With all due respect, I think you and Techman are missing the point. First, to recognize that something said was meant for humour doesn't necessarly qualify it as "funny" and even less as "harmless humour". People like Andrew Dice Clay make ("made" in ADC's case) a good living from derogatory humour, sadly. This kind of humour exists, regretfully, and is celebrated by a large segment of people I would be tempted to describe here but won't, for fear of uttering stereotypes.Roland said:So ..BD and JC..enjoy it ..its funny for you... , and others too...if that`s what you like...but don`t start bashing us who go against this , because it is our nature
Secondly, the point of contemption is not whether or not the seminal post of this thread is funny or not. As I can see, we all pretty much agree that this is one more sample of low-life humour, filled with stereotypes and suggestions of women being nothing more than a physiological outlet. The point of contemption would be of a different nature - "freedom of speech" - and in this view, it was pointed out quite correctly that freedom of speech provides ill-intentioned people, idiots and their followers with a convenient tribune where they can utter their crap. Still, where I disagree with some of the comments made here, is to disqualify one's defence of freedom of speech on account of his supposed intentions: one who defends the principle doesn't necessarly defend everything the said principle would encompass (i.e. derogatory humour).
Tertio: if one stresses the importance of being able to "draw the line" (i.e. "how to shoot up a University campus and get away with it"), that same person must be aware of the problems of doing so: (1) who decides where the line should be drawn? (2) when does "drawing the line" become abusive? (3) Do we really know the opinion of those who are targeted by the derogations? (4) Does censorship help us, as a society, to become "better" (i.e. better educated, more sensitive and understanding, etc...)
- Someone displays a particular sensitivity over "humour" (let's call it this way to facilitate the discussion) directed towards strippers, which is reasonable. Now, let's say a group of people get all bent out of shape over a cartoon of - say - Mahomet () and that same someone who defends strippers comes up and tells the cartoon bashers: "relax, people, this is just humour". Well, sorry, but who died lately to make him God? That person is entitled to his opinion but he, by himself, doesn't have the power to draw the line for everyone (only for himself).
- Another problem with drawing the line is to know where. Dissident humour directed towards political powers, for one, can be easely marginalized whenever we draw the line. In a society of fearful (say, of terrorist attacks), technocratized (i.e. educated in strict accordance with job market requirements), distracted (by the entertainment business and pro sports), quickly-connected to/quickly disconnected from world affairs (thanks to the medias flooding citizens with continually refreshed information conveniently deprived of analysis) and passive ("I vote once every four years, hence I'm a democrat") citizens, the line can be drawn wherever the oppresive powers, religious lobbies or any sans-humour with an agenda decide to.
- Where I buy bread, every Tuesdays, there's this dude confined to a wheelchair parked near the front door. A nice guy I never miss a chance to chat with. He told me about the car accident that got the better of his spinal cord. He also made an interesting comment on humour: "Why is it that no one ever makes fun of paraplegics? I feel left out!" He noticed my frown and explained the following: "If everyone "normal" can be a target for mockery and "paraplegics" can't or shouldn't, that means paraplegics are not "normal", right?" So I asked him: "but where do you draw the line?" He simply answered; "Hey, if someone gets out of line, I'll know, and I'm capable of shooting some of my own humour at him."
- Finally, aren't we hiding our heads in the sand by censoring humour? From an educational standpoint, wouldn't we benefit more collectively from debunking and shooting back at this kind of humour than by just pretending it doesn't exist?
Last edited: