|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: About the Laugh Judgment
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
This thread is not to talk about particular jokes, but about comedy and blasphemy in general, and about the Laugh Judgment competition.
What is it about offensive jokes that offends?
Is anything too sacred for laughter?
Where do you draw your line, if anywhere?
Can you find something funny and blasphemous at the same time?
Is this whole exercise thought-provoking, scandalous, or a complete joke?
Let us have your thoughts, complaints, insights and holy quips.
[ 06. July 2005, 09:23: Message edited by: Simon ]
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Actually I'd just like to ask if this is restricted to text-only jokes or you are having cartoons.
I mention this because I was thinking of the Viagra cartoon, which sparked rather a lot of debate off some months ago, so I was curious to know if you'd be including visual humour as well as written.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
What is it about offensive jokes that offends?
What is it about anything that offends? I think it's when the person being offended percieves an attack upon themselves or the things they hold dear/sacred, but such an attack hasn't been made.
Example: homosexuality. It offends some people because they percieve it as an attack on their "way of life", even though no such attack has ever been made.
Similarly, a joke about "paedophile priests", "avaricious rabbis", "lustful nuns" etc. can have the same effect on someone who holds such institutions as the priesthood/etc. on too high a pedestal. The very epitome of Unrest, IMNSHO ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Is anything too sacred for laughter?
Not as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Where do you draw your line, if anywhere?
Line?
quote:
Can you find something funny and blasphemous at the same time?
Hell yeah ! Those are the best jokes!
quote:
Is this whole exercise thought-provoking, scandalous, or a complete joke?
I think it could provide a valuable insight into what facets of religion people hold a little too dear. Religion isn't supposed to be characterised by stony-faced solemnity, it's supposed to be celebrated and enjoyed
[ 05. July 2005, 09:31: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner*
SOF Co-editor
# 105
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Actually I'd just like to ask if this is restricted to text-only jokes or you are having cartoons.
I mention this because I was thinking of the Viagra cartoon...
We haven't planned any original cartoons in this project - but the discussion that resulted from the Viagra offering symbolises the whole basis for our discussion, which is why we've re-cycled it.
--------------------
'Now if you'll excuse me, I have to appear on a tortilla in Mexico...'
Jesus to Homer Simpson
Posts: 1087 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have a friend who is Roman Catholic. We exchange religious jokes ever so often but there are rules. A general religious joke either of us can tell.
She may tell anti-Roman Catholic jokes, while I may tell anti-Protestant jokes.
However I have noted that most of them are cultural jokes, or jokes that pick on a peculiarity of the practitioners of that form of faith. In a way they can be celebrating the tradition as much as criticising it.
Now what I can not recall is a joke that has actually ever dealt with what we have held to be sacred. I can not think of a good joke based on different doctrines of communion, but I bet there could be and I have a feeling that that might have a good deal more chance at causing offence, than those that pick on a general aspect of the culture.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
As a technically Jewish person (my mother is), I reserve the right to tell jokes which ridicule Jews, while Gentiles are generally not allowed to tell these.
Gentile jokes tend to major on the supposed meanness of Jews, which is just plain anti-semitism. Jewish jokes laugh at the Jews at their own expense, but it's done with affection. That's why I can tell Jewish jokes, and most of you can't.
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
How am I supposed to answer the question "How offensive do you find this joke?"?
Do you want to know how much personal objection I have to it (in which case the answer from this thick-skinned lawyer will be little or none every time) or how much potential for offense I can see in it - would I hesitate before repeating it to my grandmother, say?
I mean, 'A problem in the convent' is clearly much less aimed at the heart of what I consider sacred than is 'Judas, Judas' - which is, IMO, a bit crass and frivolous about something (the crucifixion) which I personally would not want to joke about - but I can't claim that I was deeply offended by either. Do you want the poll to register this sort of distinction or not?
(Am I being too analytical here?)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Off Centre View
Shipmate
# 4254
|
Posted
Could we have a thread of rude jokes? Like the one about the Nun and the Blind Man?
I like the new board, by the way. And in my opinion I think it's important to be able to laugh at all manner of serious subjects, sex and death included. In many ways, those same discussions relating to censorship can be extended to humour and jokes. Perhaps it is something of a facet of humanity that we can laugh at serious issues, and it may be some sort of release valve so as to help us to remain sane.
