When Is a Joke Not a Joke?
Everybody loves a good joke. It's good for your heart and soul, and they say that laughter is even good for your health. But when is a joke not a joke? Is it a matter of sensitivities, or who's telling the joke, or just being too PC?
There are some jokes, that everyone finds funny. It seems to pick on a group that won't take it personally, like Lawyers. Everyone loves a good lawyer joke. "What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?" A good start.....see no offense. Although I am pretty sure that lawyers must be bored with them by now. Politicians are good fodder for jokes too, but I leave them alone for Jon, Jay, Dave.
For some reason....if your throw a Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister together in a joke....that is fair game. Maybe it's because you are not picking on one religious group. Same thing if you throw a Italian, Greek and a Jew together...I guess so long as you don't pick on one group it's OK. Blonds are fair game, too. I guess they have a better sense of humor than redheads or brunettes. "What do you call hoop earrings on a blond? Stirrups! See, funny and OK. Maybe it's just because they are too dumb. Anyone can tell a J.A.P. (Jewish American Princess )Joke. What does a JAP make for dinner? Reservations. Now why is that OK? Maybe it's because Jews have been such a big part of the comedic scene for such a long time, and can don't mind poking fun at themselves. The Polish people have been the brunt of many a joke. Some don't mind having it told by a person who is not Polish, others do. Why? And by the same token, why can't people do cross racial jokes? Is it just not as funny when someone from a different race tells a good joke, because in the back of your mind, their might be told with assumed malice? Can't it just be that it was told for the same reason that a person from the same race would tell it? It was funny.
It seems that it also matters who is telling the Joke. If you are going to bust on a group of people, you better be one of them. Blacks can tell black jokes, Jews can tell Jew jokes, and Greeks can tell gay jokes....no wait...I didn't mean that, LOL! See what I mean? The only comedian that has been able to tell cross ethnic jokes all these years is Don Rickles. I'm not sure why? Is it because he is an equal opportunity jokester, or is it because his advanced age has earned him the privilege to do so? In fact, very few comedians can tell a joke out of their demographics without repercussions. Is it just not as funny when it comes from another source or have we just become too over sensitive...too PC? Or is it just that it is rude to do so. So I must ask, when is a joke not a joke?
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
Since we seem to be a pile of ball busters here... let's get to the issue.
BTW... THIS IS NOT META!!!
This sounds like a measurement question. What comes to mind immediately is the classroom.
At what pace can a teacher teach a lesson? For those who have taught, the answer is simple:
You can only teach at the pace of the slowest child in the class. When I learned of that, many years ago, I realized why school was so very boring for me.
When is a joke not a joke? Well, you have to know everyone in the room, and then you have to know who the most sensitive person in the room is, and just how sensitive they are. Must be careful not to upset them, eh?
I'm sure there are other examples, but the sweeping message is that we are held back by the laggards. We are forced to cater to those who could never rule, except for the rules that somehow gave these weak, stupid and sensitive people the power that they do not deserve.
I dont see how you can say Don Rickles was the only person to tell cross ethnic jokes. I can think of many without even running any sort of search, from Greg Giraldo to Lisa Lampanelli to basically any comic out there right now. The real issues happen when somebody not commonly seen as a comedian begins telling those same jokes, or responds to situations in such a fashion. Personally, i am racially insensitive in that i could care less about your race, but also could care less about any fallout from telling a racial joke. As far as I'm concerned, stereotypes in particular are made to poke fun at. Do i need to start telling racial jokes to prove my point, and yet also demonstrate how falsely outraged many of our own members will react when reading them?
I totally disagree. There is always going to be someone who is offended by anything. This is a far deeper question. It goes to intent.
Jon: I absolutely agree, and quite frankly, that was as well written an analysis as i have ever read.
I agree. I was also thinking of Dave Chapell, too. But Don was the first to do it and continued to do it, so I kind of think of him as the god father of equal opportunity busting.
