This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I generally enjoy climbers' humour, which can be pretty black at times, but for some time have been bored and sometimes offended by jokes that just attack a minority for being a minority. Of course the new hate crime legislation deals with the worst of this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
As an aside I usually don't mind humour being used to attack the particular politics of a minority.
This was prompted by what I saw as a pretty below the belt joke about vegan men on the other thread that got way more likes than dislikes. So, rather than more ( frankly childish) likes and dislikes, what are the views of UKC on minority jokes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
As an aside I usually don't mind humour being used to attack the particular politics of a minority.
This was prompted by what I saw as a pretty below the belt joke about vegan men on the other thread that got way more likes than dislikes. So, rather than more ( frankly childish) likes and dislikes, what are the views of UKC on minority jokes.
8
43
In reply to Offwidth:
Being the one who made the 'Hate Crime' joke, (also known as a 'bias-motivated crime' joke, I can assure you that is was not;
Violent,
ethnicity related,
disability related,
language related,
nationality related,
physical appearance related,
religion related,
gender identity related or,
sexual orientation related.
It also, in my mind at least, did not involve either;
physical assault,
damage to property,
bullying,
harassment.
verbal assault or insults,
mate crime (whatever the hell that is!) or,
offensive graffiti.
Do you know why?
Because it was a F*CKING JOKE! That's why!
Being the one who made the 'Hate Crime' joke, (also known as a 'bias-motivated crime' joke, I can assure you that is was not;
Violent,
ethnicity related,
disability related,
language related,
nationality related,
physical appearance related,
religion related,
gender identity related or,
sexual orientation related.
It also, in my mind at least, did not involve either;
physical assault,
damage to property,
bullying,
harassment.
verbal assault or insults,
mate crime (whatever the hell that is!) or,
offensive graffiti.
Do you know why?
Because it was a F*CKING JOKE! That's why!
63
11
In reply to Offwidth:
I think they're fine, as long as the person making them is a member of that minority group.
Otherwise it depends on context; what might be fine amongst a group of friends, where the contrast between what is said and what is known to be believed is understood, doesn't work online.
T.
I think they're fine, as long as the person making them is a member of that minority group.
Otherwise it depends on context; what might be fine amongst a group of friends, where the contrast between what is said and what is known to be believed is understood, doesn't work online.
T.
7
5
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
That's me screwed then, 'cos I'm not a vegan!
> I think they're fine, as long as the person making them is a member of that minority group.
That's me screwed then, 'cos I'm not a vegan!
16
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Depends totally on the minority. Race, sexual orientation, etc, never funny because they're minorities that people don't choose to be part of who've been shat on by the mainstream for centuries. Taking the piss out of people for having these attributes is a pathetic form of humour. Religions, political groups etc, that people choose to be part of, generally fair game. That said, I'd struggle to find a joke about say Sikhs funny because it would probably have to involve some crass generalisation about their appearance rather than make fun of what they actually believe (since I have no idea what they believe, I just know they wear turbans).
> what are the views of UKC on minority jokes.
Depends totally on the minority. Race, sexual orientation, etc, never funny because they're minorities that people don't choose to be part of who've been shat on by the mainstream for centuries. Taking the piss out of people for having these attributes is a pathetic form of humour. Religions, political groups etc, that people choose to be part of, generally fair game. That said, I'd struggle to find a joke about say Sikhs funny because it would probably have to involve some crass generalisation about their appearance rather than make fun of what they actually believe (since I have no idea what they believe, I just know they wear turbans).
11
4
In reply to Oceanrower:
There's your problem. Lay off the meat and other stuff for a couple of weeks and then try making the same joke again.
T.
There's your problem. Lay off the meat and other stuff for a couple of weeks and then try making the same joke again.
T.
6
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
If God didn't want me to eat meat, He wouldn't have made bacon taste so good.
I am all ready for another flaming. God botherer's and vegans unite!
If God didn't want me to eat meat, He wouldn't have made bacon taste so good.
I am all ready for another flaming. God botherer's and vegans unite!
19
1
In reply to Offwidth:
It's pretty standard tbh. Any time anyone posts something about veganism or vegetarianism you can bet it will only be a few posts before the same tired old comments get wheeled out. I'm sure the same is true of other topics too.
It's pretty standard tbh. Any time anyone posts something about veganism or vegetarianism you can bet it will only be a few posts before the same tired old comments get wheeled out. I'm sure the same is true of other topics too.
Post edited at 23:26
8
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
Given the amount of wind a vegan diet can cause (to judge from the evidence of my younger brother in law), a flexible vegan with a lighter might give you a more literal flaming than you anticipate.
T.
Given the amount of wind a vegan diet can cause (to judge from the evidence of my younger brother in law), a flexible vegan with a lighter might give you a more literal flaming than you anticipate.
T.
8
1
In reply to: offwidth
Away and either eat some pies, or lose some weight... awkwardly widthed c*nt that you are
Away and either eat some pies, or lose some weight... awkwardly widthed c*nt that you are
5
1
In reply to Offwidth:
My view? That there are far more sanctimonious, po-faced, holier than thou, self-obsessed, humourless, right-on, PC obsessed wankers on a climbing forum that I ever thought humanly possible.
JW
My view? That there are far more sanctimonious, po-faced, holier than thou, self-obsessed, humourless, right-on, PC obsessed wankers on a climbing forum that I ever thought humanly possible.
JW
43
5
In reply to Offwidth:
Prompted by this thread to find the offending joke, I'm just blown away by your lack of a sense of humour. I thought it was one of the better things I've read this morning. How you could be so offended by it as to start a thread about it, is just beyond me.
Prompted by this thread to find the offending joke, I'm just blown away by your lack of a sense of humour. I thought it was one of the better things I've read this morning. How you could be so offended by it as to start a thread about it, is just beyond me.
32
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Telling people to have a sense of humour about things they feel are important is easy advice to give but hard advice to take.
Telling people to have a sense of humour about things they feel are important is easy advice to give but hard advice to take.
11
In reply to Oceanrower:
I never said I regarded your joke as a hate crime even though it could be regarded by some as hateful insult to a specified group. I just thought it offensive to vegans for no good reasons that I could see. All sorts of non specfied minorities get nastily bullied at times, the ginger haired would be another example. So lets get back to the wider debate please.
I never said I regarded your joke as a hate crime even though it could be regarded by some as hateful insult to a specified group. I just thought it offensive to vegans for no good reasons that I could see. All sorts of non specfied minorities get nastily bullied at times, the ginger haired would be another example. So lets get back to the wider debate please.
Post edited at 10:08
1
17
In reply to Offwidth:
In fact I've just remembered this 'real life' illustration of the joke from a TV series back in the 90s. Gary is trying it on with a girl in a pub and finds she is a vegan:
Gary: I've been a Vulcan for 25 years.
Sylvia: Vulcan? Don't you mean "vegan"?
Gary: What, with these ears?
So should we be offended here on the behalf of vegans or everyone with big ears? Or both?
In fact I've just remembered this 'real life' illustration of the joke from a TV series back in the 90s. Gary is trying it on with a girl in a pub and finds she is a vegan:
Gary: I've been a Vulcan for 25 years.
Sylvia: Vulcan? Don't you mean "vegan"?
Gary: What, with these ears?
So should we be offended here on the behalf of vegans or everyone with big ears? Or both?
17
In reply to Offwidth:
The Vegan thing is a total red herring, the joke was about the insincerity of the male not about vegans.
Show me a male Ed Sheeran fan and I'll show you a male trying to shag an Ed Sheeran fan.
As a male I am mortally offended, I have never feigned interest in a ladies beliefs to make myself more attractive, no sir not me.
The Vegan thing is a total red herring, the joke was about the insincerity of the male not about vegans.
Show me a male Ed Sheeran fan and I'll show you a male trying to shag an Ed Sheeran fan.
As a male I am mortally offended, I have never feigned interest in a ladies beliefs to make myself more attractive, no sir not me.
Post edited at 10:25
33
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm amazed you found that offensive to vegans (I assume). I thought it was a joke based on the human condition ie. bloke will do anything for a shag. It's not saying people hate vegans, simply correctly observing most people aren't vegans. As a bloke, I could take offence that it implies I'll do anything for a shag, but...
I'm amazed you found that offensive to vegans (I assume). I thought it was a joke based on the human condition ie. bloke will do anything for a shag. It's not saying people hate vegans, simply correctly observing most people aren't vegans. As a bloke, I could take offence that it implies I'll do anything for a shag, but...
Post edited at 10:26
14
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
We appear to have had an identical take on it. I'm sure we'll soon find out why we're both wrong....
We appear to have had an identical take on it. I'm sure we'll soon find out why we're both wrong....
8
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
This.
Sorry Steve, I think you are tilting at windmills this time.
> The Vegan thing is a total red herring, the joke was about the insincerity of the male not about vegans.
This.
Sorry Steve, I think you are tilting at windmills this time.
7
In reply to Offwidth:
Apologies for referring to a 'red herring'.
It was not my intention to offend vegans by using fish, or indeed any other animal based phrases in my post.
Apologies for referring to a 'red herring'.
It was not my intention to offend vegans by using fish, or indeed any other animal based phrases in my post.
26
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'm OK with that. Lampoon the theism within a group, but not the group because it is a group.
I'm OK with that. Lampoon the theism within a group, but not the group because it is a group.
1
9
In reply to Offwidth:
I didn't even think it was aimed at vegan men (if I'm thinking about the same joke), I saw it as aimed at men, just made in the context of a vegan thread.
> below the belt joke about vegan men
I didn't even think it was aimed at vegan men (if I'm thinking about the same joke), I saw it as aimed at men, just made in the context of a vegan thread.
5
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
The second best thing I've read today!
> Apologies for referring to a 'red herring'.
> It was not my intention to offend vegans by using fish, or indeed any other animal based phrases in my post.
The second best thing I've read today!
Post edited at 10:59
10
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
The insecurity rather than insincerity of some people maybe. Men are not unique in some of the bizarre arrangements to get sex or a relationship or the use of sex to obtain posession. I'm aware the joke is an old one and that it is a joke: Bernard Manning built a career on such things. Maybe the people around me are a sad, limp offshoot of the plague of the modern feminist agenda; this sickly sweet swamp of a people-bath emanatating a nihilism that stops proper public comment.... funny because they seem distinctive and vital enough when they explain what was so wrong with the likes of Bernard.
The insecurity rather than insincerity of some people maybe. Men are not unique in some of the bizarre arrangements to get sex or a relationship or the use of sex to obtain posession. I'm aware the joke is an old one and that it is a joke: Bernard Manning built a career on such things. Maybe the people around me are a sad, limp offshoot of the plague of the modern feminist agenda; this sickly sweet swamp of a people-bath emanatating a nihilism that stops proper public comment.... funny because they seem distinctive and vital enough when they explain what was so wrong with the likes of Bernard.
Post edited at 10:54
1
6
In reply to Dave Garnett:
The internet was probably made for Don Q (but I'll finish the book first before I firm up my opinion). The vegan joke is a partly a means to an end (and much of my reaction would be the emotive response because I have good friends who are vegans): my interest is in broader attitudes to minority jokes, especially in public places, like UKC, by climbers.
Jokes get treated in funny ways: Fiend made an edgy April fool joke about Rockfax and it got dumped into the pub so that it dies.
The internet was probably made for Don Q (but I'll finish the book first before I firm up my opinion). The vegan joke is a partly a means to an end (and much of my reaction would be the emotive response because I have good friends who are vegans): my interest is in broader attitudes to minority jokes, especially in public places, like UKC, by climbers.
Jokes get treated in funny ways: Fiend made an edgy April fool joke about Rockfax and it got dumped into the pub so that it dies.
4
3
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
That's enough to depress anyone.
> There's your problem. Lay off the meat and other stuff for a couple of weeks ....
That's enough to depress anyone.
2
In reply to Skyfall:
Yeah, and he's dead now. See where they got him...
> But Manning made jokes directly at the expense of minority groups.
Yeah, and he's dead now. See where they got him...
6
In reply to Skyfall:
Speaking as a lesbian vegan I can tell you this is an outrage!!!
(some of this might not be true)
> I'm amazed you found that offensive to vegans (I assume). I thought it was a joke based on the human condition ie. bloke will do anything for a shag.
Speaking as a lesbian vegan I can tell you this is an outrage!!!
(some of this might not be true)
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I don't think vegans can be put in the same group as, for example, an ethnic minority. Veganism is a choice. Making jokes at their expense is no different (unless I suppose they claim religious reasons- whether religious groups should be protected is a while different field) to making jokes at the expense of Tories- another self selecting group...
I don't think vegans can be put in the same group as, for example, an ethnic minority. Veganism is a choice. Making jokes at their expense is no different (unless I suppose they claim religious reasons- whether religious groups should be protected is a while different field) to making jokes at the expense of Tories- another self selecting group...
8
12
In reply to Siward:
I'd say the same about out of context jokes involving pretending to be a tory to shag a girl (even though I know someone who did this).
I was watching Stewart Lee last week and was pretty uncomfortable with his Richard Littlejohn sketch, despite being pissed off with most of what his target writes. Is hatefullness usefully cathartic in humour or does it just build on itself?
I'd say the same about out of context jokes involving pretending to be a tory to shag a girl (even though I know someone who did this).
I was watching Stewart Lee last week and was pretty uncomfortable with his Richard Littlejohn sketch, despite being pissed off with most of what his target writes. Is hatefullness usefully cathartic in humour or does it just build on itself?
Post edited at 11:18
1
6
1
1
In reply to Siward:
There is some research indicating genetic links to veganism now
youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ&
There is some research indicating genetic links to veganism now
youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ&
4
In reply to Offwidth:
I bet you're a barrel of laughs to get stuck in a lift with?
> I'd say the same about out of context jokes involving pretending to be a tory to shag a girl (even though I know someone who did this).
> I was watching Stewart Lee last week and was pretty uncomfortable with his Richard Littlejohn sketch, despite being pissed off with most of what his target writes. Is hatefullness usefully cathartic in humour or does it just build on itself?
I bet you're a barrel of laughs to get stuck in a lift with?
14
2
2
In reply to Goucho:
With a man who tells vegetarian oral sex jokes I would probably stick to climbing tales as it would make the time go faster and more pleasantly.
With a man who tells vegetarian oral sex jokes I would probably stick to climbing tales as it would make the time go faster and more pleasantly.
7
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Veganism is not a protected characteristic under UK law. Hate crime (horrible term, the idea that a murder can be not a hate crime is abhorant) requires in my understanding an attack on a protected characteristic.
You might ask "why is veganism not a protected characteristic" - because for almost all people it is a choice they make, not one nature/circumstances make for them.
Veganism is not a protected characteristic under UK law. Hate crime (horrible term, the idea that a murder can be not a hate crime is abhorant) requires in my understanding an attack on a protected characteristic.
You might ask "why is veganism not a protected characteristic" - because for almost all people it is a choice they make, not one nature/circumstances make for them.
Post edited at 11:42
3
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Racist.
> I generally enjoy climbers' humour, which can be pretty black at times,
Racist.
14
15
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Maybe I did as I intimated above but there was little context (unlike the funny on several levels Vulcan version). I remain to be convinced Oceanrower is something like a secret feminist commenting on male insecurity or insincerity. Face to face in a pub I could tell (most telling such jokes face to face seem oddly hateful to me).
Maybe I did as I intimated above but there was little context (unlike the funny on several levels Vulcan version). I remain to be convinced Oceanrower is something like a secret feminist commenting on male insecurity or insincerity. Face to face in a pub I could tell (most telling such jokes face to face seem oddly hateful to me).
Post edited at 12:20
8
In reply to Offwidth:
Should a joke be regarded as offensive or hateful due to the percentage of people that belong to the subset of the population that are the butt of the humour?
If so, at what threshold does it become offensive?