I am too young to remember when Monty Python's Life of Brian came out (I was born in 1982, the film was in 1979) but my parents have told me about how controversial that film was. As with most of these things, I decided to see it myself and to make up my own mind about it. I found the film hilarious, and it makes fun more of unthinking religiousity, and also of Hollywood biblical epics and all their pomp and over-blown proclamations. Having said that, I did find the ending of that film to be tough with the crucifixitions at the end and I could see how that was considered blasphemous by some people.
Just a few thoughts, anyway, and I'm not sure where the line between the sacred and profane is drawn sometimes.
Off Centre View
--------------------
Looking for Authenticity in the Corporate Abyss? Change Your Self, Change Your Workplace, Change Your World: www.corporateabyss.com
Posts: 1685 | From: wherever I may wander | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Jengie Jon and Esmeralda said it well in terms of what I was going to say.
As an example, Arab friends are happy to mock Arabic culture and its eccentricities, and I'd only ever do so in their company when it was clear I was joking. I'd be very careful of doing it outside of a "friendship-zone" where offence could result.
But as Jengie Jon said, often jokes are celebrating a culture/tradition in a form of self-deprecation.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't find silly things offensive - they are just silly.
Maybe that is just my sense of humour.
For example the light switch.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sorry to dp - I have just discovered that I am infinitely more offended by blatently racist jokes - particularly ones comparing particular racial groups to excrement - than by any religious joke.
I wonder why that is.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
Having just read all the ones thatare there, I have come to the conclusion that I am offended by nothing, but also that it takes a lot to make me laugh. I sniggered at the Twelve Priests one, and that was it!!
However, ask Strath some jokes, and then you'll laugh out loud!
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
How am I supposed to answer the question "How offensive do you find this joke?"?
Do you want to know how much personal objection I have to it... or how much potential for offense I can see in it - would I hesitate before repeating it to my grandmother, say?
I'd say the first option.
I'm sure we can all see potential for other people to be offended, but I think we want the poll to measure how uncomfortable/upset/frothing at the dog collar you personally feel.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I have just discovered that I am infinitely more offended by blatently racist jokes - particularly ones comparing particular racial groups to excrement - than by any religious joke.
To me it's okay to tell extremely rude jokes about any group that isn't facing overt, large-scale discrimination. I wouldn't tell a joke that disparages Islam or Muslims because of the feelings against Islam, Muslims and Arabs some people have. I don't tell jokes about Jews for the same reason, though jokes about Judaism seem okay to me--Judaism as an institution can bear being made fun of. I don't make the same distinction between jokes about Muslims and jokes about Islam as an institution because I don't think Islam has gotten to the level of acceptance in the US that Judaism has. I feel no compunction about telling rude jokes about any brand of Christianity, but if I lived 100 years ago, I'd consider jokes about Catholicism out of bounds because of the level of anti-Catholic feeling here.
I don't recall ever being offended by any religious joke I've ever heard. I figure two things: 1. Christianity and Christians have it coming; 2. God, Jesus, St. Peter, Mary, Moses, and all the churches, religious societies, etc. either can or should be able to take care of themselves, so fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Racist jokes are in general offensive to me when told by someone who is not a member of the group being disparaged because there's the underlying implication of racism is unavoidable. But I don't feel bad when I laugh at Chris Rock's jokes about black people.
[typo]
[ 05. July 2005, 16:59: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
"What is it about offensive jokes that offends?"
I was once told a very racist joke - the punchline which I've forgotten was something about "waiting until you see the whites of a nigger's eyes before you shoot" - which I thought was one of the most offensive jokes I'd ever heard. The teller, for the record, was a gay disabled Jew. For me it will be the deliberate intention of putting down one section of society, often in a cruel or aggressive way.
"Is anything too sacred for laughter?"
Yes. What exactly that is will be personal to someone. Sometimes there can be moments that are deep, transcendent and utterly beautiful, or have a major emotional impact. Some people will feel protective about them and feel frivolity is inappropriate and misplaced. That it misses the point, trivializes what is otherwise deeply meaningful, seizes on a superficial aspect. that essentially it can show a lack of understanding, or respect for the concept involved.
