Ship of Fools: About the Laugh Judgment

Thread: About the Laugh Judgment Board: The Laugh Judgment / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=61;t=000004

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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]

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 [Big Grin]

[ 05. July 2005, 09:31: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 105) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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?)

Posted by Off Centre View (# 4254) on :

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

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

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.

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

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

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

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

Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on :

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!

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

"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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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.

Posted by Trini (# 7921) on :

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 ]

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :

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.

Posted by Calindreams (# 9147) on :

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.

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

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

Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :

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.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

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.

Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :

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]

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

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

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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]

The "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch in "Meaning of Life" comes closer to squirm power for me.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

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.

Posted by molitva (# 7859) on :

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.

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

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.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

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]

old joke/no buttons = [Snore]

old joke/hits a button = [Paranoid]

new/no buttons = [Smile]

new/hits a button = [Mad]

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.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

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.
[Killing me]

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)

Posted by fullmetallotus (# 9744) on :

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

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

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

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

If I may make one quick comment - I thought the limerick on the page explaining the project was brilliant. [Killing me]

Posted by Fool of a Took (# 7412) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :

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.

Posted by Jel (# 9755) on :

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.

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :

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).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

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.

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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 ]

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

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 ]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I'm rarely offended by jokes that make fun of institutions and character-types that can bear and may need making fun of... [Snigger]

[typos]

[ 11. July 2005, 07:31: Message edited by: Sir Kevin ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

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

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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?

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

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.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

does anyone else find it irritating/very mildly offensive that the jokes about admission to Heaven all have Peter - a bloke - in charge of who gets in and who doesn't, rather than Jesus?

How about the whole pattern that many of those jokes follow of getting into Heaven by points scored in life?

Do people think they get more irritated than offended by jokes like the example sample we've got for our delectation?

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :

It's interesting that the joke I've found most offensive in this whole discussion -- by quite a large margin -- is the one about the risen Jesus masturbating through the holes in His hands (I don't know if that joke is actually even posted, but it's been referenced a few times in discussion either on this thread or elsewhere). Same reaction from me as the Jesus/penis/lightswitch product ... I think it must be the juxtaposition of the Crucifixion with sex that somehow pushes my hot button. I wonder why? Does this reveal that at some level I actually do think of sex as dirty and shameful? Hmmm....

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

S.Peter letting people into Heaven is not at all offensive if you read Matthew 16:13-20.

As to the joke Trudy, Trudy mentions, I think it says more about the attitude of the person making up the joke than that of those who are offended by it.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

Just wondering: I recognise many of these jokes from a book I grew up with called 'The Ecclesiastical Joke Book'. It was compiled and illustrated by the chap who drew Captain Pugwash (John Ryan? Not sure).

I read it often as a child (when I wasn't memorising Two Ronnies jokes). Will anyone admit to plundering it for this competition?

Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 105) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
It's interesting that the joke I've found most offensive in this whole discussion -- by quite a large margin -- is the one about the risen Jesus masturbating through the holes in His hands

Trudy, you may have missed this from the Laugh Judgment thread in The Styx. It's a (translated) article that appeared in a Danish daily paper this week...

Can you joke about Christ on the Cross?

The Christian web-magazine "Ship of Fools" has started a reader survey to find the tolerance limit for christian jokes. A limit that Danish comic Uffe Holm knows how to cross.

Do you know the one about the nun and the priest? How does Jesus masturbate? Great Britain's biggest Christian web-magazine "Ship of Fools", with over 100,000 unique visitors each month has just launched an investigation to find the funniest and the most offensive Christian jokes.

"We will try to find out how far you can really go, before it becomes offensive", says editor Stephen Goddard. Up to now the editors have received 300-400 jokes, and the idea is to choose the 10 most controversial to be tried out by a stand up comedian in front of a group of church-goers. "Then we'll see if he dies on stage'" says Stephen Goddard.