Regarding the joke that you took offence over, was it aimed at vegans, men for being shallow or women for being gullible. It was a joke about human traits and that was the only reason that so many people found it funny.
> I generally enjoy climbers' humour, which can be pretty black at times, but for some time have been bored and sometimes offended by jokes that just attack a minority for being a minority. Of course the new hate crime legislation deals with the worst of this.
> As an aside I usually don't mind humour being used to attack the particular politics of a minority.
> This was prompted by what I saw as a pretty below the belt joke about vegan men on the other thread that got way more likes than dislikes. So, rather than more ( frankly childish) likes and dislikes, what are the views of UKC on minority jokes.
Should a joke be regarded as offensive or hateful due to the percentage of people that belong to the subset of the population that are the butt of the humour?
If so, at what threshold does it become offensive?
Regarding the joke that you took offence over, was it aimed at vegans, men for being shallow or women for being gullible. It was a joke about human traits and that was the only reason that so many people found it funny.
4
In reply to Offwidth:
Should a joke be regarded as offensive or hateful due to the percentage of people that belong to the subset of the population that are the butt of the humour?
If so, at what threshold does it become offensive?
Regarding the joke that you took offence over, was it aimed at vegans, men for being shallow or women for being gullible. It was a joke about human traits and that was the only reason that so many people found it funny.
> I generally enjoy climbers' humour, which can be pretty black at times, but for some time have been bored and sometimes offended by jokes that just attack a minority for being a minority. Of course the new hate crime legislation deals with the worst of this.
> As an aside I usually don't mind humour being used to attack the particular politics of a minority.
> This was prompted by what I saw as a pretty below the belt joke about vegan men on the other thread that got way more likes than dislikes. So, rather than more ( frankly childish) likes and dislikes, what are the views of UKC on minority jokes.
Should a joke be regarded as offensive or hateful due to the percentage of people that belong to the subset of the population that are the butt of the humour?
If so, at what threshold does it become offensive?
Regarding the joke that you took offence over, was it aimed at vegans, men for being shallow or women for being gullible. It was a joke about human traits and that was the only reason that so many people found it funny.
5
In reply to timjones:
As I already said I think the vulcan version is funny. The context is set up to indicate the target. At the time I made an emotive reaction as it looked like a sad vegan attack. Oceanrower can confirm he could have told the joke better and he has nothing against vegans and I will happily apologise.
As I already said I think the vulcan version is funny. The context is set up to indicate the target. At the time I made an emotive reaction as it looked like a sad vegan attack. Oceanrower can confirm he could have told the joke better and he has nothing against vegans and I will happily apologise.
Post edited at 13:48
2
10
In reply to Offwidth:
Whenever I get near a vegan, I tend to walk on eggshells.
Which really upsets them!
Whenever I get near a vegan, I tend to walk on eggshells.
Which really upsets them!
24
13
In reply to Offwidth:
Offense is something that is taken, not given.
On that note: do vegans really live longer, or does it only seem that way to them.
If you are offended by that, the original joke is with married men. would you be offended by that or is that ok?
Offense is something that is taken, not given.
On that note: do vegans really live longer, or does it only seem that way to them.
If you are offended by that, the original joke is with married men. would you be offended by that or is that ok?
4
In reply to Offwidth:
This thread is like a Stewart Lee routine but without the comedy.
I should probably just keep my head down and enjoy the egg-throwing but it appears that Oceanrower has been targeted for telling a joke which was obviously aimed at the baser instincts of men in general while I seem to have got away with posting one that was directly aimed at male vegans, implying with no subtlety whatsoever that they must actually be women. Taken at face value, this is pretty crass and possibly offensive. Whether either joke was actually funny is moot.
It is difficult to tell on a forum whether someone is being ironic (as I was) or genuinely crass and/or bigoted, which is why, for the most part, I refrain from these types of jokes on here (mitigation for last night courtesy of several glasses of red and a contrary mood after an annoying day at work) as I've no desire to offend anyone or be thought a bigot. That said, it's not difficult to spot real bigotry on here, and there is some, as opposed to humour that at worst could be described as inappropriate. I just can't help thinking that there must be worse things to get one's knickers in a twist over.
This thread is like a Stewart Lee routine but without the comedy.
I should probably just keep my head down and enjoy the egg-throwing but it appears that Oceanrower has been targeted for telling a joke which was obviously aimed at the baser instincts of men in general while I seem to have got away with posting one that was directly aimed at male vegans, implying with no subtlety whatsoever that they must actually be women. Taken at face value, this is pretty crass and possibly offensive. Whether either joke was actually funny is moot.
It is difficult to tell on a forum whether someone is being ironic (as I was) or genuinely crass and/or bigoted, which is why, for the most part, I refrain from these types of jokes on here (mitigation for last night courtesy of several glasses of red and a contrary mood after an annoying day at work) as I've no desire to offend anyone or be thought a bigot. That said, it's not difficult to spot real bigotry on here, and there is some, as opposed to humour that at worst could be described as inappropriate. I just can't help thinking that there must be worse things to get one's knickers in a twist over.
Post edited at 14:36
8
In reply to Removed User:
Everyone has to start somewhere and last night was maybe influenced with the thought of wine (Vox Populi Bobal Cepas Viejas 2012... very nice)
Everyone has to start somewhere and last night was maybe influenced with the thought of wine (Vox Populi Bobal Cepas Viejas 2012... very nice)
5
In reply to Offwidth:
Having finally found the joke you didn't like I can say you are overreacting to it in my opinion.
You should hear some of the extremely non pc stuff we come out with at the wall, admittedly only for a few of us to hear, but the secret is to disassociate humour from real life.
Having finally found the joke you didn't like I can say you are overreacting to it in my opinion.
You should hear some of the extremely non pc stuff we come out with at the wall, admittedly only for a few of us to hear, but the secret is to disassociate humour from real life.
6
2
In reply to Offwidth:
The only joke I was offended by was:
"The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, unless he's a vegan, in which case it's through his fanny."
Implying what, that being vegan makes you less of a man? Luckily I don't consider being female a negative thing.
The only joke I was offended by was:
"The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, unless he's a vegan, in which case it's through his fanny."
Implying what, that being vegan makes you less of a man? Luckily I don't consider being female a negative thing.
6
4
In reply to wintertree:
Just been sent this link:
http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=C4D5E39C4F3817...
So some new protected groups are being added in some areas.
Just been sent this link:
http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=C4D5E39C4F3817...
So some new protected groups are being added in some areas.
1
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
But again it was only a joke! If you don't find it funny then fine, if it offends you when clearly it was not meant to offend then you kind of have to just suck it up.
Ahem, no pun intended
> The only joke I was offended by was:
> "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, unless he's a vegan, in which case it's through his fanny."
> Implying what, that being vegan makes you less of a man? Luckily I don't consider being female a negative thing.
But again it was only a joke! If you don't find it funny then fine, if it offends you when clearly it was not meant to offend then you kind of have to just suck it up.
Ahem, no pun intended
Post edited at 15:11
5
In reply to Removed User:
Is Stewart Lee a comedian?
I watched his show the other night and it was hard to tell
> This thread is like a Stewart Lee routine but without the comedy.
Is Stewart Lee a comedian?
I watched his show the other night and it was hard to tell
3
In reply to Steve-J-E:
"when clearly it was not meant to offend"
That is not always clear.
I appreciate Bipeds post. Being offended means nothing, and I generally wouldn't talk about it (unless offense is being discussed like this) but the problem I have with your sort of attitude towards these jokes is that you can say 'I was only joking!' after pretty much anything but it doesn't mean anything. You used to see it at school, a kid being bullied and crying, but when pressed the bully would say 'oh but we were only messing around'. There is often no thought of the recipient with these jokes, and it gets tiring.
A vegan friend of mine posted a photo of a sheep with her lambs the other day, and people knowing she was vegan posted underneath comments like "screams Mint sauce", "Mutton curry mmmm", "kebab em!!". As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong) the original post wasn't in jest, and meat eaters wandering over to the 'vegan post' and posting a constant stream of belittling jokes, as I said, gets old...