"Where do you draw your line, if anywhere?"
I may not share someone's beliefs but I would not want to see them mocked with a view to causing offence or starting from the premise that what they think is nonsense, so it doesn't matter if someone makes fun of it.
"Can you find something funny and blasphemous at the same time?"
Yes. I once read "Merlin" by Robert Nye which is scatological, blasphemous, disrespectful (it begins with the premise that Merlin is the son of the devil). But amusing. There was a certain amount of "double-think" involved for me in this though and I had to shut off from the religious aspects and remind myself this was pure fiction and not rooted in real life. I had to do the same with "Father Ted" when I first saw it.
"Is this whole exercise thought-provoking, scandalous, or a complete joke?"
Thought-provoking. At university I wanted to do an analysis of humour as part of my degree, but was encouraged to do something more mainstream instead. I'm still intrigued by the mechanics of it all though. A joke ceases to be funny when you start analysing it. There is a kind of humour that depends on the element of surprise and incongruity, once you are familiar with the pattern of the joke the surprise is gone and it isn't amusing any more.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"Is anything too sacred for laughter?"
Yes. What exactly that is will be personal to someone. Sometimes there can be moments that are deep, transcendent and utterly beautiful, or have a major emotional impact. Some people will feel protective about them and feel frivolity is inappropriate and misplaced. That it misses the point, trivializes what is otherwise deeply meaningful, seizes on a superficial aspect. that essentially it can show a lack of understanding, or respect for the concept involved.
I think moments like this are times when some kinds of humor are inappropriate, but I wouldn't object to a joke about this sort of experience after the fact. I agree that this would show a lack of understanding or respect, but I guess I don't really care if people understand or respect my spirituality.
I am waiting to see if a joke will be posted that truly does offend me. So far, not even close.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trini
Shipmate
# 7921
|
Posted
Can you find something funny and blasphemous at the same time?
I think so. In fact, I was shown The Life of Brian by a Jewish friend (who is very fond of all things Python) and I've now declared that no matter how much he enjoys the movie, I know I enjoy it more (or in a fuller way), because for me there's the added bonus of guilt! Then again, I don't quite think it's blasphemous but it is enough to make me a tad uneasy at times.
What is it about offensive jokes that offends?
As many posters have commented, it can depend on the teller. I laugh at Douglas Adams making fun of religion and Christianity but depending on the angle, I might register a 2 on the offense scale because it's a bit different coming from an almost 'evangelical' atheist. That being said, all the jokes posted so far, would still have received a "1" for offence from me if the contributor had been Douglas A. I would rank his humorous comments at a 2 or possibly a 3 (for offence) when he is sounding superior and (ironically) sanctimonious. For instance, when he mocks religion in Hitchhiker (the Great White Handkerchief) I might make it up to a 2 on the offense scale because I suspect that he is saying that all religion is necessarily stupid. On the other hand, if that came from a less enthusastic atheist, or from a person who believes in god, I would not be offended at all because I would only think they are saying that religion can be stupid. It's the certainty that offends me. My enjoyment of the joke though, is the same regardless of who came up with it because I don't have to see it the way (I think) he does.
[ 05. July 2005, 18:12: Message edited by: Trini ]
Posts: 816 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Now, an atheist like Douglas Adams mocking religion never really offends me, because I recognize it as a valid point of view and often his points hit home. Also, I know he's coming from a different perspective than I am (and he is DAMN funny). A fellow Christian mocking aspects of Christianity usually isn't offensive either because we're sharing laughter at something we both value and recognize the flaws in. My favourite religious joke is the one genuine funny Seventh-day Adventist joke I know, not because it's the funniest but because I recognize at a gut level how very, very true it is.
But there IS a line, for me. And I can't really define it but it does have to do with mocking things that I think are at the core of Christianity, the most sacred thing. Mainly to do with Jesus and the cross. I found the Jesus/penis/lightswitch thing in Hell awhile ago offensive. And, I have a confession to make (deep breath)...
I have never watched Life of Brian.
