offensive post Forum

[manofjustice]

I've always had a hard time understanding people who assign a normative component to humor. If I involuntarily find an "offensive" joke funny, through no fault of my own necessarily, is my reaction unethical? In a similar way, if I involuntarily find a "moral" joke funny, through no fault of my own necessarily, is my reaction ethical? If I involuntarily find lots of ethical jokes funny, am I then more moral than somebody who involuntarily finds offensive jokes funny?

That self-righteous and somewhat naive attitude offends me. You must be against my rights.

Good argument. I think the moralism comes in not in the intrinsic reaction to the joke but in the subsequent action/reaction. For example, on the one hand, we could find it perfectly acceptable for the CEO of a test prep company to find an "offensive" joke funny, but then condemn him for subsequently posting it to his company's faceook page with an apparent disregard for propriety. On the other hand, we could find it perfectly acceptable for someone to find a joke morally inappropriate, but then condemn his strident protestations.

TL;DR the external reaction, not the internal reaction, is what is subject to socially-informed normative condemnation.

Comedians hold a special social status immune to normative condemnation of their external action/reaction, because it is their job to elicit in their audience an internal reaction, so to the extent a comedian's audience's internal reactions are exempt from normative condemnation, so is his external action to elicit such reaction. So, the upshot for a comedian is: as long as you're funny, you're doing your job, and you can be as offensive as you want.

But if you're not a comedian in a performance, you should probably keep your offensive jokes to yourself in a business or professional setting.

[manofjustice]

RE: comedians, now is the perfect time to link to Louis CK.

[crestor]

ds

[suralin]

I've always had a hard time understanding people who assign a normative component to humor. If I involuntarily find an "offensive" joke funny, through no fault of my own necessarily, is my reaction unethical? In a similar way, if I involuntarily find a "moral" joke funny, through no fault of my own necessarily, is my reaction ethical? If I involuntarily find lots of ethical jokes funny, am I then more moral than somebody who involuntarily finds offensive jokes funny?

That self-righteous and somewhat naive attitude offends me. You must be against my rights.

Good argument. I think the moralism comes in not in the intrinsic reaction to the joke but in the subsequent action/reaction. For example, on the one hand, we could find it perfectly acceptable for the CEO of a test prep company to find an "offensive" joke funny, but then condemn him for subsequently posting it to his company's faceook page with an apparent disregard for propriety. On the other hand, we could find it perfectly acceptable for someone to find a joke morally inappropriate, but then condemn his strident protestations.

TL;DR the external reaction, not the internal reaction, is what is subject to socially-informed normative condemnation.

Comedians hold a special social status immune to normative condemnation of their external action/reaction, because it is their job to elicit in their audience an internal reaction, so to the extent a comedian's audience's internal reactions are exempt from normative condemnation, so is his external action to elicit such reaction. So, the upshot for a comedian is: as long as you're funny, you're doing your job, and you can be as offensive as you want.

But if you're not a comedian in a performance, you should probably keep your offensive jokes to yourself in a business or professional setting.

Good point in general. We're agreed that the external reaction's normative component cuts both ways: on the one hand, sharing an offensive joke does cause some displeasure for certain people (explicitly PC), but on the other hand, not doing so specifically because of fear at the reaction of some people causes displeasure for others (those who value explicit anti-PCness).

Here's an interesting article on the ethics of humor:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... humor.html

[Drake014]

Oh wow it was a TestPrep company that posted this?

Clearly it's offensive. And that's one thing if it's some stupid person posting some stupid meme. Whatever, it happens. It's offensive, but everything offends someone, so just ignore it and move on. Yes, it normalizes ridiculous behaviour. Part of a mature, open society is just straight-up allowing offensive jokes. Whatever.

But for someone to be posting this under a TestPrep account? It's totally unprofessional.

1/10 funny, 6/10 offensive. 9/10 unprofessional. If I were BluePrint I'd fire them.

This is credited.

K here goes. I actually really appreciate this response, so thank you.

I thought that this post was offensive because, while I understand that Chris Brown beat people other than Rihanna, he is primarily known for this assault. I think that it is incredibly inappropriate to make any jokes related to domestic violence because of the gravity of the situation, and the fact that so many women and families face it on a daily basis. As someone who has worked with survivors of domestic violence, I have seen how it can tear people apart, both physically and psychologically, but yet it's something that 1 in 3 women in the United States faces. In my opinion, making any jokes related to this phenomenon minimizes the tangible and harmful effects it has on a daily basis. It's not that they were trying to be offensive, so I understand the point that some of you guys have made, but I don't think this is the proper place for humor. Domestic violence is never funny, and it is not something to be joked about. Making light of it sends the message to real people who have experienced it that their experiences don't matter, that what happened to them was not serious or harmful, and that other people don't take them seriously. And it send the message to abusers that the abuse is no big deal. Feel free to disagree with me, but like I said, I'm not seeing the humor here.