The classic jokes about nuns, priests, and people going up to Saint Peter to be let into heaven are generally considered to be harmless by the readers, whilst the boundary begins to get closer when it deals with the suffering, says Stephen Goddard. He remembers the uproar over Monty Python's scene with Jesus on the Cross in "The Life of Brian" from 1979.

"Many Christians are offended, if you joke about the crucifixion, because as a Christian you identify with Jesus. But at the same time you can laugh at a joke about two people being hanged, because it doesn't necessarily point to a particular historical event", he says.

Here in Denmark, comedian Uffe Holm was reported to the police for blasphemy, after he on DR's [Danmarks Radio, equiv of BBC1] youth programme "Boogie", in connection with the "Humour about Aids" campaign told a joke about Jesus, who masturbated through the holes in his hands and offered to do the same to God with his feet.

The joke lead to Morten Meisner, the parish priest of Skarrild in mid-Jutland, to collect 15,000 danish krnoer in under the campaign "Emergency aid for Uffe" so that the comedian could be taken on an educational tour of Israel.

However, Uffe Holm recently dismissed this (the money will instead go to AIDS victims), but he has taken the joke out of his material. "I trod in the spinach [colloquial: means 'put my foot in it']. Jesus hung on the cross for our sake, and it arouses very strong feelings amongst those who are very Christian. But I do think that people over-reacted.

When you live by telling jokes, it is also important to make people laugh at something that they don't normally laugh about, and you happen to break your neck once in a while. But it does need to be tried", says Uffe Holm.

From the 'Urban' newspaper, Tuesday 12th July 2005.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I have a terrible feeling Pyx_e's already tried this. At a shipmeet. The whole pub went very, very quiet, and then fortunately Viola laughed. Which relaxed the tension. Before we all pelted him with rotten tomatoes and Pyx_e got thrown out.

(OK a small part of the above is made up, but most of it is true.....)

Posted by Viola (# 20) on :

Just because I 'get' rude jokes more quickly than the rest of you good church people... [Biased]

Actually - as an admin - I felt it was my duty to put the shy and retiring Pyx_e at ease.

One of those, anyway.

K.

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

All this has reminded me of my favourite standup. Most people I know, religious or not find this chap deeply offensive. I find him hilarious. Where's the line? As some of the comments on the page say - his basis of comedy is to be offensive to the audience, just like your stereotypical American preacher. I find it hilarious, but you have to be able to see past the abuse he's hurtling at every single group represented in the room - minority or not.

Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :

Rev Obadaiah Steppenwolf III!

He is one of the funniest comedians alive. I wonder if he's doign anything in the Festival.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
does anyone else find it irritating/very mildly offensive that the jokes about admission to Heaven all have Peter - a bloke - in charge of who gets in and who doesn't, rather than Jesus?

I don't think that anyone I have known (including the most devout Catholics) actually expects to meet Peter at death - unless one had a very literal mind and mistook the power of the 'keys.' [Big Grin]

I think that concept of Peter is mainly reserved for jokes, in which it is a staple.

Because jokes about people meeting Peter at the Pearly Gates tend to be very silly and about misunderstanding, I somehow find it more appropriate that it not be Jesus. In the gospels, it is all too clear that Peter, however well intentioned, often 'does not get it,' whether with the tabernacles for Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration - whether Jesus should wash his feet - whether Jesus should go to Jerusalem - or the appropriate action with Malchus' ear. Since, in the jokes, Peter often is volatile or confused, I think it often works.

---

To date, the only two jokes which I found highly offensive were the ones about Jesus' masturbating in the wounds of his hands, and the one about the little girl on the bridge. (The latter was a horror story.)

I know that a number of Ship mates have had lengthy church careers (as I have.) If so, they, as I, would have far funnier true stories (and some in the gruesome genre) than could be captured in jokes - though they would normally not be in the least offensive. I suppose that the reason I find many of the jokes here to not be especially funny is that most are very old and others do not capture the 'true to life' quality I enjoy.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

There's more than one kind of offensive humour. There's the kind that makes you feel sick when you read it, there's the kind that makes you feel angry. Sometimes it could be both. We seem to be going for the gross-out value at the moment. How about some jokes that aren't so much repulsive as ones that might be expected to annoy someone, e.g. derision or denigration of a particular practice or denomination or some such? There must be some amongst the myriads you've been sent.

I'd like to ask Simon or someone: do you think it might be worth putting some kind of a warning up on the intro to the board to say that some of the material here is unsuitable for under-18s, or those of a squeamish disposition, or something?

And are they about to get progressively worse? I think you'd have to be pretty insensitive to find the Onan joke funny.

Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :

My suggestion is to keep things as they are. I think warnings or suppressing priest/pedophile jokes is an understandable but ill-advised "mommying" of our readers. If someone doesn't like that topic, then why are they reading these threads? Tailoring the Laugh Judgement to fit someone's idea of decorum is trying to please everyone--where will you stop? Shipmates A, B and C want no more priest/pedophile jokes. Shipmates D - H want no more male-dominated Heaven's gatekeeper jokes. Shipmates I - Q demand no more Jesus jokes.

Again: Where do you stop? If you're looking for the germ of offense, then you'd best offend people, and the posts from those who want certain levels of decorum set are perfect examples of offense taken.

Try to please everyone and the board will suffer as a result.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

On the other hand, if you're doing research, how many more paedophile priest jokes do you need to run to find out what people really think about them? If you don't know by now, you're not paying attention.

The range of types of jokes could stand some serious broadening, IMHO.

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :

Well, submit some broader jokes, Mousethief. Maybe we're not getting a broader range because this is representative of what's out there.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
My suggestion is to keep things as they are. I think warnings or suppressing priest/pedophile jokes is an understandable but ill-advised "mommying" of our readers. If someone doesn't like that topic, then why are they reading these threads?

Yes and no. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be posted, just that it isn't always clear from the title of a thread that you may be about to click on something you then find could be more than you expected. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a general warning in the intro that you access these threads at your own risk.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

I think there is ambiguity in the readers' roles here. Am I being told jokes as a 'taste tester' as it were, or am I being asked to analyse jokes?

If the latter, then the nature of the task is academic which means I will dispassionately consider material in an analytical way which I wouldn't ordinarily countenance in any other context.

If the former, I am being asked to appreciate the joke as a 'consumer' and add my response to an aggregate barometer. In real life I stop people who try to tell me ethnic or paedo jokes and give them immediate feedback, in virtual life, ie. this forum, I can't tell before reading whether a joke transgresses my no-go zone - and I do not want to 'consume' those sort of jokes. Therefore I am obliged not to read the material.

That's ok. This isn't a 'taking my marbles' post. The only reason I'm adding it rather than go off quietly and not read, is that I think complete data is important for a project and I doubt I am the only person to respond like this.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
[QB] Well, submit some broader jokes, Mousethief.

I did, about a week ago. Either they have quite a backlog, or mine were substandard. Or both, of course [Biased]

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

Further to the Girl on a Cliff paedophilia joke:

I agree with poster themanwiththegingerhair that it is not my faith that is offended but my humanity with respect to paedophilia jokes, (He makes a typo but it's clear what he means) and that it could just have easily have been about a tramp or policeman or scoutmaster, as Mousethief also observes.

Given the context of the religious villification bill, how likely is it that this joke could be a test of the religious villification law? Neither Christianity nor a Christian denomination are mentioned, though implied, but even if they were, could implying that the functionaries of a religion are paedophiles be brought as a complaint under this legislation?

Disgusting as this joke is, afaics, this is the worst you could come up with with respect to villification on the basis of faith.

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

Peadophile jokes are not funny.

Apart from that, what The Coot said.