And this from someone who's a certifiable Python freak. I've heard most of it described, I may even have read the script, I know all the words to "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" ... but I cannot bring myself to actually watch it. It's too close to the line for me. I think my response is about half genuine discomfort and half an atavistic fear of a bolt of lightning shooting out of the TV set and frying me where I sit.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calindreams
Shipmate
# 9147
|
Posted
I'm sure Trudy, if you watched Life of Brian, you wouldn't find it as offensive as you might expect. It is primarily a send-up of religious movements and the way that there were many people around the time of Christ that claimed to be the Messiah. It has very little to do with Jesus or Christianity itself. In my opinion it was the cleverest of all the Monty Python films.
--------------------
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore
Posts: 665 | From: Birmingham, England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I must be the ultimate in sadcases. I've discovered I only really get offended on behalf of others. Tell me a joke about Islam and I'll go to point 5.
How weird is that?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flausa
Mad Woman
# 3466
|
Posted
I think humour is a very dynamic thing, meaning our sense of it changes through time and experience. Some things I wouldn't have laughed at when I was a Fundy, I find quite amusing now. In the same vein, what I find offensive has also changed through time. Being a part of the Ship has dropped my Offens-O-Meter™ quite a bit.
Whether a joke is funny or just offensive also depends on who is telling the joke.
Posts: 4610 | From: bonny Scotland | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calindreams:
I'm sure Trudy, if you watched Life of Brian, you wouldn't find it as offensive as you might expect. It is primarily a send-up of religious movements and the way that there were many people around the time of Christ that claimed to be the Messiah. It has very little to do with Jesus or Christianity itself. In my opinion it was the cleverest of all the Monty Python films.
I'm another who gets squeamish when the joke is about Jesus' crucifixion. For me, that's when it gets personal. It would be like telling a joke about my mother being raped, or something.
I saw 'Jerry Springer the Opera' in the theatre (which is waaaaay more edgy than any of these jokes) and squirmed at the 'grow up and come down off that cross' lines. Although I confess I did stifle a giggle at 'talk to the stigmata'.
Trudy, I think you'd be fine with 'Life of Brian', although you might want to not watch the crucifixion scene at the end. The rest gave me no problems whatsoever, and in fact much of it is the sort of thing you'll find funnier if you're a Christian. I love the fact that 'Bright Side of Life' sends up all those 'cheer up mate' song and dance routines in movie musicals (well, I'm a musicals freak) but I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that it's during the crucifixion.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelica37
Shipmate
# 8478
|
Posted
I think a lot depends on who is telling the joke and in what context, a joke sending up the Catholic church from a Christian, a friend, or as part of an act containing a lot of varied humour can be funny, but the same joke from a person who hates Catholics or as part of an act which persistently attacks religion would be offensive ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 1351 | From: Suffolk | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
So then it's not the joke itself, but the attitude behind the joke that is offensive?
Since you all know me and like me (hey, play let's pretend for a moment or something) does that mean I could tell any joke at all, and it wouldn't be offensive because my attitude is nice?
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calindreams:
I'm sure Trudy, if you watched Life of Brian, you wouldn't find it as offensive as you might expect. It is primarily a send-up of religious movements and the way that there were many people around the time of Christ that claimed to be the Messiah. It has very little to do with Jesus or Christianity itself. In my opinion it was the cleverest of all the Monty Python films.
I think that distinction belongs to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," but it's not so much because I was offended by it. It's more because I think it's terribly self-indulgent in places, and in serious need of editing. (All the "Biggus Dickus" business leaps to mind...)
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
The "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch in "Meaning of Life" comes closer to squirm power for me.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think moments like this are times when some kinds of humor are inappropriate, but I wouldn't object to a joke about this sort of experience after the fact.
And sometimes the other way around. As a volunteer on a rescue team I once spent a day picking up little pieces of people after an accident. The jokes we made to each other that day were certainly in bad taste, and not anything that I would find funny in real life. But, in that situation, it was the best we could do to keep our sanity.
