[Humour] Is any subject taboo when it comes to jokes?

[Thunder Bolt]

Um, sorry mate,, but I have to confess to having absolutely no idea what your post means

Read the thread from the start.
A woman who has been stalked is objecting to a Valentine's card which enhances stalking. The OP doesn't see anything wrong with that, because it is funny.

 

[RossyG]

Read the thread from the start.
A woman who has been stalked is objecting to a Valentine's card which enhances stalking. The OP doesn't see anything wrong with that, because it is funny.

Enhances stalking?

No, it uses it as the subject of 'edgy' humour.

Actual stalkers wouldn't use this card.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So if I were shy, and had liked Enid from the Post Office, from afar, but had gathered up the courage to ask her out on a date or send her a Valentine's Card I'm a pest?

If you had that much courage, you'd ask her out to her face.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Enhances stalking?

No, it uses it as the subject of 'edgy' humour.

Actual stalkers wouldn't use this card.

You think? Are you a criminologist who has studied the minds of stalkers, especially those who murder?

 

[RossyG]

You think? Are you a criminologist who has studied the minds of stalkers, especially those who murder?

Have you?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Have you?

No but I have worked with criminal cases.

 

[RossyG]

No but I have worked with criminal cases.

And I've been out drinking with a few.

As has been said earlier, this woman has decided that she's somehow the victim of a drearily unfunny humour card. As a result, she's shone a huge spotlight on it and given it far more attention than it would otherwise have got. I'm sure the manufacturers are thrilled.

But do you honestly think this card could be successfully charged with incitement?

And do you think it should be banned by the law, that selling it would be a criminal act?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And I've been out drinking with a few.

As has been said earlier, this woman has decided that she's somehow the victim of a drearily unfunny humour card. As a result, she's shone a huge spotlight on it and given it far more attention than it would otherwise have got. I'm sure the manufacturers are thrilled.

But do you honestly think this card could be successfully charged with incitement?

And do you think it should be banned by the law, that selling it would be a criminal act?

No, a police commissioner has seen a card which involves stalking. She isn't the victim of the card, she is the victim of real life stalking.
She has asked for it to be withdrawn from sale, which she has every right to do.

Your post says more about you than it does about her.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

I get what you're saying but are you telling me you've never laughed at a controversial joke where the subject of the joke hasn't affected you personally? Many of us have if you've watched Jimmy Carr, Frankie Boyle, Ricky Gervais etc. They've all made jokes about sensitive subjects but the important thing is the victim is never the butt of the joke. Jokes should never be aimed at someone about a thing they can't help.

Must admit, I can't watch any of the above three. I can't see the humour in Boyle at all, Gervais much or listen to Carr's fake laugh. I guess their appeal shows all comedy has an audience like some don't like my choices of Lee Mack, Harry Hill and yes, McIntyre etc. Some people even still laugh at Mrs Brown's Boys. Perhaps Valentines Day cards will go the way of everything else that could offend, although presumably a nice little card with a heart and a reference to a front hole would be acceptable to us Brightonians.

 

[RossyG]

No, a police commissioner has seen a card which involves stalking. She isn't the victim of the card, she is the victim of real life stalking.
She has asked for it to be withdrawn from sale, which she has every right to do.

Your post says more about you than it does about her.

Yes, it says I believe in freedom of speech. Unfortunately that sometimes means defending silly things like this card, but so it goes. Look after free speech and it looks after you.

She's entitled to complain about the card, but trying to get it banned is something else.

 

[Arthur]

No, a police commissioner has seen a card which involves stalking. She isn't the victim of the card, she is the victim of real life stalking.
She has asked for it to be withdrawn from sale, which she has every right to do.

Your post says more about you than it does about her.

Actually it says more about her. She works in the public eye for the police.....why is she getting upset about a greetings card which is clearly meant as a joke.

Shall we congratulations on your exam results cards in case people who failed theirs get upset? New home cards for people who had their mortgage application turned down? Mother/fathers day in case orphans get the hump?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Actually it says more about her. She works in the public eye for the police.....why is she getting upset about a greetings card which is clearly meant as a joke.