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
My suggestion is to keep things as they are. I think warnings or suppressing priest/pedophile jokes is an understandable but ill-advised "mommying" of our readers. If someone doesn't like that topic, then why are they reading these threads?
Yes and no. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be posted, just that it isn't always clear from the title of a thread that you may be about to click on something you then find could be more than you expected. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a general warning in the intro that you access these threads at your own risk.

I don't have any problem with a general reference to the purpose of the project - but a "health warning"? No - because I can't predict what people might find offensive or blasphemous or even humourous.

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :

Just listened to Simon being interviewed on Radio Solent with regard to the proposed religious hate laws. Pretty good perspective on it and two good strong jokes as well (although intrviewer Nick Girdler wasn't too keen to upset some listeners by laughing at them). Excellent promotion for SOF and its values of Christian Unrest.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

1. I'm very disappointed. I submitted two jokes for discussion and neither one made the boards!

2. The Life of Brian was considered blasphemous in many right-wing circles here is the US. It was only exceeded by The Last Temptation of Christ. I though L of B was very funny and witty, but, as usual, I'm agreeing with Rossweisse that Quest for the Holy Grail was the Pythons finest effort. Just brilliant!

3. I think Richard Pryor explained who may tell what jokes. Only members of the same ethno-racial-religious group may thell jokes of which that group is the puch line. Anyone else may be accused of bigotry/rascism etc.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Be patient, Organmeister. There's a queue of jokes still to be posted.

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
Be patient, Organmeister. There's a queue of jokes still to be posted.

would you be kind enough to omit the "all priests are paedos" ones?

That might move things on a touch.

Regards
M

Posted by Old Hundredth (# 112) on :

Just out of curiosity, Simon, are you in a position to give us an idea of the length of the queue? I posted two last week and was wondering whether they had been rejected as being unsuitable or whether in fact I was at the end of a long queue - your post suggests it may be the latter which is rather reassuring (well, I didn't think they were very offensive so I couldn't work out why they might have been rejected).

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

Whilst I was fossicking about in the bowels of the Ship, I came across an old religious jokes thread (not what I was looking for, but there you go). There are a lot of good jokes there.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

Thanks, Simon, but one of mine has already been posted.

Posted by wing (# 9833) on :

Hello, this is Wing, i'm glad to be "on board" however, i wonder if my joke will be posted...in fact, upon going to the magazine, i am having a bit of trouble finding listed jokes...is there a particular place for them or do i just look through the bulletin board? help is appreciated.

here, below, are some ideas i have about laughing at God:
(an exerpt from ship of fools:Ridiculing religious beliefs, criticising religious practices and offending religious people is surely a mission from God. Not in all cases, necessarily, but certainly in some. It's not a freedom so much as a responsibility.)

i have looked at some of the jokes in the bulletins and wonder, what is it that we are attempting to mock. it seems some of the jokes are not about God, the sacred and so on but about human beings, and cruel at that, for example making a joke about a priest raping a child, or about a nun's supposed withered state is less about religion and more about showing insecurity about one's self (if you really believe that raping a child is funny, which i don't think very many people really do). i am thinking that in looking for ways to offend religion, i will have to find a way to mock religious beliefs and ideas, or rather, to find the humour in the fear of not believing.
An example of something i find funny is the story of Job...and what is funny about it is the compassion ultimately found within it. now, if i find Job funny, and some others find my sense of humour offensive...perhaps there's a joke in it after all.
anyway, the jokes about pedophilia and fear of women who are celibate (nuns) (for example) are not making fun of God or religious belief so my opinion is they don't qualify as "jokes that offend religion".

well i will follow the rules and not post my joke here, but will wait for it to appear through the filter of "approval" (now there's a contradiction for ya, i am hoping my joke will be offensive enough to be approved of?)
if anywon has any suggestions as to how i can navigate this board more easily please advise
thanks
yrs
wing

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Old Hundredth:
Just out of curiosity, Simon, are you in a position to give us an idea of the length of the queue? I posted two last week and was wondering whether they had been rejected as being unsuitable or whether in fact I was at the end of a long queue.