Clearly the context plays a big part in how a joke is perceived. Although I haven't found any of these jokes personally offensive so far, I well could feel offended if they were told at a business meeting, for example. But that probably is more about being offended by the fact that someone told the joke, rather than by the joke itself.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molitva
Shipmate
# 7859
|
Posted
The whole subject is a fascinating one. Offensive jokes are, of course, more complex than simply offensive comments, and evoke a more complex reaction. Like “sick humour”, they can both offend and make one laugh. Indeed some people find their own responses ambiguous and divided, laughing despite themselves. For humour is something we enjoy, and it can be much more discomforting to find ourselves enjoying something that is also offensive than simply being offended by it.
But I think there’s a further distinction to be made between sick humour and specifically religious sick humour. This touches on Steve’s question about whether something can be both funny and blasphemous. Some might suggest we are on special territory when we talk about the sacred or blasphemous, which has no counterpart in secular sick humour. For one thing, it can be intensely personal in a way even the sickest joke about, e.g., the tsunami, is not. Gill H touched on this when she said that such humour would be like telling a joke about the rape of one's mother. And Trudy hinted at the special anxiety that can come him with hearing a possibly blasphemous joke –the “atavistic fear of the lightning bolt”. I suspect she’s not alone!
The question of whether the sacred should have special treatment takes us back to the very rationale for the Laugh Judgement --the (secular) government’s draft legislation outlawing expressions of religious hatred, etc. No-one would propose outlawing offensive comments. Does religion need special protection?
All that said, I’ve been very struck by the sheer range of reactions to the jokes on this board. To me this suggests that establishing clear standards of what constitutes religious offensiveness will be extremely hard, and that the law may prove unenforceable.
Posts: 80 | From: Astana | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I certainly have lowered my standards (is that the right word) since joing the ship... maybe broadened horizons or found more jokes acceptable... whatever...
I think everyone draws a line somewhere? I think some jokes are on the edge or just over it, and so are offensive, but really funny and just that little bit extra funny because you know youre not really supposed to find it funny but.... like naughty schoolkids... But once you cross the line too far its like the elastic band snaps, and its just rude/silly or sick.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
But the point is that what you find rude/silly/just sick or simply ho-hum rather than funny seems to be dependant on what is going on in your personal head at the time you hear the joke.
first time heard/doesn't push any buttons = ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
old joke/no buttons =
old joke/hits a button =
new/no buttons = ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
new/hits a button = ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I trust you get the idea.
I think the only thing that triggers offensiveness is whether the joke hits any personal emotional 'buttons' - a sacredly held belief, a personal tragedy or insecurity, etc.
Everything else is just details.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I think a significant proportion of the capacity for offensiveness is carried in the intention of the teller which would be the hardest thing to measure in an objective test. Yet very easy to perceive...
They know if they're trying to offend me. I know if they're trying to offend me. They'll know if they succeeded if I tell them to go eff themselves.
In Xtian terms, the crucifixion and BVM jokes are the most disrespectful I think. If I was trying to explain to someone, or give them a rule of thumb to work from so as not to cause offence I might ask them to equate Jesus' death to 'my brother's death' or jokes about the BVM to 'jokes about my mother'. That should help them gauge if they are likely to cause offence.
But what's currently on offer hasn't managed a rise out of me except in a: 'I don't think it's right to laugh at this' way. It's The Naughtiest Girl in School meets Alvin Purple standard.
I also thought the Viagra cartoon was a bit dodgy, but I have only seen 1 thing that really offended me which was a spam link someone put in Hvn once (to a cartoon of a crucified Jesus wanking through the hole in his wrist)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullmetallotus
Apprentice
# 9744
|
Posted
The potential for offense of any statement, not just jokes, is based upon the intention of the one making it. We all know that any phrase can be made hurtful or disrespectful by the tone of the person using it. "Yes, Sir!" can be used as a simple agreement, a sign of sigil respect or, if said snidely, the exact opposite to those things, as example.
Then there are those that seemingly go searching for incidents/opportunities for offense. We recently were at a gathering where a person found the flower arrangements "disrespecful to those with allergies", not that she had allergies. What made it even more odd was that it was an annual meeting of a local horticultural society.
I myself do find jokes that are extremely sexist and racist somewhat offensise, and generally unfunny. Again, though, it is a fuzzy line. A female friend, recently went through a divorce, and as part of her healing process seemed to delight in men bashing jokes (How many men does it take to change a lightbulb? Yeah, right! As if that fat lazy bastard EVER does anything around the house!). Again, though it boils down to intent. Her jokes were not aimed at men, but instead seemed to answer the frustrations and personal challenges she was going through.