Shall we congratulations on your exam results cards in case people who failed theirs get upset? New home cards for people who had their mortgage application turned down? Mother/fathers day in case orphans get the hump?

Completely missing the point.


Would you object to a card laughing at rape being sent to a rape victim? After all, it's only a joke.

 

[Arthur]

Completely missing the point.


Would you object to a card laughing at rape being sent to a rape victim? After all, it's only a joke.

Not my place to be offended on anyone else's behalf. However if it was done maliciously then yes I would think it was out of order. Likewise I'd think similar if she had been sent the card she is getting upset over.....but no where does it say she has. She has been made aware of it and used her position to cause a fuss which has probably done wonders for the sales of the company in question. I'm sure they are delighted with the free publicity.

So it's a very counterproductive move or her behalf already AND probably now left her open to get sent cards like that.

 

[RossyG]

Would you object to a card laughing at rape being sent to a rape victim? After all, it's only a joke.

Knowingly or accidentally? If knowingly then it's a malicious action, but the card itself isn't malicious. Sending a Mother's Day card to someone who'd lost their child would be malicious, but that's entirely on the sender.

Ideally, people would have the good taste to not buy and send rape joke cards either way. There'd be no market for them at all.

But banning them is going too far. Bad taste isn't yet illegal.

If the police commissioner had appealed to the manufacturers and said, look, I know this is supposed to be a joke, but here's my story and it's happened to others, men and women, and it's not funny, so maybe you could reconsider this, then the ball would be in the makers court. The narrative would be very different.

Instead, she went over the manufacturers heads and demanded it be banned. That just gets people's backs up.

As a public figure she should've realised this, but the "Ban this sick filth" crowd never think rationally. The air is thin up there when you're mounted on a high horse.

 

[Napper]

Respect your opinion Thunder Bolt but f k me , I would literally hate to be you and offended by everything. Your head must be shredded daily , hourly , constantly.

Take it you dont have lad mates ?

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

I like Frankie Boyle but I don't agree with these cards.
I think she is correct and they should be taken off sale.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Surprised South Park hasn't already been PURGED from the approved list of Woke Sharia Law comedies. Mind you, would be a pretty thin list. Would probably only comprise Mrs Brown Boys, Miranda Hart falling over, and anything by national treasure by default 'Sir' Lenny Henry. Collectively about as funny as a tooth abscess

Well Mrs Brown's Boys stereotypes the Irish and could be offensive to transvestites. I'd whip it off air now, just in case.







(to be replaced either by South Park or Frankie Boyle)

 

[Perkino]

No subject is taboo. One of the greatest warnings we have for people is the hideously poor choices that others have made previously.

When I first saw Reginald D Hunter he did a routine about how he admired Fritzl, Austrian who locked away his daughter and fathered children with her. The context was about how he felt inferior to him because he couldn't build a dungeon underneath his house and had never shown such devotion to anything. Although shocking I never felt like he was promoting the scenario equally ignoring outrageous behaviours got the BBC into a bit of trouble a few years ago.

 

[Seagull58]

A comedian in the US tried out a few 9/11 jokes in 2002 but he didn't get any laughs so abandoned them. I assume they weren't very funny.
I got a ban from NSC for making a, (very amusing, I feel) comment about Ali J that played on his Iranian citizenship. I was banned because I, supposedly, compared him to a suicide bomber. So, in the case of NSC mods the bar is not very high. IT WAS A JOKE!

 

[m@goo]

No subject is taboo. One of the greatest warnings we have for people is the hideously poor choices that others have made previously.

When I first saw Reginald D Hunter he did a routine about how he admired Fritzl, Austrian who locked away his daughter and fathered children with her. The context was about how he felt inferior to him because he couldn't build a dungeon underneath his house and had never shown such devotion to anything. Although shocking I never felt like he was promoting the scenario equally ignoring outrageous behaviours got the BBC into a bit of trouble a few years ago.

The joke works because the butt of the joke wasn't the victim, the butt of the joke was Hunter himself. It's something that some people can't grasp. It's perfectly fine to do jokes about Fritzl, the holocaust, cancer, disability but the butt of the joke can't be the victims. Good comedy punches up as they say, not down.