"when clearly it was not meant to offend"
That is not always clear.
I appreciate Bipeds post. Being offended means nothing, and I generally wouldn't talk about it (unless offense is being discussed like this) but the problem I have with your sort of attitude towards these jokes is that you can say 'I was only joking!' after pretty much anything but it doesn't mean anything. You used to see it at school, a kid being bullied and crying, but when pressed the bully would say 'oh but we were only messing around'. There is often no thought of the recipient with these jokes, and it gets tiring.
A vegan friend of mine posted a photo of a sheep with her lambs the other day, and people knowing she was vegan posted underneath comments like "screams Mint sauce", "Mutton curry mmmm", "kebab em!!". As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong) the original post wasn't in jest, and meat eaters wandering over to the 'vegan post' and posting a constant stream of belittling jokes, as I said, gets old...
6
4
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
I'm pretty sure every joke has its butt. Laughter is cruel.
What do you call a sheep with no legs?
A cloud!
This is sheepist (and terrible)
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side!
This implies a chicken is cognitively incapable of harbouring more complex motivations. Birdist if you will.
The only exception to the rule is self deprecating humour where the victim is the comic him/herself. Is it allright to laugh at someone just because they started it?
Ban laughter I say. It might make you feel good but there is ALWAYS a victim!
I'm pretty sure every joke has its butt. Laughter is cruel.
What do you call a sheep with no legs?
A cloud!
This is sheepist (and terrible)
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side!
This implies a chicken is cognitively incapable of harbouring more complex motivations. Birdist if you will.
The only exception to the rule is self deprecating humour where the victim is the comic him/herself. Is it allright to laugh at someone just because they started it?
Ban laughter I say. It might make you feel good but there is ALWAYS a victim!
6
In reply to Steve-J-E:
The world is filled with people who's hobby is being offended on behalf of other people who weren't even offended to begin with.
I remember someone getting very irate at a joke someone made at my expense shortly after I lost a couple of toes to frostbite - it was a take on "the bloke in the next bed wants to buy your slippers" gag, but change slippers for EB's. She thought it was disgraceful and in really poor taste. I on the otherhand thought it was hilarious and was still laughing about it two days later.
As with so many things, it's all about context.
> But again it was only a joke! If you don't find it funny then fine, if it offends you when clearly it was not meant to offend then you kind of have to just suck it up.
> Ahem, no pun intended
The world is filled with people who's hobby is being offended on behalf of other people who weren't even offended to begin with.
I remember someone getting very irate at a joke someone made at my expense shortly after I lost a couple of toes to frostbite - it was a take on "the bloke in the next bed wants to buy your slippers" gag, but change slippers for EB's. She thought it was disgraceful and in really poor taste. I on the otherhand thought it was hilarious and was still laughing about it two days later.
As with so many things, it's all about context.
7
In reply to Goucho:
You're right, of course. But FWIW, I think that the real problem with the near-constant stream of anti-veggie/vegan jokes and comments isn't that they're offensive - it's that you get them all the time as a veggie/vegan, and they just get quite dull. You're repeatedly forced into either having the same pointless conversation over and over, or being rude and not answering - just because you've choosen to eat your lunch in a shared space.
Something which might have been funny the first time seems pretty tired the tenth, twentieth or hundredth time you hear it. The bacon thing, for example. I mean, seriously, I vaguely remember quite liking the stuff, but what's with the obsession? If I was bothered, I'd just eat it, but people seem to want to tell me how much I'm missing pretty much every other week!
But whatever, no big deal. It isn't hate speech, anyway!
You're right, of course. But FWIW, I think that the real problem with the near-constant stream of anti-veggie/vegan jokes and comments isn't that they're offensive - it's that you get them all the time as a veggie/vegan, and they just get quite dull. You're repeatedly forced into either having the same pointless conversation over and over, or being rude and not answering - just because you've choosen to eat your lunch in a shared space.
Something which might have been funny the first time seems pretty tired the tenth, twentieth or hundredth time you hear it. The bacon thing, for example. I mean, seriously, I vaguely remember quite liking the stuff, but what's with the obsession? If I was bothered, I'd just eat it, but people seem to want to tell me how much I'm missing pretty much every other week!
But whatever, no big deal. It isn't hate speech, anyway!
2
3
In reply to broken spectre:
So because a joke has to have a butt, I should have to tolerate any joke in any situation?
The only thing worse than people getting offended as a hobby is people that don't understand the social implications of an out of place joke targeted at someone you don't know or share the same beliefs as.
By all means continue with your 'edgy humour', but don't expect everyone to clap quietly with a forced grin on their face.
So because a joke has to have a butt, I should have to tolerate any joke in any situation?
The only thing worse than people getting offended as a hobby is people that don't understand the social implications of an out of place joke targeted at someone you don't know or share the same beliefs as.
By all means continue with your 'edgy humour', but don't expect everyone to clap quietly with a forced grin on their face.
3
3
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
I just re-read my post in light of your critique and you're right it does sound like Im advocating an anything goes approach. Not my intention! Some humour makes me curl my toes too (usually Jimmy Carr). Appologies
I just re-read my post in light of your critique and you're right it does sound like Im advocating an anything goes approach. Not my intention! Some humour makes me curl my toes too (usually Jimmy Carr). Appologies
2
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
Unfortunately, one of the downsides of democracy and free speech, is that you'll often hear things you don't like, things you find highly offensive, and things that are, by any measure, completely unnaceptable in a supposedly moral and educated modern society.
However, the alternative is somewhere like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
> So because a joke has to have a butt, I should have to tolerate any joke in any situation?
> The only thing worse than people getting offended as a hobby is people that don't understand the social implications of an out of place joke targeted at someone you don't know or share the same beliefs as.
> By all means continue with your 'edgy humour', but don't expect everyone to clap quietly with a forced grin on their face.
Unfortunately, one of the downsides of democracy and free speech, is that you'll often hear things you don't like, things you find highly offensive, and things that are, by any measure, completely unnaceptable in a supposedly moral and educated modern society.
However, the alternative is somewhere like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
7
1
In reply to Goucho:
That's one alternative, I suppose.
Another is just pointing out to people when they're being tw*ts, which is arguably a bit less extreme.
> However, the alternative is somewhere like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
That's one alternative, I suppose.
Another is just pointing out to people when they're being tw*ts, which is arguably a bit less extreme.
4
2
In reply to skog:
Trouble is, one persons tw*t, is not necessarily everyone else's tw*t?
> That's one alternative, I suppose.
> Another is just pointing out to people when they're being tw*ts, which is arguably a bit less extreme.
Trouble is, one persons tw*t, is not necessarily everyone else's tw*t?
5
In reply to Goucho:
Sure, discussions don't always work out, but it still beats not bothering to try.
Sure, discussions don't always work out, but it still beats not bothering to try.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Q. How do you know Goucho has lost toes to frostbite?
A. He'll tell you.
Boom!
Wally
Q. How do you know Goucho has lost toes to frostbite?
A. He'll tell you.
Boom!
Wally
10
1
In reply to Bogwalloper:
> Q. How do you know Goucho has lost toes to frostbite?
> A. He'll tell you.
> Boom!
> Wally
3
In reply to Goucho:
Or Islington
> However, the alternative is somewhere like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
Or Islington
5
In reply to skog:
From my humble perspective you are so correct.
> Sure, discussions don't always work out, but it still beats not bothering to try.
From my humble perspective you are so correct.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Oh ffs, what are you on about?
JW
> "... this sickly sweet swamp of a people-bath emanatating a nihilism that stops proper public comment...."
Oh ffs, what are you on about?
JW
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
But are you a Vegan between meals ? This would allow you to make as many jokes about the carrot munchers as you want.
> That's me screwed then, 'cos I'm not a vegan!
But are you a Vegan between meals ? This would allow you to make as many jokes about the carrot munchers as you want.
1
1
2
In reply to John Ww:
He's talking 'complete bollocks'!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=638367&v=1#x8274822
> "... this sickly sweet swamp of a people-bath emanatating a nihilism that stops proper public comment...."
> Oh ffs, what are you on about?
> Oh ffs, what are you on about?
> JW
He's talking 'complete bollocks'!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=638367&v=1#x8274822
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Were you on punishment for not eating your greens?
> I was watching Stewart Lee last week ...
Were you on punishment for not eating your greens?
1
In reply to Steve-J-E:
No there's a good trick
> But again it was only a joke! If you don't find it funny then fine, if it offends you when clearly it was not meant to offend then you kind of have to just suck it up.
No there's a good trick
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I think people make jokes about vegans because they tend to be a tad "holier than thou" and get a bit sniffy when they find that you are a meat eater. They can be like Apple Mac users when they find out you have a Windows PC - however I haven't heard any jokes about Mac users yet. We all like to have a go at self importance and pomposity even if its our own.
Just to make it clear I'm a member of a much maligned minority - the butt of jokes aplenty in my chosen homeland. Its water off a ducks back. Being a Lancastrian in Yorkshire isn't all guns and roses but hey ho.
I think people make jokes about vegans because they tend to be a tad "holier than thou" and get a bit sniffy when they find that you are a meat eater. They can be like Apple Mac users when they find out you have a Windows PC - however I haven't heard any jokes about Mac users yet. We all like to have a go at self importance and pomposity even if its our own.
Just to make it clear I'm a member of a much maligned minority - the butt of jokes aplenty in my chosen homeland. Its water off a ducks back. Being a Lancastrian in Yorkshire isn't all guns and roses but hey ho.
5
2
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
As someone who's living with a vegan I'd give you a thousand likes if I could my friend!
and for the record the GF who is the vegan read the thread too and thought it was pretty funny. She isn't a man mind you...
As someone who's living with a vegan I'd give you a thousand likes if I could my friend!
and for the record the GF who is the vegan read the thread too and thought it was pretty funny. She isn't a man mind you...
Post edited at 20:48
2
In reply to Offwidth:
Would "religion or belief" include vegans then? That's a "belief".
> Just been sent this link:
> So some new protected groups are being added in some areas.
Would "religion or belief" include vegans then? That's a "belief".
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Veganism must be an Alternative Sub-culture related hate crime.(?)
"The 5 categories above are agreed nationally, and every police service in England and Wales records these as hate crimes. It is an option for any individual police service to add additional categories.
From April 2013 Greater Manchester Police has recorded Alternative Sub-culture related hate crime."
Veganism must be an Alternative Sub-culture related hate crime.(?)
"The 5 categories above are agreed nationally, and every police service in England and Wales records these as hate crimes. It is an option for any individual police service to add additional categories.
From April 2013 Greater Manchester Police has recorded Alternative Sub-culture related hate crime."
In reply to Goucho:
It's perfectly possible for people to challenge bad behaviour and not be living in a totalitarian society. 'Humour' is used for all sorts of nasty things from rhetorical sneering to pure hate. Being a joke excuses nothing extra than any other form of words. Part of a democracy is the right to call out something that smells like a turd and yet claims to be chocolate.
It's perfectly possible for people to challenge bad behaviour and not be living in a totalitarian society. 'Humour' is used for all sorts of nasty things from rhetorical sneering to pure hate. Being a joke excuses nothing extra than any other form of words. Part of a democracy is the right to call out something that smells like a turd and yet claims to be chocolate.
4
3
1
In reply to John Ww:
There are far more spouting clichés, though.
> ....there are far more sanctimonious, po-faced, holier than thou, self-obsessed, humourless, right-on, PC obsessed wankers on a climbing forum that I ever thought humanly possible.
There are far more spouting clichés, though.
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Hershey bars, I'm looking at you...
> Part of a democracy is the right to call out something that smells like a turd and yet claims to be chocolate.
Hershey bars, I'm looking at you...
Post edited at 14:33
11
In reply to Siward:
It's easy to say that such and such is a 'choice', when a Vegan may see it more as a moral responsibility. I don't subscribe to that view, but sometimes it's useful to try and see things from the other side.
> I don't think vegans can be put in the same group as, for example, an ethnic minority. Veganism is a choice.
It's easy to say that such and such is a 'choice', when a Vegan may see it more as a moral responsibility. I don't subscribe to that view, but sometimes it's useful to try and see things from the other side.
3
2
In reply to Steve-J-E:
This is clearly nonsense. This kind of thinking would give anyone a licence to say anything, however hurtful and insensitive, about anyone and anything in the name of humour. That would be a pretty unpleasant environment in which to live, unless you happen to have skin like a rhino.
> But again it was only a joke! If you don't find it funny then fine, if it offends you when clearly it was not meant to offend then you kind of have to just suck it up.
This is clearly nonsense. This kind of thinking would give anyone a licence to say anything, however hurtful and insensitive, about anyone and anything in the name of humour. That would be a pretty unpleasant environment in which to live, unless you happen to have skin like a rhino.
3
5
In reply to Goucho:
Is it? You hear this kind of thing a lot, but I've yet to see much evidence of it. The complaint usually comes from the same people who complain about the "Politically Correct Brigade" because their joke about the gay Paki who runs the corner shop no longer gets laughs in the pub.
> The world is filled with people who's hobby is being offended on behalf of other people who weren't even offended to begin with.
Is it? You hear this kind of thing a lot, but I've yet to see much evidence of it. The complaint usually comes from the same people who complain about the "Politically Correct Brigade" because their joke about the gay Paki who runs the corner shop no longer gets laughs in the pub.
5
3
In reply to Goucho:
The fact that such speech exists does not mean that we have to sacrifice the right to challenge it.
> Unfortunately, one of the downsides of democracy and free speech, is that you'll often hear things you don't like, things you find highly offensive, and things that are, by any measure, completely unnaceptable in a supposedly moral and educated modern society.
The fact that such speech exists does not mean that we have to sacrifice the right to challenge it.
4
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
Of course not
Feel free to challenge and criticise whatever you dislike and find offensive - that's the great thing about democracies and freedom of speech - as long as you accept that it works the other way round too?
> The fact that such speech exists does not mean that we have to sacrifice the right to challenge it.
Of course not
Feel free to challenge and criticise whatever you dislike and find offensive - that's the great thing about democracies and freedom of speech - as long as you accept that it works the other way round too?
4
In reply to planetmarshall:
Funny, I've seen loads of it - and not just in the Daily Mail and Guardian.
> Is it? You hear this kind of thing a lot, but I've yet to see much evidence of it. The complaint usually comes from the same people who complain about the "Politically Correct Brigade" because their joke about the gay Paki who runs the corner shop no longer gets laughs in the pub.
Funny, I've seen loads of it - and not just in the Daily Mail and Guardian.
3
In reply to Goucho:
Don't forget that you should try not to harm anyone whilst exercising your right to free speech. Not always possible though, but an often forgotten part of your rights.
Don't forget that you should try not to harm anyone whilst exercising your right to free speech. Not always possible though, but an often forgotten part of your rights.
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQBgrUObbHw&nohtml5=False
> I'm OK with that. Lampoon the theism within a group, but not the group because it is a group.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQBgrUObbHw&nohtml5=False
In reply to Goucho:
Of course. The thing is, several posts above seem to imply that I have no right to be offended, because it might have been 'just a joke', or I'm not a member of the target group.
Well...
If I hear my friends, or anyone else for that matter, being belittled because of their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, I bloody well will be offended by it. And if that makes me 'Politically Correct', then so be it.
> Feel free to challenge and criticise whatever you dislike and find offensive - that's the great thing about democracies and freedom of speech - as long as you accept that it works the other way round too?
Of course. The thing is, several posts above seem to imply that I have no right to be offended, because it might have been 'just a joke', or I'm not a member of the target group.
Well...
If I hear my friends, or anyone else for that matter, being belittled because of their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, I bloody well will be offended by it. And if that makes me 'Politically Correct', then so be it.
3
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
Political Correctness has many flaws, but it's many many times better than it being okay for minority and vulnerable groups to be abused, threatened or generally made to feel unwelcome by the intellectually challenged.
Political Correctness has many flaws, but it's many many times better than it being okay for minority and vulnerable groups to be abused, threatened or generally made to feel unwelcome by the intellectually challenged.
2
2
In reply to planetmarshall:
Absolutely.
However I'm not sure a few obviously light hearted gags at the expense of someone's chosen dietary regime, is quite the same as racism, homophobia, sexism etc - unless of course, you are in need of lightening up on life a little?
> Of course. The thing is, several posts above seem to imply that I have no right to be offended, because it might have been 'just a joke', or I'm not a member of the target group.
> Well...
> If I hear my friends, or anyone else for that matter, being belittled because of their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, I bloody well will be offended by it. And if that makes me 'Politically Correct', then so be it.
Absolutely.
However I'm not sure a few obviously light hearted gags at the expense of someone's chosen dietary regime, is quite the same as racism, homophobia, sexism etc - unless of course, you are in need of lightening up on life a little?
Post edited at 18:58
10
In reply to planetmarshall:
Or to put it another way...
http://tinyurl.com/h7p447t
The whole idea that "political correctness" is a threat to free speech is a somewhat slippery claim, and apart from possibly a very specific set of cases*, it's a load of bollocks. A threat to free speech is making saying certain things illegal, i.e. censorship/criminalisation. Our laws are pretty much spot on in this respect: there are loads of exceptions to the right to free speech, but as far as I'm aware, these are to do with stuff that's injurious to the rights of others (incitement, libel, etc).
What does happen frequently is that people who say stuff that is racist, homophobic, etc are made to feel marginalised (and they didn't used to get that treatment). They complain that their "free speech" is being "shut down", but they don't get arrested and what they say isn't censored. They just get told to shut up. This is not losing the right to free speech, it's a shift in social attitudes to norms where racism, homophobia, etc are considered unacceptable.
*I agree that the recent trend of universities banning speakers whose views the student organisers found distasteful is a step in the wrong direction, there should be open debate. Whether this is actually censorship and a threat to free speech is a different matter.
> The complaint usually comes from the same people who complain about the "Politically Correct Brigade" because their joke about the gay Paki who runs the corner shop no longer gets laughs in the pub.
Or to put it another way...
http://tinyurl.com/h7p447t
The whole idea that "political correctness" is a threat to free speech is a somewhat slippery claim, and apart from possibly a very specific set of cases*, it's a load of bollocks. A threat to free speech is making saying certain things illegal, i.e. censorship/criminalisation. Our laws are pretty much spot on in this respect: there are loads of exceptions to the right to free speech, but as far as I'm aware, these are to do with stuff that's injurious to the rights of others (incitement, libel, etc).
What does happen frequently is that people who say stuff that is racist, homophobic, etc are made to feel marginalised (and they didn't used to get that treatment). They complain that their "free speech" is being "shut down", but they don't get arrested and what they say isn't censored. They just get told to shut up. This is not losing the right to free speech, it's a shift in social attitudes to norms where racism, homophobia, etc are considered unacceptable.
*I agree that the recent trend of universities banning speakers whose views the student organisers found distasteful is a step in the wrong direction, there should be open debate. Whether this is actually censorship and a threat to free speech is a different matter.
6
2
In reply to Goucho:
Hypothetically, if I had a friend who rather than seeing the funny side was feeling a bit uncomfortable at being the butt of a joke - whatever the subject - I'd be more likely to think that the attempted comedian was being a bit of a dick, rather than that my friend needed to 'lighten up'. Context is everything, however.
> However I'm not sure a few obviously light hearted gags at the expense of someone's chosen dietary regime, is quite the same as racism, homophobia, sexism etc - unless of course, you are in need of lightening up on life a little?
Hypothetically, if I had a friend who rather than seeing the funny side was feeling a bit uncomfortable at being the butt of a joke - whatever the subject - I'd be more likely to think that the attempted comedian was being a bit of a dick, rather than that my friend needed to 'lighten up'. Context is everything, however.
2
3
In reply to planetmarshall:
If I hear my friends, or anyone else for that matter, being belittled because of their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, I bloody well will be offended by it. And if that makes me 'Politically Correct', then so be it.
Earlier on in the thread, you said that you had seen no evidence of people being offended on behalf of other people. Isn't that what you are doing here?
If I hear my friends, or anyone else for that matter, being belittled because of their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, I bloody well will be offended by it. And if that makes me 'Politically Correct', then so be it.
Earlier on in the thread, you said that you had seen no evidence of people being offended on behalf of other people. Isn't that what you are doing here?
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
University management are often cowards trying to avoid bad publicity rather than outwardly attacking free speech in those cancelled talks. The real threat to free speech is bigger and more insidious internal top down pressure (including from SU's) and as a consequence of management applying daft performance measures to Profs and other researchers that means they are limited in what they can research to stuff that delivers fast REF outcomes.
University management are often cowards trying to avoid bad publicity rather than outwardly attacking free speech in those cancelled talks. The real threat to free speech is bigger and more insidious internal top down pressure (including from SU's) and as a consequence of management applying daft performance measures to Profs and other researchers that means they are limited in what they can research to stuff that delivers fast REF outcomes.
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
In that situation, am I being offended "on their behalf"? I'm not sure what that even means. If so, do you think that that reaction is unreasonable? Perhaps I should just sit back and let them suffer a torrent of abuse. It's their fault if they can't see the funny side, after all.
You're either offended or not offended. If you are offended by comments made to friends, etc. then you are indeed offended on their behalf, because those comments aren't aimed at you.
If you believe the comments are out of order, then by all means do something about it, but only do so if you know the receiver of the comments is genuinely upset/offended.
Otherwise, mind your business and forget about it...
In that situation, am I being offended "on their behalf"? I'm not sure what that even means. If so, do you think that that reaction is unreasonable? Perhaps I should just sit back and let them suffer a torrent of abuse. It's their fault if they can't see the funny side, after all.
You're either offended or not offended. If you are offended by comments made to friends, etc. then you are indeed offended on their behalf, because those comments aren't aimed at you.
If you believe the comments are out of order, then by all means do something about it, but only do so if you know the receiver of the comments is genuinely upset/offended.
Otherwise, mind your business and forget about it...
2
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Previous snarky reply deleted in favour of something more mature
What Goucho said was this:
Personally I don't think that the part in bold is really that important - belittling minorities in the name of humour is still wrong regardless of whether any of those minorities happen to find it offensive or not - however I've added it back in for completeness.
In short, I find bullying of that nature pretty offensive anyway, so I'd argue I'm not taking offence "on their behalf".
Previous snarky reply deleted in favour of something more mature
> Earlier on in the thread, you said that you had seen no evidence of people being offended on behalf of other people. Isn't that what you are doing here?
What Goucho said was this:
> The world is filled with people who's hobby is being offended on behalf of other people who weren't even offended to begin with.
Personally I don't think that the part in bold is really that important - belittling minorities in the name of humour is still wrong regardless of whether any of those minorities happen to find it offensive or not - however I've added it back in for completeness.
In short, I find bullying of that nature pretty offensive anyway, so I'd argue I'm not taking offence "on their behalf".
Post edited at 19:53
1
3
In reply to FactorXXX:
It makes absolutely no difference if the comments are directed at me or not. Bullying is bullying, and not challenging such behaviour would make me a coward.
> If you believe the comments are out of order, then by all means do something about it, but only do so if you know the receiver of the comments is genuinely upset/offended.
> Otherwise, mind your business and forget about it...
It makes absolutely no difference if the comments are directed at me or not. Bullying is bullying, and not challenging such behaviour would make me a coward.
2
3
In reply to planetmarshall:
Personally I don't think that the part in bold is really that important - belittling minorities in the name of humour is still wrong regardless of whether any of those minorities happen to find it offensive or not - however I've added it back in for completeness.
You're getting offended on other peoples behalf then?
Personally I don't think that the part in bold is really that important - belittling minorities in the name of humour is still wrong regardless of whether any of those minorities happen to find it offensive or not - however I've added it back in for completeness.