This is not. Perhaps you meant to put this in the context of bbsg's argument. Had you done so, I think you would have had 95% agreement. But your message made it sound like you were against joking about things that some people might find offensive... in which case 98% of good comedy would not exist.

I have both Jewish and Black ancestors. Both learned to take a joke because if they didn't, life would have just been tragic. Comedy exists to make light of serious things so that we can bare them. Don't get me wrong. Jokes can be inappropriate and over the line in context. For instance, the context of this was over the line, but not the joke itself. Just as joking about dead children would be over the line after a mass school shooting. A known sexist making a sexist joke is probably over the line where a known feminist could clearly get away with making a sexist joke about women.

[mephistopheles]

K here goes. I actually really appreciate this response, so thank you.

I thought that this post was offensive because, while I understand that Chris Brown beat people other than Rihanna, he is primarily known for this assault. I think that it is incredibly inappropriate to make any jokes related to domestic violence because of the gravity of the situation, and the fact that so many women and families face it on a daily basis. As someone who has worked with survivors of domestic violence, I have seen how it can tear people apart, both physically and psychologically, but yet it's something that 1 in 3 women in the United States faces. In my opinion, making any jokes related to this phenomenon minimizes the tangible and harmful effects it has on a daily basis. It's not that they were trying to be offensive, so I understand the point that some of you guys have made, but I don't think this is the proper place for humor. Domestic violence is never funny, and it is not something to be joked about. Making light of it sends the message to real people who have experienced it that their experiences don't matter, that what happened to them was not serious or harmful, and that other people don't take them seriously. And it send the message to abusers that the abuse is no big deal. Feel free to disagree with me, but like I said, I'm not seeing the humor here.

This is not. Perhaps you meant to put this in the context of bbsg's argument. Had you done so, I think you would have had 95% agreement. But your message made it sound like you were against joking about things that some people might find offensive... in which case 98% of good comedy would not exist.

I have both Jewish and Black ancestors. Both learned to take a joke because if they didn't, life would have just been tragic. Comedy exists to make light of serious things so that we can bare them. Don't get me wrong. Jokes can be inappropriate and over the line in context. For instance, the context of this was over the line, but not the joke itself. Just as joking about dead children would be over the line after a mass school shooting. A known sexist making a sexist joke is probably over the line where a known feminist could clearly get away with making a sexist joke about women.

this. OP sounds fucking insufferable.

[20130312]

this. OP sounds fucking insufferable.

But keut, so she gets a pass, mirite?

[donmincho]

deleted.

[hume85]

this. OP sounds fucking insufferable.

But keut, so she gets a pass, mirite?

Yep, even though it will make her mad.

[Drake014]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

But not violence against children? Men? Minorities? Is there a form of violence we shouldn't take serious? Should we stop all jokes related to violence? What about poverty? Poverty's serious. Should we not joke about that? What about politics? Politics deals with all serious aspects of our culture. Our entire democracy is at stake. Let's not joke about that either.

Unicorns. We'll all joke about unicorns. From now on, all jokes are about unicorns.

[mephistopheles]

this. OP sounds fucking insufferable.

But keut, so she gets a pass, mirite?

meh, haha.

and nothing deserves to be "too grave" for humor.

NOTHING IS SACRED

[alwayssunnyinfl]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

At least from my perspective, it wasn't her taking offense that garnered such a caustic reply from most of the posters here. It was her self-righteous tone. Why should it mattered that she has worked with battered women and victims of domestic violence? It is a widespread problem, and most people do know victims of spousal and partner abuse.

I think that had she led with "Wow, this is obviously not the best tone for an LSAC test prep company" then maybe this would have turned out differently. Instead, she alluded to some kind of male-dominated test prep bias that led to this posting of a terrible anti-women meme. It was a bad joke done in poor taste in an inappropriate setting. Nothing more, nothing less.

[vman21]

<( '.')>

[simplycatalina]

.