We've had about 800 so far. We're certainly not trying to publish the lot of them, just a representative sample, and ones which catch our attention as funny, offensive or particularly worth discussing in some way. Don't take it personally...

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

Does it say something really disagreeable and twisted about me that although I find some of the jokes unfunny, not one of them have I found offensive?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Is that because you know they are really only jokes, HT? (Rather like you can watch a film and know it's really only a film, even if it is based on a true story?) To test what I mean, how about if you read in your local paper, or got told by a real person that a real priest had assaulted a small girl on a cliff after her parents had died. Surely that you would find offensive, because instead of being a joke (only words) it was horribly real.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

No, it says something interesting, HT. Would you like to submit a joke you *have* found offensive?

Posted by Phred22 (# 3857) on :

I've submitted several jokes in the last few days. Not only have none of them appeared but I haven't seen new ones from anybody for almost a week. Is there a problem? [Mad]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Phred, I see you are an apprentice: take a while to look around. Firstly, this is a voluntary-run board, in the hosts and admins' spare time, so there will be times when they feel like taking a holiday.
Secondly, as has been explained elsewhere, the ship has been inundated with jokes since it has got coverage in the press - only a selection is chosen, to reflect the huge number which have been submitted.
If you want all your jokes to be read, why not set up a site yourself with a link to it in your sig.?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Hosting

Phred22; As Chorister pointed out this site is run by volunteers. This project has received over 1000 jokes. Given that neither you or I are fully aware of all the circumstances may I ask you tone down the nature of your posts (no angry/fiery smilies) and as Chorister again suggested have a good look round the whole board. Thank you.

Pyx_e

Hosting

Posted by Phred22 (# 3857) on :

My apologies for sounding hostile. I'll admit I didn't realize the volume of competing entries. What really bothered me was that there seemed to be a not-yet-reached time limit for entering jokes at the same time that the posting of new jokes seemed to be drying up. I truly hope the judges will post some latecomers, even if my under 1% of all offerings are not among them.

Let me add I'm not a newcomer to the SOF sites, just to posting messages. I find SOF offers some much-needed sanity and comic relief to the religious scene today.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Does it say something really disagreeable and twisted about me that although I find some of the jokes unfunny, not one of them have I found offensive?

Dunno. What does occur to me is that a lot of these jokes are what I'd think of as "male" humour - about male sexuality, male body parts, male bodily functions. In short, "willy" jokes. It's not my starting perspective, or one I even particularly relate to. Possibly as a man you feel more comfortable with some of these than I do.

I find myself wondering if there's a basic difference in what men and women find funny; that's not to say there isn't shared ground, but perhaps men are more likely to find the more "robust" kind of joke more amusing than a woman would.

I'm thinking of some women I know who've said they don't care much for most comedians and people who set out to deliberately make others laugh; that jokes always seem a bit formulaic; and that they get more amusement out of the spontaneous sort of humour that arises in conversation with friends than out of "set pieces".

I don't know whether there is a gender divide in humour but it might be worth thinking about. I'm also wondering about the cultural differences, American v British humour and so on. Whether that too would influence someone's response to a joke.

Anyway, I'm just speculating, but would be interested to know what others think.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Thanks Phred and welcome. I am sure that Simon will give due attention to your jokes. Good to have you on board.

Pyx_e

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Hmm. I haven’t ever really thought about whether or not differences in humor might be due to gender. I do find that I’m just not interested in most humor that relies on physical traits. If the punch line has anything to do with the fact that we have bodies, and our bodies do certain things (fart, get sexually aroused, whatever) then I usually don’t find it all that funny. I mean, duh, don’t we all know that by now? Where’s the element of surprise?

On the other hand, I don’t find those jokes offensive either. IRL, my distinct lack of coordination provides a certain amount of humor for those around me (I once slipped on patch of ice, feet flying out from under me, and was pulled to my feet by one of my friends who stopped laughing long enough to say “I’m sorry, but I didn’t think that actually happened outside of cartoons.”)

But I’m another one who is basically incapable of getting offended by a text version of a joke posted on a message board - without a person saying it, and without any sense of whether they mean it as a put-down or as a take-down, I really can’t understand why I should be bothered by it. In order to work up any sense of outrage, I have to imagine someone saying it to someone else in an inappropriate context.

But it’s also true that I usually don’t find clowns or anyone else who is self-consciously trying to be funny particularly funny. I’ve been known to go to comedy clubs, but I generally prefer improv groups - where a lot of the humor is spontaneous and based on the interaction between the members of the group - to individual comedians.

Posted by The Dumb Acolyte (# 1158) on :

I'm no statistician, but it's probably useful to look at the scores over time.

It seems to me that both the Offensiveness scores and the Funniness scores have been trending down. Is this Joke fatigue or are the jokes not as funny as before? Is your scoring population getting jaded, or are the jokes not as offensive as before? Is your scoring population remaining reasonably consistent, or are a significant number of early-days scorers retiring, to be replaced with new scorers.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm thinking of some women I know who've said they don't care much for most comedians and people who set out to deliberately make others laugh; that jokes always seem a bit formulaic; and that they get more amusement out of the spontaneous sort of humour that arises in conversation with friends than out of "set pieces".

Anyway, I'm just speculating, but would be interested to know what others think.

The difference between the two groups of people Ariel mentions, and the jokes in the 'Laugh Judgement' though, is that they are spoken rather than written. It occurred to me during the 'Newsnight' broadcast that in order to be really effective you need not only to have a funny joke but also a funny person telling it (eg. that Iranian comedian, or your very funny best friend who always makes you laugh). There was someone interviewed who said, 'I'd choose her because she is funny. It's so important to be funny'.
Sometimes, the jokes posted on 'Laugh Judgement' do not work so well because they are written down.

One of the most popular comedians in Creamtealand is Jethro.
His jokes are as old as the hills, as dirty as dishwater, and choc full of corny cheese. He walks around the stage talking as if you were in his front room. But everyone laughs because he is so darned funny. He is.... well.... just Jethro.

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

Can I ask a genuine question?

I accept that the ship is not going to stop posting peodophile jokes on the board.

I just don't understand why it is not already clear what people think of them, without any need for further examples?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I would imagine it has something to do with the ship not being a democracy. We don't get to vote.

The Sun has not stopped having semi-naked women on page three, and I think it cheap and degrading. So I don't buy it.

The Priest and Pimple is not a new joke, so your premise that the ship is posting “further examples” is not valid.

Not everyone has such a strong negative reaction. Some have found the jokes amusing. They are not to the taste of some, I don’t like cabbage, it takes all sorts.

P

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Hosting

Whilst we may have some talk about this subject I am suggesting that if anyone has a big problem with this they take it to the Styx as it is more to do with ship policy rather than the nature of comedy.

Pyx_e

Hosting

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The Priest and Pimple is not a new joke, so your premise that the ship is posting “further examples” is not valid.

And that isn't at all what I meant.

I meant: we already know how people react to jokes about peodophilia.

I did not mean: the ship is creating new jokes in the sense of jokes that have not been heard before.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The Priest and Pimple is not a new joke, so your premise that the ship is posting “further examples” is not valid.
And that isn't at all what I meant.

I meant: we already know how people react to jokes about peodophilia.

I did not mean: the ship is creating new jokes in the sense of jokes that have not been heard before.

Yes we do know how people react to jokes about Paedophilia; in all sorts of different ways. Not all in the same way. Not all in the same way as you.

