natural consequence (and characteristic) of this world is that people wouldn't be angry Surely in an actual world with free speech, people would have the right to object to things and say when they're angry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 18, 2012 On 7/18/2012 at 9:31 AM, Laxan said: Surely in an actual world with free speech, people would have the right to object to things and say when they're angry. "without repercussion" kind of implies people don't get unnecessarily angry, but sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laxan Posted July 18, 2012 Okay, but if there were no negative repercussions to rascist or homophobic behaviour, then surely this eliminates the main pressure on society to stop using non-PC phrases. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 18, 2012 You're just looking for a fight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laxan Posted July 18, 2012 Ahahaha. Ok. Good talking with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 18, 2012 NO. It was good talking with YOU. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 19, 2012 Stop derailing my thread, please Twig. We get it: you think no one should ever be offended by words or abstract concepts, even though you understand it's impossible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted July 19, 2012 I'm not sure if you're being serious! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iosef Stalin Posted July 19, 2012 On 7/17/2012 at 2:32 AM, Sal Limones said: No, of course there's no hard definition for what's funny. I just cannot fathom a straight up racist/sexist joke being funny, only if they're more about sexism/racism. But I'm sure there's people who can. Eh. I thought this was kind of funny, though YMMV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted July 22, 2012 On 7/19/2012 at 11:37 PM, Iosef Stalin said: I thought this was kind of funny, though YMMV. That's a joke about racist/sexist jokes, and therefore a joke about sexim/racism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wubbles Posted August 8, 2012 By the way, a podcast episode about the thread's subject, in which a prominent ethicist is interviewed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted August 9, 2012 I want to go to there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