So are you saying only comedians are the only people who can tell loaded jokes?
Why stop at race? Why not religion, too?
If you feel it necessary to prove a point, yes. The issue is why are some jokes taken as OK and others get people freaked out?
I'm sure there are other examples, but the sweeping message is that we are held back by the laggards.
Well that pretty much sums it up for me. I agree completely.
So you and Jon are going with the lowest common denominator theory. Yet people go to see these comedians. Why is that? I am sure they are not going to get their noses bent out of joint.
OK, let's talk a bit about Jonathan's comment:
That is an ironic statement. Almost comedic in it's self. How did the weak get so much power? Who is doing the forcing? Who is setting the standards?
So are you saying only comedians are the only people who can tell loaded jokes?
Yes, without negative publicity.
Why stop at race? Why not religion, too?
I think you know i have no problem assaulting religion, jokingly or in all seriousness. The most ridiculous notion in existence throughout our world is religion, as personified by deification.
If you feel it necessary to prove a point, yes. The issue is why are some jokes taken as OK and others get people freaked out?
Because plenty of people have an inherent desire to be offended and also like to control what everybody else says and does. Tie back to religion: a god complex. Also, as Jonathon said, we are held back by idiots and chumps.
D'Wayne,
Thank you for your kind words.
Perrie,
While there is always something that will strike someone the wrong way, there are degrees of sensitivity.
And as far as intent is concerned, these days it is the LISTENER who's got the "intent". Most people are just waiting for someone to say something so that they can call them out on it, or call their HR department. Again, the stupid and weak were given a club. And because they're stupid and weak, they swing it without thinking, and are given a pass on the consequences of their newfound power.
How did the weak get so much power? Who is doing the forcing? Who is setting the standards?
I would say this is a liberal and socialist mindset, exclusively. Handouts for those who would otherwise fail miserably.
The PC police.
The people that have removed words from the lexicon because they "offend" people.
Midget, retard, oriental, cripple, Negro, etc...
The weak are only as powerful as we let them be. So the strong are giving up their power?
How did the weak get so much power? Who is doing the forcing? Who is setting the standards?
Because plenty of people have an inherent desire to be offended and also like to control what everybody else says and does.
The standards, in my opinion, are set by the same people that have the aforementioned inherent desire to be offended. Too many people refuse to see that a world exists outside of their self imposed bubble. Eventually it devolves into a schoolyard mentality. "My daddy is better than yours..." Ya know...that kind of stuff. People don't like having their comfort bubble popped and the only way they can feel truly secure is to force their mindset on others who would blindly hop into the bubble with them.
It does sound a little redistributionist, but I was attempting to avoid the political angle.
Yet liberals make up just a small part of our population. So there must be more to this than that?
There's nothing in the Constitution about our comfort.
We do NOT have the right to be COMFORTABLE.
That is NOT an inalienable right.
So you are immune from any such words? Do we want to go there?
Maybe it only bothers us, when those word reflect who we are?
I sure as shit didn't give it to them.
Again, I hate to politicize, but this is quite a redistribution, if you ask me.
It's unavoidable. The topic of over sensitivity or political correctness directly ties to politics and the way the popular media pushes a specific agenda. If i was the type of person to piece together fragments and craft a larger picture, i would say the overarching and largely successful agenda was and is the eradication of the middle class...the middle class being the only true protection the people have from complete tyranny. Just sayin'.
BTW, at this point I want to be clear, that I am being just Devil's advocate.
I am immune to any such words personally.
I know that.
You know that.
Too bad the multitude of people whining about being offended don't.
We don't say "retard" anymore. Why? The word "retard" is clearly defined as "delayed". What could be more euphemistic to a permanently handicapped person than to label them "delayed"?
If you are offended by "cripple", it's probably because you are. But that's what the word means.
Negro. Now there's a good one. The Spanish word for "black". Veeeeeeery offensive, no?
Oriental? People from the Orient? WTF?
We used to call people who are of less than normal intelligence, Retarded, not retard. That wasn't used even in the good old 60's. It was considered to be nasty.
Crippled... there you got me.
Negro. Well, it's still called the NAACP, right? I really don't see the word as being offensive, as much as outdated. But why not use the English word black? Why a Spanish one? Ahhh.. maybe it was because of the history of the word. The Spanish were the first slave traders. African-American cracks me up. A wholecontinent? Kind of vague.
Oriental. That one is easy. Colonialism. No one but Europeans referred to that region as the Orient. And what is Oriental? Which countries are they? But we know what the Far east is, right? We know what Chinese are right? Words just become antiquated. No biggie.
Still missing the point. Can I make a joke about Chinese people? Black people? Crippled, I mean handicapped people?
What do you call a girl with one leg?
Peg.
What do you call her after you take the peg away?
Ileane
Shel,
OMG. I must have hit a cord with you! That is the longest post you have ever made here, LOL!
A very interesting observation. Sobasically, if I get you right, the people with the chip on their shoulders just make everyone else so uncomfortable, that everyone else folds? But then the weak do have the power, as they must be saying something to make everyone else uncomfortable?
This is true and it rubs both ways.
But we have gotten away from a big hunk of this. And that is the capacity to tell a joke, especially an off colored one.
So why do we listen to the whinners?
And when is a joke really not a joke?
But then the weak do have the power, as they must be saying something to make everyone else uncomfortable?
I see it as the non-whiners caving in somewhat to shut up the whiners. I don't think that the "weak" so to speak are capable of making others uncomfortable with what they say. If that were the case, then everyone would be completely taken aback with everything and the whole world would be populated with those that lag. At that point, Earth might as well be demolished and an intergalactic highway built in its place....
I'm ok with theirreverentand the baudy; it takes a lot to turn me off a joke. But I have to admit that there are some subjects I've heard joked about, that I found rather cruel and went beyond being jokes. There is no reason forcensor though as our society for the most part filters types ofhumortowards those looking for it. I mean a person maybe doesn't hear jokes about rape victims or the Holocaust, but they are out there. I chose not to participate in them.
ROFL! I have to agree with you there Shel!
But really then we only have ourselves to blame. But I actually don't think that the weak are really weak. I think that they play at being weak.
Example:For years Jerry Lewis held his telathon for M.D. Then a group of people who had M.D. tried to make it sound like he was abusing people with M.D. and he found himself on the defense. Then he actually backed up and realized that he was being bullied by a small minority and that he was doing what he was passionate about, ever since his own son DXed with M.D. Moral of the story, do we give in to stupidity even if we are uncomfortable?
John,
So for you, a joke stops being a Joke when it serves tohumiliatesa group. How do you feel when a member of that group, tells a joke about the same group.
For instance, there is a comedian, Ralphie Mae, who is obese. He tells lots of fat jokes. Is he beinginsensitive? Can he tell these jokes because he is obese, or are they just as in poor taste, in your opinion?
I think the best way to demonstrate is to show:
An excellent point. There is an audience for everything, even the tasteless. I have heard my fair share of trulytastelessjokes... the ones that go to places like youdescribed. So obviously, we know when a joke has gone to far. And this is where I was hoping we would go. What is it that makes us know when a joke is just not a joke, but sick or cruel.
Now we are getting to the crux of the issue.
As an example.
My work place requires that all employees must complete a set of lessons and testing annually. They cover theusual,harassment, privacy, patient rights, and so on. This year they changed the test wording to include questions and answers that now include the phrase "reasonable person". Now granted, these are merely so the facility and it's insurance cover their asses; but, I found itinteresting. Not "most people", or "most smart people" or even "anybody not an ignoramus". "Reasonable". And in a way that makes sense.