I could go on, but as a new member of the board, I do not wish to start a series of jokes about boring newbies and their essay like postings.
regards
FML
Posts: 1 | From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Welcome FML, cool first post.
As with all apprentices please take time to read a few boards and threads so as to get the ethos. Enjoy your time on board!
Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
If I may make one quick comment - I thought the limerick on the page explaining the project was brilliant.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool of a Took
chock full o' nuts
# 7412
|
Posted
Sometimes it seems that a great joke (religious or not) is one that points to something ridiculous and says 'now, wait a minute... don't you think that's just the least bit ridiculous?' Jesus jokes are often funny and rarely offensive (to me), in part because at the heart of it, I believe that Incarnation was a rather ridiculous thing for God to have done. Glorious and wonderful and Grace beyond measure - but ridiculous! That this incarnate God would then do what Jesus did on the cross? Ridiculous! That death could thereby be defeated and eternal life won for the Creation he came to redeem? Preposterous! Absurd! Ridiculous!
St. Paul had a sense of that, I think.
quote:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 cor 1:18
And for those of us who see the power of God in the message of the cross can still have a sense of the foolishness that the world sees. Sometimes, a punchline can lift the curtain and we can see the power and the foolishness, side by side. In a good religious joke, I think, it's the difference between the two that creates the tension that can only be resolved by tears or laughter.
An athiest might tell the same joke, and only laugh at the side of it that is foolishness... missing the real punch line.
At the same time, it seems to me that jokes about particular followers of Jesus don't do the same thing. They (tend to) point to particular groups of Christians (or other believers) and say "Aren't they ridiculous?" That's funny, maybe, when I'm pointing to myself, my own family, (aren't we ridiculous?) but that rarely seems to be the context in which these jokes originate or thrive. I'm nervous about pointing to the foibles of any one faith group (besides my own, foible-ridden Anglicanism) in part because, for all I know, I might be wrong... they might be right.
[ 08. July 2005, 03:09: Message edited by: Fool of a Took ]
Posts: 1205 | From: Toronto-ish | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Checking back to this thread after the UK bombings makes me realise how context and mood dependent humour is. The same jokes that seemed funny 24 hours ago just don't have the same laugh value.
It doesn't mean they're any less funny (or more funny for that matter) but a great deal depends on when, who by and how the joke is told.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jel
Apprentice
# 9755
|
Posted
One basic tenet of all humour is contrast: the more extreme, the funnier it is. As a basic text, all comedians should read Foole upon Folie, and a Nest of Ninnies. These were folios published by Robert Armin, a member of William Shakespeare's theatre company, who contributed an enormous amount to the more memorable fool roles.
In these, he develops this idea as a hypothesis, inventing the theory of the pun as a new kind of humour, distinct from the prat-fall, the only kind recognised previously. From this developed the entire English pun, a medium unknown in Europe until very recently.
As there are at root only three classes of person - me, you and him - and three degrees of relationship - upward, downward, and equal - it therefore means that unless he accepts to be the butt of the joke at his own expense, a comedian is risking being perceived as either attacking a superior, denigrating an inferior, or commenting on a peer. The first is dangerous: the second bullying: the third offers possibilities, particularly when the peer is not "you" but "him".
I now turn to New Comedy. This develops the idea of ridicule within a framework of perceived Political Correctness. It is at root still a prat-fall squeezed sideways by a stilted world view, and to some extent subverts the very values it attempts to promote by exposing them to contrast against bourgeois conservatism.
Posts: 40 | From: Brussels | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
With regard to Gordon Cheng's comment, have there been jokes circulating in England about the bombings? I remember marvelling at the time of the Challenger explosion in 86 how quickly the jokes started ... we heard the news that morning, and when I went to supper in the college cafeteria the guy at the door asked me, "Why didn't the seven astronauts shower before they left on the space shuttle this morning? Because they knew they were going to wash up along the coast of Florida." I mean, that's FAST for something to turn from tragedy to black comedy, but it seems pretty typical. Yet I'm not sure I can remember many 9/11 jokes -- maybe in New York there were?
It's just fascinating to me, this need to turn tragedy into humour, some kind of survival mechanism I guess, but perhaps there's a point beyond which the horror becomes TOO horrific even for jokes. And how related is this to the impulse that makes us offended at religious humour? To me, there's a difference: I don't want to laugh at a tragedy because it's too bad, and I don't want to laugh at, say, the Crucifixion because it's too good (if you KWIM).
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
With regard to Gordon Cheng's comment, have there been jokes circulating in England about the bombings?
In email yesterday afternoon:
quote:
Ken Livingstone's been in Singapore buying a new kind of bus for London Transport. It goes like a bomb.
... that's the only one I've heard so far, unless you count "Chirac must have been jealous" which wasn't really a joke.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Ken Livingstone's been in Singapore buying a new kind of bus for London Transport. It goes like a bomb.
... that's the only one I've heard so far, unless you count "Chirac must have been jealous" which wasn't really a joke.
It depends what you mean by a joke.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
Yet I'm not sure I can remember many 9/11 jokes -- maybe in New York there were?
I'm in California, and I heard a 9/11 joke the day after it happened (Q: What's the 5-day forecast in Afghanistan? A: Two days.) and that Wednesday also someone sent me a proposed World Trade Towers rebuilding plan--five buildings of graduated height, with the smallest two on the ends and the tallest in the middle. What I thought was interesting was that both jokes were very simple expressions of US defiance and vengeance (and yes, I laughed at both jokes and felt better for it). I've heard that there are sick jokes floating around out there about things like people jumping from the towers, but no one's ever told me one. The jokes I heard were all of the "They can't do this to us, we're pissed off, we're going to get whoever did this" sort.
quote:
It's just fascinating to me, this need to turn tragedy into humour, some kind of survival mechanism I guess, but perhaps there's a point beyond which the horror becomes TOO horrific even for jokes. And how related is this to the impulse that makes us offended at religious humour? To me, there's a difference: I don't want to laugh at a tragedy because it's too bad, and I don't want to laugh at, say, the Crucifixion because it's too good (if you KWIM).
I do usually want to laugh at tragedy precisely because it is bad, maybe not right away, but as soon as I can get a bit of distance from a tragic event, a joke to me is a good thing.
If on Good Friday someone said, "Hey, what have you been up to today?" and I said I'd been at a Good Friday service and they responded by telling me one of these nail jokes or some other joke that played on the crucifixion in some way, I would probably be taken aback that they would be so rude to me. It's a personal offense to me to make light of the crucifixion to my face on the day I fast in remembrance of it. Depending upon who told the joke and what I thought they knew about me and my faith, I would either be offended or I would think that the person had no social graces or perhaps just didn't know any better.
But any other time I really wouldn't care if someone told a joke about the crucifixion. I see what you mean about the crucifixion being too good to joke about, but I guess I feel like the crucifixion is so good that jokes about it don't touch it in the least.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
The rule I tend to use at school is that people can make jokes that are as offensive as they like about any group, so long as that group includes the person who is telling the joke.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Good rule Custard. I can tell "Newfie jokes" but mainlanders will die with the joke still warm on their lips if they attempt to utter them in my presence. Which is as it should be, I think.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Isn't the reason why the joke is being told more important than who's telling it?
I've no objection to lawyer jokes, whoever tells them, because they are mostly intended harmlessly. But if I thought a joke was being told with the intention of making me personally out to be an immoral, callous, parasitic liar, then I'd take offence. (Because I like to keep that secret).
I know that's not in quite the same category as a Jewish joke, because (1) lawyers are generally pretty smug about it, and have rarely been a persecuted minority, and (2) I chose to be a lawyer, people don't get to choose their race. But I think the general principle is valid.
The best jokes, of course, are about people, even if they are represented in a particular guise. We are all members of that target group. The Jew in joke-land stands for human stinginess. The lawyer stands for amoral cunning. The Irishman stands for foolishness. Where it will not offend, I think we are all free to laugh at them.
I wouldn't want to suggest that people should ignore the sensibilities and feelings of others, but my gut reaction to a suggested rule that you must be in a target group to joke about it is 'lighten up'.