My point about the "newness" of the joke in question was that it has been on this board since the 15th July. It is not a furhter example, it is a month old example.

P

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

I'm still not sure you have got what I mean, so I guess I'm not expressing myself clearly.

More importantly, however, Pyx_e, I like you and your a host so: I'm sorry, and I won't post about this matter on this thread again.

I'm considering posting in the Styx about it, but that doesn't mean I will.

Papio.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Erm, well I like you too......... and you can argue the toss with me as much as you want and I will still like you.

I have only posted once as a host suggesting that if you (or anyone else) wants to really get this cleared up then maybe the Styx is the place. So don't go over-respecting me just cos I had to do a little hosting.

You can still pull me up as a shipmate over my answers to your questions cos I was posing as a shipmate. But maybe it's best left til the morning now. God Bless.

P

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Dumb Acolyte:
I'm no statistician, but it's probably useful to look at the scores over time.

It seems to me that both the Offensiveness scores and the Funniness scores have been trending down. Is this Joke fatigue or are the jokes not as funny as before? Is your scoring population getting jaded, or are the jokes not as offensive as before? Is your scoring population remaining reasonably consistent, or are a significant number of early-days scorers retiring, to be replaced with new scorers.

I doubt that the Ship's Captain and First Mate are unaware that this hardly qualifies as a scientific survey, but I think you bring up a couple of interesting points about which shipmates decided to post here and perhaps more important, which ones maintained a presence throughout the entire 'experiment'.

For myself, here's the reaction:

I re-discovered early on in this project what I already knew: jokes out of context and especially in text usually leave me somewhere between lukewarm and cold. Plus I can only listen to/read about three jokes in a row before ennui or something similar sets in.
Perhaps this one is my own fault for not posting without reading every single bit of commentary on this board, but the totally predictable responses ("paedophilia jokes are unacceptable!" "No, it was funny, you're just a prude!") quickly became boring.
Aside from the few jokes (e.g.Christ sinking when attempting to walk on water after the crucifiction) directly related to specific beliefs of a particular religion, most of the jokes (as has been pointed out by numerous others) are either known to be or capable of being told in a multitude of religious/ethnic/cultural/whatever variations and therefore aren't "Christian" jokes per se.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

quote:
Sydney Morning Herald article linked by AM in Styx:
Austen Ivereigh, the director of public affairs for the Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, said some of the shortlisted jokes were distasteful. "Humour in general is a precious thing because it expresses the difference between the way things are and the way things should be," he said.

I thought this was a very meaningful comment on the nature of humour. What may follow from it: humour as an impetus for change, as a means to keep us honest.

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

Have we now seen the whole lot?

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
Have we now seen the whole lot?

Yes, we have. We aren't accepting any new jokes. But the Top 10 have yet to be announced...

Duo Seraphim, Laugh Judgment Host

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
...We aren't accepting any new jokes....

But, in Heaven there is a thread of Jokes Left Behind if you've got any thigh-slappers you didn't submit in time.

Posted by iGeek. (# 3207) on :

It was an interesting experience at Greenbelt hearing the jokes read out loud. Especially, the offensive ones. I reacted to them more intensely than I did when I simply read them.

The top 3 offensive jokes were literally painful to hear (even though I'd read them before here).

But James Carrey (sp?) telling me I ought to repent seemed out of line.

Posted by Little Miss Methodist (# 4367) on :

I found James Carey more offensive than the jokes.

LMM

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek.:
But James Carrey (sp?) telling me I ought to repent seemed out of line.

As I said on Monday, to me that was the single most offensive thing I heard in the whole hour.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Pray, tell me more.

P

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

James Carey was on the panel when Simon and Steve presented the top 10 funniest and most offensive jokes at Greenbelt. He made a big thing of leaving the room while the most offensive ones were told.

