Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Should people be free to joke about what they want or are some subjects off limits. If so, what are they?

The handicapped and disabled, can it ever be funny to laugh at them?

Disease, Aids etc?

Racial stereotypes?

Religion, for example can Islam or the Holocaust be joked about?

Is there ever a time when the excuse "It was only a joke", simply isn't enough?

Conversely would a sitcom about a brain damaged boy or someone with special needs be funny... Or is sometimes discretion the better part of valour and with this an acceptance that sometimes others have feelings also?

Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Should people be free to joke about what they want or are some subjects off limits.

People are free to joke about whatever they want. The rest of us are equally free to punish them for it.

What Sym said.

Jokes don't exist in a vacuum and something being a joke or even being funny, does not negate the negative impact it can have.

So, while everyone is free to joke they aren't free from the consequences of their jokes, and perhaps should contemplate whether they really think that certain jokes are actually worthwhile or funny to them.

For example ask yourself the question "Should I really be racist right now?" and if the answer is "no", don't make the racist joke.

So we are in agreement all that is needed for 'evil comedy' to triumph is for good men to say nothing.

Those American roasts of celebrities are a good example of when nasty humor is accepted.
Those guys go all out! It's a celebration of free speech and embraces the attitude of what Australians like I call "taking the piss".

But such jokes in a basic social situation with friends or strangers has a fine line.

It's all about Intent.
Is the commenter's intent to be hateful and crude?
Or is it the commenter's intent to alleviate the audience above the taboo in a jestful manner?
Most of the time it's somewhere in between.

Comedy has no limit. On a medium like this forum? it does though.

Originally posted by Anthony Stark
So we are in agreement all that is needed for 'evil comedy' to triumph is for good men to say nothing.

It's not all that is needed. Perhaps you could say it's a necessary, but not sufficient, statement.

Though even if "good men" speak out, evil comedy might still triumph, so not even that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not all that is needed. Perhaps you could say it's a necessary, but not sufficient, statement.

Though even if "good men" speak out, evil comedy might still triumph, so not even that.
Yeah, Carlos Mencia got how many seasons?

These threads are way less fun when everyone gives sensible responses.

Stark, you can thank Bardock, Sym, Omega, and Ninjak for ruining your thread with their sound logic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not all that is needed. Perhaps you could say it's a necessary, but not sufficient, statement.

Though even if "good men" speak out, evil comedy might still triumph, so not even that.

Is it something we should regard with insouciance then? Surely it's been the comedian's social function to say things others won't say. I often think many people are a bit dim on the internet and in real life. They lack passion and want to vilify those that want to show inequality and prejudice for what it is. This vilification is generally for reasons unconnected to the alleged offence and to make an example of them for having trespassed outside the boundaries of public taste and decency. It is a fine line I think.


Originally posted by StyleTime
These threads are way less fun when everyone gives sensible responses.

Stark, you can thank Bardock, Sym, Omega, and Ninjak for ruining your thread with their sound logic.

Stylee, I'm always happy to engage in sensible discussion; however, unfortunately on the internet many people are unable to see the wood for the trees, it's somewhat refreshing when people do and provide an intelligent discourse.

I don't have any problem with comedians speaking truth to power. When they are complicit in furthering "powers" agenda and worldview at the expense of marginalized or oppressed groups, then I think they do deserve backlash.

Gay Stark guy,

If all comedians followed this PC dribble that's being so liberally flung around here, there wouldn't be humor. There's likely going to be someone somewhere who'll be offended at any joke that isn't a kiddie-corner joke.

Case in point, some people will recoil at a racial joke or a rape joke, but laugh hysterically at an abortion joke or sexist joke, when there's likely someone equally butthurt over either of the later as the former.

Originally posted by Robtard
Gay Stark guy,

If all comedians followed this PC dribble that's being so liberally flung around here, there wouldn't be humor. There's likely going to be someone somewhere who'll be offended at any joke that isn't a kiddie-corner joke.

Case in point, some people will recoil at a racial joke or a rape joke, but laugh hysterically at an abortion joke or sexist joke, when there's likely someone equally butthurt over either of the later as the former.

It seems to me that the phrase 'political correctness' has been rendered pretty much meaningless. It's used to describe a strange mix of eminently sensible initiatives, silly over-the-top actions (often heavily over inflated in significance) and all everything in between. Issues of race, religion and even health and safety restrictions seem to get bundled together. The phrase seems to be used in the same way as 'liberal' is in the United States - as a catchall term the right use to describe anyone or anything that they don't like.

For those who use it that way, 'political correctness' has the advantage of suggesting that it's somehow systemic, thus allowing those that decry it to paint themselves as plucky anti-establisment types (despite their often being paragons of the old establishment) or even as victims of some larger conspiracy.

So, you're saying when we laugh at something like the handicapped, such humor requires no framework to make us wonder, "Should I be laughing at that?"

Probably comes down to intent. Are you intentionally trying to make someone in a wheelchair cry, or are you trying to make light of an unfortunate situation. Would you think poorly of a handicapped comedian making handicapped jokes?

In comedy, PC should be allowed to take a backseat. People can laugh at a racial,sexiest, derogatory etc joke in the absurdness of it all, yet also realize that it has its place in the comedy event and that they're not going to leave the event and think it's alright and funny to yell at the first black woman they see "Hey n-word, get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich".

Originally posted by Robtard
In comedy, PC should be allowed to take a backseat. People can laugh at a racial,sexiest, derogatory etc joke in the absurdness of it all, yet also realize that it has its place in the comedy event and that they're not going to leave the event and think it's alright and funny to yell at the first black woman they see "Hey n-word, get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich".

That's where the framework is important.

Clearly, you've never seen ANY stand-up comedian, ever.

That's actually quite sad.

Originally posted by StyleTime
These threads are way less fun when everyone gives sensible responses.

Stark, you can thank Bardock, Sym, Omega, and Ninjak for ruining your thread with their sound logic.

We're not here to entertain you and the banned guy.

Of course not both of us. Just me.

I believe in the freedom of speech period.

Is that followed by lecture period?