You're getting offended on other peoples behalf then?
3
In reply to planetmarshall:
It makes absolutely no difference if the comments are directed at me or not. Bullying is bullying, and not challenging such behaviour would make me a coward.
You'd stick your nose in, even if no one was taking offence?
It makes absolutely no difference if the comments are directed at me or not. Bullying is bullying, and not challenging such behaviour would make me a coward.
You'd stick your nose in, even if no one was taking offence?
4
In reply to FactorXXX:
Sure, if you like. Have a cookie.
> You're getting offended on other peoples behalf then?
Sure, if you like. Have a cookie.
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
You viewed this "Show me a bloke who say's he's a vegan and I'll show you a bloke trying to shag a vegan....." as bullying?
> It makes absolutely no difference if the comments are directed at me or not. Bullying is bullying, and not challenging such behaviour would make me a coward.
You viewed this "Show me a bloke who say's he's a vegan and I'll show you a bloke trying to shag a vegan....." as bullying?
3
In reply to planetmarshall:
Context seems to be a concept you have great difficulty coming to terms with - as displayed by the amount of fuss you're making over this?
You and Offwidth ought to get a room together.
> Hypothetically, if I had a friend who rather than seeing the funny side was feeling a bit uncomfortable at being the butt of a joke - whatever the subject - I'd be more likely to think that the attempted comedian was being a bit of a dick, rather than that my friend needed to 'lighten up'. Context is everything, however.
Context seems to be a concept you have great difficulty coming to terms with - as displayed by the amount of fuss you're making over this?
You and Offwidth ought to get a room together.
2
1
In reply to Goucho:
Shame. You were doing so well.
> Context seems to be a concept you have great difficulty coming to terms with - as displayed by the amount of fuss you're making over this?
> You and Offwidth ought to get a room together.
Shame. You were doing so well.
2
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
So if I hear some general, racial abuse about no one in particular, just 'pakis', say, then it's wrong for me to be offended because I'm white, and therefore I'm "being offended on someone else's behalf, and wrong to criticise it? I should mind my own business?
Are you sure about this?
Don't you think society would be better if racism was generally criticised, and racists felt marginalised rather than accepted? I'd like to think that my (straight) friends would put someone down and make them feel like a dick if they made a homophobic joke, whether or not I was there to hear it - and they wouldn't be doing it because *I* would be offended, they'd do it because they'd think "who the f*ck are you, did you not manage to progress from your 1970s adolescence?".
> If you believe the comments are out of order, then by all means do something about it, but only do so if you know the receiver of the comments is genuinely upset/offended.
> Otherwise, mind your business and forget about it...
So if I hear some general, racial abuse about no one in particular, just 'pakis', say, then it's wrong for me to be offended because I'm white, and therefore I'm "being offended on someone else's behalf, and wrong to criticise it? I should mind my own business?
Are you sure about this?
Don't you think society would be better if racism was generally criticised, and racists felt marginalised rather than accepted? I'd like to think that my (straight) friends would put someone down and make them feel like a dick if they made a homophobic joke, whether or not I was there to hear it - and they wouldn't be doing it because *I* would be offended, they'd do it because they'd think "who the f*ck are you, did you not manage to progress from your 1970s adolescence?".
5
1
In reply to Goucho:
Context is a pretty difficult thing to determine on a forum. It's not like a work meeting or a pub discussion where there are generally accepted norms.
> Context seems to be a concept you have great difficulty coming to terms with - as displayed by the amount of fuss you're making over this?
Context is a pretty difficult thing to determine on a forum. It's not like a work meeting or a pub discussion where there are generally accepted norms.
Post edited at 20:25
In reply to Jon Stewart:
So if I hear some general, racial abuse about no one in particular, just 'pakis', say, then it's wrong for me to be offended because I'm white, and therefore I'm "being offended on someone else's behalf, and wrong to criticise it? I should mind my own business?
Are you sure about this?
As a general rule and in society as a whole, then any such language should of course be criticised.
However, in a 'one to one' situation which you happen to be present at, then I wouldn't expect you to intervene unless you knew the recipient was being unduly offended.
I'd like to think that my (straight) friends would put someone down and make them feel like a dick if they made a homophobic joke, whether or not I was there to hear it - and they wouldn't be doing it because *I* would be offended, they'd do it because they'd think "who the f*ck are you, did you not manage to progress from your 1970s adolescence?".
That again is down to context. I'm pretty sure you and your friends make jokes about all sorts of things and no doubt, some of those will be offensive to someone. There are jokes which are genuinely funny no matter what the subject matter is and some which are genuinely offensive.
So if I hear some general, racial abuse about no one in particular, just 'pakis', say, then it's wrong for me to be offended because I'm white, and therefore I'm "being offended on someone else's behalf, and wrong to criticise it? I should mind my own business?
Are you sure about this?
As a general rule and in society as a whole, then any such language should of course be criticised.
However, in a 'one to one' situation which you happen to be present at, then I wouldn't expect you to intervene unless you knew the recipient was being unduly offended.
I'd like to think that my (straight) friends would put someone down and make them feel like a dick if they made a homophobic joke, whether or not I was there to hear it - and they wouldn't be doing it because *I* would be offended, they'd do it because they'd think "who the f*ck are you, did you not manage to progress from your 1970s adolescence?".
That again is down to context. I'm pretty sure you and your friends make jokes about all sorts of things and no doubt, some of those will be offensive to someone. There are jokes which are genuinely funny no matter what the subject matter is and some which are genuinely offensive.
2
1
2
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
would have thought he would have sent an email or im.
> Tim Berners-Lee just phoned, asked if he can have the Internet back?
would have thought he would have sent an email or im.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
Monty Python had a sketch about the funniest joke in the world but if you heard it you died laughing. Perhaps we should now have the most offensive joke in the world for the pc generation and you die of shame if you hear it. Think the bar would be set pretty low for some of the sanctimonious b*ggers on here.
Monty Python had a sketch about the funniest joke in the world but if you heard it you died laughing. Perhaps we should now have the most offensive joke in the world for the pc generation and you die of shame if you hear it. Think the bar would be set pretty low for some of the sanctimonious b*ggers on here.
4
1
In reply to Removed Userjess13:
You are right, but by far the majority of sanctimonious comments relate to holier-than-thou complaining about the few of us who are allegedly being overly PC (when our position is our choice and is not a forced position on anyone else).
You are right, but by far the majority of sanctimonious comments relate to holier-than-thou complaining about the few of us who are allegedly being overly PC (when our position is our choice and is not a forced position on anyone else).
3
3
In reply to Removed Userjess13:
>Perhaps we should now have the most offensive joke in the world for the pc generation and you die of shame if you hear it.
The joke in the Bernard Manning obituary linked to above comes close for me, the one about knowing someone who died at Auschwitz (one of the guards who fell out of a watchtower, if you were burning up with curiosity). However I'll happily defend his right to say it, and my right to find it unfunny and think BM a premium twunt. Banning him saying it in the first place is a small step on the road TO Auschwitz.
>Perhaps we should now have the most offensive joke in the world for the pc generation and you die of shame if you hear it.
The joke in the Bernard Manning obituary linked to above comes close for me, the one about knowing someone who died at Auschwitz (one of the guards who fell out of a watchtower, if you were burning up with curiosity). However I'll happily defend his right to say it, and my right to find it unfunny and think BM a premium twunt. Banning him saying it in the first place is a small step on the road TO Auschwitz.
2
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
Also he was of Jewish decendency and actually guarded Rudolph Hess at one of the camps, which he says in his obituary too. I'll defend him. I've met him. A truly nice bloke.
Also he was of Jewish decendency and actually guarded Rudolph Hess at one of the camps, which he says in his obituary too. I'll defend him. I've met him. A truly nice bloke.
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
You call the Grand National 'nowt but murder' but you're happy to defend a man who made his money killing millions of turkeys? You need to have a think about that.
> Also he was of Jewish decendency and actually guarded Rudolph Hess at one of the camps, which he says in his obituary too. I'll defend him. I've met him. A truly nice bloke.