His first words on re-entering afterwards were "if anyone laughed at any of those, they should repent right now" (paraphrased - I don't have a perfect memory). Which I found rather offensive, in a "who are you to judge" kind of way.

Posted by Little Miss Methodist (# 4367) on :

He also said, jokingly, that he wanted to leave the room as he didn't want to be struck down dead for listening to that sort of thing. Well, he said he was joking, and i'm sure he was, but then again, he did leave the room...

But it was the idea that we needed to repent that was most offensive. I think he should have gone to the seminar I went to on the saturday morning about whether God has a sense of humour. It wasn't the best seminar ever, but was pretty good, and I think it could have given whats his name some things to think about.

I know its good to have views from lots of different perspectives, but the way he went on and on was inappropriate, and I think I got that feeling from the rest of the audience. But that wasn't the fault of Simon, or Steve or anyone else there, this guy was just determined to have his say.

So, if you want to know what I find offensive about religious humour, its that - being told what I can and can not laugh at, and that if I laugh at some things, then I need forgiveness.

I dunno, i'm sure God has more important things on his mind than striking down dead a group of people just cause they heard some religious jokes. [Roll Eyes]

LMM

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :

I actually found James rather refreshing. It was good to see someone who seemed to really be trying to sort out in his own mind what he should be doing and what he shouldn't. Yes, it was perhaps over the top to tell the rest of us to repent, but he reminded me that my faith is supposed to make a difference to the way I act, and not just in the typically Greenbelty issues of social justice.

Actually the only thing I found a bit off in what he said was his worry about what his church would think, but then I suspect I don't go to a church that's anything like his, so it's easy for me to be brave.

Spong

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

Is James Carey the poster, er, formerly called 'Spawn of Carey'?

Does this count as 'outing'? The poster doesn't hide his connections, though I've never heard his first name.

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

Spawn's first name is different, I believe.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Different Carey. Nuff said.

Pyx_e LJ Host.

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :

Different surname too... James Cary, the columnist for Third Way.

Spong

[ 03. September 2005, 19:14: Message edited by: Spong ]

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

A number of people have commented on how amusing it is to see people discussing humour so serioiusly - with the implication that if we weren't so up ourselves we could just relax and laugh at a joke without having to solemnly analyse it, that to take humour seriously is to miss the whole point.

It's only just occurred to me how wrong-headed this is.

Every area of culture is worth analysing because it a) it reveals how things we are interested in and value work; and b) it reveals something about ourselves and our world.

Both these things are equally true of humour, (b) perhaps even more true of humour than other arts because it works on such a visceral level.

And you don't expect a book about music to be tuneful, or a book about poetry to rhyme, or a book about history to be old. So what on earth is incongruous about talking seriously about humour?

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :

I agree that humour deserves to be analysed seriously, and that, if anything, it's the seemingly 'lighter' elements of culture that deserve to be analysed more closely because they haven't historically been analysed closely at all. For the same reason the Daily Mail-type knee-jerk reaction to media studies courses that look at soaps misses the whole point that analysis of soaps as a cultural phenomenon is not the same as (in fact is the exact opposite of) watching soaps uncritically.

The only thing I don't understand in Steve's post is the reference to people being amused at the serious analysis, because I'm not sure where this is supposed to be. This thread seems mostly to be about reactions and analysis, I'm not sure whether I've missed something on other threads, or whether it is a reference to outside media. If the last, then the problem is surely lazy journalism.

There are only a few responses that journalists are permitted to have to have to Christianity:

a) it's all gone downhill since liberal happy-clappies (sic) took over

b) it's all about sex, and any Christian who is not asexual is hypocritical

c) aligned with b) that it's all about not having any fun and being unworldly

d) (from the left-leaning) that it's nonsense peddled to the superstitious and credulous by the manipulative and power-hungry.

The Laugh Judgment presumably had to be understood in the context of c or d, depending on the publication's political sympathies, neither of which can actually do it justice.

Spong

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0