[ 08. July 2005, 23:47: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
eliab:
But if I thought a joke was being told with the intention of making me personally out to be an immoral, callous, parasitic liar, then I'd take offence. (Because I like to keep that secret).
The biggest problem with ethnic jokes is when they are told by ppl who are anti-Irish, anti-Jewish and are a vehicle of scorn or mocking.
I find it easiest to just leave them out across the board. But I don't place a high value of humour that relies on stereotypes - don't find it clever or funny. There are better things to laugh at, ones where I can both enjoy the humour and intelligence of the originator.
[ 11. July 2005, 01:43: Message edited by: The Coot ]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
I'm rarely offended by jokes that make fun of institutions and character-types that can bear and may need making fun of... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[typos]
[ 11. July 2005, 07:31: Message edited by: Sir Kevin ]
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Hosting
Sir Kevin, despite a thread at the top of the board and several host posts scattered through the board, the last one of which was not half an hour ago two posts under one of yours, you are consistently writing very short posts with the barest amount of information and no encouragement to discuss the topic.
Please make more of an effort in your posts on this board to engage in discussion. The polls are there for you to register your opinion, you may include that opinion in your post as long as you back it up with some reasoning / theology.
What sort of discussion board would it be if it was about posting a joke and everyone just say “Yeah, great/crap joke.” Who would read pages of that?
In short please back up your opinions with some encouragement to discussion or restrain your opinions to the poll included with the joke.
Thank you.
Pyx_e
Hosting
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I'm rarely offended by jokes that make fun of institutions and character-types that can bear and may need making fun of...
How do you know what institutions or character-types need making fun of? How do you know whether or not those institutions, or the individuals within them, can bear being made fun of?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
As I was reading the various threads, I realised (though I am not old) that religious jokes which I knew which would have been considered funny and offensive (not really blasphemous) some years ago would no longer have that impact. They are too dated. Many, which involved laughing through tears at the time, had to do with the mass defections from religious life, for example. Yet they'd be incomprehensible today, when few people really remember when nuns went from wearing mediaeval habits to going to night spots (most did not - but those who did made sure everyone knew) - when the RC pastor eloped with the Sister Principal of the convent school - and so on.
With Sir Kevin, I have no problem with institutions being the butt of jokes - and I've yet to see any institution (church, crown, state, whatever) which did not merit this in one way or another. Having had a 32-year church career, I've had to laugh a great deal in my day just to survive! Yet I am finding it interesting what some threads show is offensive to some. For example, in the joke about Clinton and the pope, it had never occurred to me that anyone would find it offensive that Mary could be thought a perpetual virgin - nor would I have thought it offensive that 'Mary without sin' would be included in a joke.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
a quote from the Monty Pythons about humour:
"Sometimes it was just very difficult to explain to someone why something was funny. The Python six had a gut feeling about what was funny and you didn't have to explain that really. We knew we had to keep it tight. It was a laugh that dare not speak its name, we couldn't really say quite why it worked, but it did and we knew that once we spread it out it would lose something, a little bit of the intensity would go." (From 'The Pythons Autobiography')
This might help to explain why not everyone finds the same things funny but also why it is hard to describe humour to someone else, and maybe why some of the responses to the jokes haven't been very satisfactory.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I well remember all the controversy over "Life of Brian," though, if my memory serves me, the uproar was before the film even was released, or, afterward, from people who'd not even seen it.
I mention this because we've been discussing 'inside joke' qualities on this and other threads. I like Monty Python, though more for individual sketches than most full-length films. Yet I think that what I found so hilarious about much of the Life of Brian is that it was a spoof, not of Jesus or the gospels, but of epic films on scriptural themes.
Films of that sort which were considered very good in the 1950s-1960s were very overdone, artificial, and acted in a style which made one think everyone on earth was in awe of seeing the Son of God when Jesus was on earth. The 'blessed are the cheesemakers' sequence in Life of Brian reminded me of the Sermon on the Mount from "King of Kings."
I would imagine that, were anyone (too young to remember that overacted style) to view these films today, they would seem close to camp. Monty Python captured that in Life of Brian, but to catch the full impact one must realise that the films I've described as overblown were largely thought 'reverent' then.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