The problem of course arises then what is reasonable? That's not really correct either in my way of thinking...way tooambiguous
So what I would prefer is something along the lines of a valuation. If something said is of no or low value, it's ok to just leave it at that. There really doesn't need to be a whole lot read into a joke if it holds no value. If a joke or type of humor bombs, sometimes it's not bad timing or writing, sometimes it's the subject matter.
Sobasically, your saying that common sense should rule. No fight from me.
Cool!
Penis jokes are usually funny, too.
Love him! He's a riot!
I somewhat disagree.
Yes, the media has played into PCness. It has also done the reactionaryopposite, i.e.
This one is for Jonathan.
But what Jeff has provided is comic relief for something that is painful. Notice he uses the word terrorist. Now I know, some Muslims out there might be offended, since his name is Achmed, but hey, that is the way it is right now. If this was England in the 70's, his name would have been Sean O'Brian.
Larry was more on track to when a joke isn't a joke, once we remove the PCaspect. Intent. Think. My kids fool around with their friends. With their black friends both sides say what the rest of us adults would perceive as not PC and when I say not PC, I mean scary stuff. Friendship, is the tie that lets each knows that they are just kidding. No ill intent.
But if they are in a room where they might not know the black folks, well, I doubt they would say that stuff, because the those black folks don't know my daughters' intent.
And some jokes are just not funny and are designed to hurt. As Larry pointed out, there is nothing funny about a holocaust joke... although I am sure they have theiraudience, too.
.
Yeah; butcommon sense just isn't nearly as common as one would hope though.
Human resourcesresponse "well you seem like a reasonable person..."
Yup!
Cracks me up!
Nor is it determined by any medium greater than the individual telling it or the people hearing the joke(s) being told. As such, there will never be a time when a joke goes too far, and there will always be a time when a joke goes too far. I conclude therefore that a joke is a joke, and prefer to leave it at that without trying to determine whether this moment or that is the exact point in time when it slips into being inappropriate, even if that moment lasts but a second, and especially because it's determination is always in the moment.
Exactly.
Very seldom do I ask myself if a joke went too far...I either like it or don't.
:~)
Yup and reminds me of what you were saying over on another article. Reasonableness means docility; again another word to add to the list alongside "moderate", "Progressive", "liberal"...
HR most likely response..."Were there any other witnesses?"
Hell yeah, they duck for cover at every turn.
I spent about 4 months in HR every single day. Not the coolest thing ever. Finally got them on our side though.
Then of course we must come up with a compositefacialrecognition system, determine the limits of face lines that determine a smile versus thesuppressionof a sneeze, assemble at least a half dozen committees, run everything through the lawyer, and then...then...argue about it for a few years.
In the meantime, just to stay reasonable, all sneezing or thesuppressingof sneezes, must take place in bathrooms.
Jeesh what a pain in the ass.
I think the more people deal with HR the more they realize the that entiredepartmentis nothing but a buffer between employees, the company, the lawyers and insurance. HR by their very nature are built to run for cover.
yep. They basically suck balls....but not in a good way.
Dang it. For the very first time I have a real desire to use the term teabaggers andmustn'tbecause, well...never mind.
LOL
;^)
Everything doesn't come down to politics. And this has been going on evenduringRepublican control. This is something far deeper than just blaming the liberals.
Hey! What's wrong with the word moderate? Why must things be extreme? There is a time and place for both, and neither is bad, so long as they don'texistin avacuum.
Micro expressions. An amazing science. I once wrote about it... somewhere else.
Well, I won't be defending HR either.
Dang! 4 months of it Peter. How didn't you loose your mind?
That's just it Perrie, Nothing wrong with any of those words. It's themisappropriationof those words that starts to fog everything over.
I kinda remember a little about it. I know that the last time we went over the border they required photo IDs that presented a 3-point angle of focus for that very purpose.
Micro expressions are the quick little tell tale facial movements we all are hard wired to make. To people who can read them, they are more reliable than a liedetectortest.