[Drake014]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

At least from my perspective, it wasn't her taking offense that garnered such a caustic reply from most of the posters here. It was her self-righteous tone. Why should it mattered that she has worked with battered women and victims of domestic violence? It is a widespread problem, and most people do know victims of spousal and partner abuse.

I think that had she led with "Wow, this is obviously not the best tone for an LSAC test prep company" then maybe this would have turned out differently. Instead, she alluded to some kind of male-dominated test prep bias that led to this posting of a terrible anti-women meme. It was a bad joke done in poor taste in an inappropriate setting. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not sure if I buy into the "nothing more, nothing less" argument. Behavior in society is part of a bigger tapestry. Looked at in isolation, things naturally appear isolated. But I won't deny that there are lots of male dominated forums and its quite possible that test prep is one of them, or at least test prep at certain companies. I really don't know but I won't dismiss it offhand. When women enter male dominated forums, it can be absolutely repugnant. As a video gamer, I've seen this countless times. I became particularly sensitive to it when I gamed with an ex of mine.

[hume85]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

I can only speak for myself, but I can both take violence against women seriously and laugh at seriously funny jokes like the one from Joan Rivers. I think being humourless and taking yourself too seriously to prevent changing the discourse is the wrong way to go; it can be tiresome, alienating, and tends to turn people away from the cause.

[Drake014]

Some good points being made.

I agree that assigning a normative component to one's reaction to a joke is nonsensical. I cannot control whether I think any particular joke is funny.

That is not what is at stake here, though. We are trying to assign a normative component to POSTING a joke that some consider offensive.

The interesting question (at least to me) is not "is it offensive?" -- that is the same as asking "is it funny?" and is in principle not answerable. Everyone has their own opinion about that and all of those opinions are valid. Just as you can't fault me for laughing (I did...), you can't fault cbarlow for cringing, even if you think she and others "misunderstand" the nature of humor etc. Perhaps cbarlow, or those she works with, have had such bad experiences with domestic violence that any mention of it or joke about it serves as a trigger that brings up involuntary bad feelings. You can't blame someone for that or say they are WRONG to have bad feelings / find something offensive because humor is a good thing. And you can't blame me for laughing.

Humor CAN help us bear the load, and can even help people deal with difficult things. Humor can also hurt. It all depends on who is on the receiving end of it and what the message is. I think it is counter-productive to say that those that are offended are WRONG or INSUFFERABLE or STUPID to feel that way; even if said people are in the vast minority, or appear self-righteous, or don't phrase their discontent in the most pleasing way. None of this means that their hurt feelings should necessarily take priority over all else however, which leads us to the interesting question.

The interesting question is: if I know beyond any doubt that many people will find a joke I post offensive (e.g. I post a joke about rape in a place I know rape victims will see it), is it still ethical / am I justified in posting it anyway? Who takes priority in that instance? Is maintaining humor / openness / freedom of speech etc. more important, or is protecting people's feelings?

Context matters. The person making the joke, the time, the location, the audience. It all matters when gauging appropriateness. Period.

[donmincho]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

At least from my perspective, it wasn't her taking offense that garnered such a caustic reply from most of the posters here. It was her self-righteous tone. Why should it mattered that she has worked with battered women and victims of domestic violence? It is a widespread problem, and most people do know victims of spousal and partner abuse.

I think that had she led with "Wow, this is obviously not the best tone for an LSAC test prep company" then maybe this would have turned out differently. Instead, she alluded to some kind of male-dominated test prep bias that led to this posting of a terrible anti-women meme. It was a bad joke done in poor taste in an inappropriate setting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmm, hadn't seen that initial reaction, but it seems pretty appropriate. I think it's worrisome that any time (in particular on the internet) a feminist speaks up, she gets torn apart by men claiming she's a self-righteous lesbian. Why was it self-righteous? She felt offended as a woman and a women's rights defender, and was trying to explain herself.

Drake, while I appreciate a good caricature, your argument doesn't really follow. Child abuse shouldn't be joked about, either--if instead Chris Brown had beaten his children, the same meme would still be very offensive. Violence against men? That is not a systematized form of violence. Violence against gay men? Sure, and if Chris Brown were a homophobe who went around beating gay men, the same meme would have been very offensive.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Why is BluePrint doing all of these unfunny memes? My University has a meme page, but they're generally either funny or innocuous. I concede that this was definitely NOT the right place for it, but I don't think that Chris Brown jokes are necessarily a bad thing. They're usually done at the expense of Chris Brown, the abuser. That's a lot better than allusions to abuse in the past à la "To the moon, Alice!"

[Ludo!]

Why is BluePrint doing all of these unfunny memes? My University has a meme page, but they're generally either funny or innocuous. I concede that this was definitely NOT the right place for it, but I don't think that Chris Brown jokes are necessarily a bad reflection thing. They're usually done at the expense of Chris Brown, the abuser. That's a lot better than allusions to abuse in the past à la "To the moon, Alice!"

This is the real offense. All of their memes are terrible and unfunny

[Drake014]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

At least from my perspective, it wasn't her taking offense that garnered such a caustic reply from most of the posters here. It was her self-righteous tone. Why should it mattered that she has worked with battered women and victims of domestic violence? It is a widespread problem, and most people do know victims of spousal and partner abuse.

I think that had she led with "Wow, this is obviously not the best tone for an LSAC test prep company" then maybe this would have turned out differently. Instead, she alluded to some kind of male-dominated test prep bias that led to this posting of a terrible anti-women meme. It was a bad joke done in poor taste in an inappropriate setting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmm, hadn't seen that initial reaction, but it seems pretty appropriate. I think it's worrisome that any time (in particular on the internet) a feminist speaks up, she gets torn apart by men claiming she's a self-righteous lesbian. Why was it self-righteous? She felt offended as a woman and a women's rights defender, and was trying to explain herself.

Drake, while I appreciate a good caricature, your argument doesn't really follow. Child abuse shouldn't be joked about, either--if instead Chris Brown had beaten his children, the same meme would still be very offensive. Violence against men? That is not a systematized form of violence. Violence against gay men? Sure, and if Chris Brown were a homophobe who went around beating gay men, the same meme would have been very offensive.

Rather than addressing the main point of my argument, which is that there are countless subjects in our society that people find offensive, you decided to go strawman? I suppose whatever's easiest for you.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Why is it that the majority are male?

OP, I'm not sure if there was more to your post that was edited out, but what did this mean?

[mephistopheles]

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is not whether or not the meme is PC. I'd wager OP didn't react because meme wasn't PC. Seems to me the issue is that we should take violence against women seriously, and that cracking jokes about it changes the discourse and makes it seem less serious than it is. The fact that the almost universal reaction ITT has been 'don't get your panties in a whirl' is very disconcerting. I just hope you all end up in Biglaw and not DC.

At least from my perspective, it wasn't her taking offense that garnered such a caustic reply from most of the posters here. It was her self-righteous tone. Why should it mattered that she has worked with battered women and victims of domestic violence? It is a widespread problem, and most people do know victims of spousal and partner abuse.

I think that had she led with "Wow, this is obviously not the best tone for an LSAC test prep company" then maybe this would have turned out differently. Instead, she alluded to some kind of male-dominated test prep bias that led to this posting of a terrible anti-women meme. It was a bad joke done in poor taste in an inappropriate setting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmm, hadn't seen that initial reaction, but it seems pretty appropriate. I think it's worrisome that any time (in particular on the internet) a feminist speaks up, she gets torn apart by men claiming she's a self-righteous lesbian. Why was it self-righteous? She felt offended as a woman and a women's rights defender, and was trying to explain herself.

Drake, while I appreciate a good caricature, your argument doesn't really follow. Child abuse shouldn't be joked about, either--if instead Chris Brown had beaten his children, the same meme would still be very offensive. Violence against men? That is not a systematized form of violence. Violence against gay men? Sure, and if Chris Brown were a homophobe who went around beating gay men, the same meme would have been very offensive.

my god, man. who claimed she was a lesbian? and who cares that she was offended? an internet forum full of strangers?

and why can't child abuse be joked about?

and since when is violence against men not systematized?

[donmincho]

I think there's a substantive difference between 'anything some people will find offensive' and a thing which many people acutely feel as a form of real oppression. That was my point about systematized violence. Jokes about politics may piss people off, but political opinion is not oppressive. Jokes about slavery are widely considered off limits, even by many comedians, which I think says a lot. My point is that domestic violence should have the same protection.

[mephistopheles]

I think there's a substantive difference between 'anything some people will find offensive' and a thing which many people acutely feel as a form of real oppression. That was my point about systematized violence. Jokes about politics may piss people off, but political opinion is not oppressive. Jokes about slavery are widely considered off limits, even by many comedians, which I think says a lot. My point is that domestic violence should have the same protection.

since when are jokes about slavery off limits?

you must have very good selective listening skills.