You call the Grand National 'nowt but murder' but you're happy to defend a man who made his money killing millions of turkeys? You need to have a think about that.
2
2
In reply to drmarten:
The wrong Bernard. One looked like a turkey the other bread them.
> You call the Grand National 'nowt but murder' but you're happy to defend a man who made his money killing millions of turkeys? You need to have a think about that.
The wrong Bernard. One looked like a turkey the other bread them.
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
The wrong Bernard. One looked like a turkey the other bread them.
Bread crumbed them?
The wrong Bernard. One looked like a turkey the other bread them.
Bread crumbed them?
1
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
Indeed, my vegan friend sees it as a moral responsibility.
I have a sneaking feeling she could have a point...in terms of the environmental impact of some meat production at least.
> It's easy to say that such and such is a 'choice', when a Vegan may see it more as a moral responsibility. I don't subscribe to that view, but sometimes it's useful to try and see things from the other side.
Indeed, my vegan friend sees it as a moral responsibility.
I have a sneaking feeling she could have a point...in terms of the environmental impact of some meat production at least.
Post edited at 13:25
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
More often than not, the reason people get offended is because whatever was said was probably true.
More often than not, the reason people get offended is because whatever was said was probably true.
2
6
In reply to Andy Morley:
We can all play that game: its been statistically shown 87.5% of Andy Morley statements are made up
...invented just for humour of course.
We can all play that game: its been statistically shown 87.5% of Andy Morley statements are made up
...invented just for humour of course.
5
1
In reply to Offwidth:
That applies to most things said here. The real question is 'made up of what?' - I'm not going to answer that one for 'Offwidth' statements because he would undoubtedly be offended if I did.
> We can all play that game: its been statistically shown 87.5% of Andy Morley statements are made up
That applies to most things said here. The real question is 'made up of what?' - I'm not going to answer that one for 'Offwidth' statements because he would undoubtedly be offended if I did.
3
In reply to Oceanrower:
Why not, them religious types are all f*cking bonkers.
> Being the one who made the 'Hate Crime' joke, (also known as a 'bias-motivated crime' joke, I can assure you that is was not;
> religion related,
Why not, them religious types are all f*cking bonkers.
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
"That applies to most things said here". ... more made up stuff.
"The real question is 'made up of what? - I'm not going to answer that one for 'Offwidth' statements because he would undoubtedly be offended if I did." .... Go on.. I'm sure you can write a long philosophical post on it. My offence would be irrelevant in importance compared to what we might learn.
I'm touched so many people are concerned by the offence I took that they feel the need to highlight and be humorous about it; especially as I think that we should defend the right for people to say offensive things within the law (and even beyond if they think it is important moral issue and they are not hiding from the consequences) as much as defending peoples rights to say they are offended.
"That applies to most things said here". ... more made up stuff.
"The real question is 'made up of what? - I'm not going to answer that one for 'Offwidth' statements because he would undoubtedly be offended if I did." .... Go on.. I'm sure you can write a long philosophical post on it. My offence would be irrelevant in importance compared to what we might learn.
I'm touched so many people are concerned by the offence I took that they feel the need to highlight and be humorous about it; especially as I think that we should defend the right for people to say offensive things within the law (and even beyond if they think it is important moral issue and they are not hiding from the consequences) as much as defending peoples rights to say they are offended.
Post edited at 16:24
2
In reply to Offwidth:
Here's your long philosophical post: I'm not concerned at all by people online taking offence - whether or not you take offence or not is purely your choice. We all have that freedom.
> <Snip> Go on.. I'm sure you can write a long philosophical post on it. My offence would be irrelevant in importance compared to what we might learn.
> I'm touched so many people are concerned by the offence I took <snip>
> I'm touched so many people are concerned by the offence I took <snip>
Here's your long philosophical post: I'm not concerned at all by people online taking offence - whether or not you take offence or not is purely your choice. We all have that freedom.
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
Its a classic! I cracked the very same joke on here about 6 months ago and got more likes than dislikes. Was going to do it again today until I saw you had already. Well done and keep up the good work!!
The joke doesn't poke fun at vegans, it pokes fun at the lengths men will go to to try and get laid. And it does it very well.
Its a classic! I cracked the very same joke on here about 6 months ago and got more likes than dislikes. Was going to do it again today until I saw you had already. Well done and keep up the good work!!
The joke doesn't poke fun at vegans, it pokes fun at the lengths men will go to to try and get laid. And it does it very well.
5
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
A point that Offwidth (and, to be fair, some others) spectacularly failed to get.
> The joke doesn't poke fun at vegans, it pokes fun at the lengths men will go to to try and get laid. And it does it very well.
A point that Offwidth (and, to be fair, some others) spectacularly failed to get.
6
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
But why shouldn't humour poke fun, or satire, at vegans too? One thing humour does quite well is to adjust our perspectives on people who take themselves and their opinions on life too seriously and there's probably more than a few vegans who fit that bill.
> The joke doesn't poke fun at vegans, it pokes fun at the lengths men will go to to try and get laid. And it does it very well.
But why shouldn't humour poke fun, or satire, at vegans too? One thing humour does quite well is to adjust our perspectives on people who take themselves and their opinions on life too seriously and there's probably more than a few vegans who fit that bill.
3
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
>The joke doesn't poke fun at vegans, it pokes fun at the lengths men will go to to try and get laid. And it does it very well
One man's meat is another man's poison...
>The joke doesn't poke fun at vegans, it pokes fun at the lengths men will go to to try and get laid. And it does it very well
One man's meat is another man's poison...
2
In reply to Oceanrower:
By that logic eating other people is fine too?
> If God didn't want me to eat meat, He wouldn't have made bacon taste so good.
By that logic eating other people is fine too?
In reply to Andy Morley:
Too right, way too many men claiming veganism are guilty of hiding sexual intent behind their stated diet. Expose the hypocrits at once.
In reply to, oceanrower
Maybe it was about your delivery... anyhow the offer from me to apologise still stands or are you so insecure in your masculinity that you can't deal with adult conversation alongside the jokes about the subject.
Too right, way too many men claiming veganism are guilty of hiding sexual intent behind their stated diet. Expose the hypocrits at once.
In reply to, oceanrower
Maybe it was about your delivery... anyhow the offer from me to apologise still stands or are you so insecure in your masculinity that you can't deal with adult conversation alongside the jokes about the subject.
9
In reply to SenzuBean:
By that logic eating other people is fine too?
I know, my current girlfriend tastes absolutely divine...
By that logic eating other people is fine too?
I know, my current girlfriend tastes absolutely divine...
3
In reply to Oceanrower:
Unfortunately you do not get to decide whether the joke does offend people - you can only decide whether you intended to offend or not.
Humour is not also an immunity from something being offensive - even if he "got" the joke it doesn't mean it's not offensive.
> A point that Offwidth (and, to be fair, some others) spectacularly failed to get.
Unfortunately you do not get to decide whether the joke does offend people - you can only decide whether you intended to offend or not.
Humour is not also an immunity from something being offensive - even if he "got" the joke it doesn't mean it's not offensive.
1
3
In reply to SenzuBean:
Any joke is likely to offend someone, somewhere. If it hasn't, then it's probably not much cop as humour.
> Humour is not also an immunity from something being offensive - even if he "got" the joke it doesn't mean it's not offensive.
Any joke is likely to offend someone, somewhere. If it hasn't, then it's probably not much cop as humour.
2
2
In reply to Andy Morley:
Yeah I know (there's an offended Bear Grylls fan somewhere having read a recent post of mine on another thread...) - but just wanted to point out that the OP can't claim that the joke doesn't offend vegans (because it was aimed at another group). Bit like going shooting, accidentally shooting a walker and saying "chin up mate, it was aimed at the ducks - don't get hurt".
> Any joke is likely to offend someone, somewhere. If it hasn't, then it's probably not much cop as humour.
Yeah I know (there's an offended Bear Grylls fan somewhere having read a recent post of mine on another thread...) - but just wanted to point out that the OP can't claim that the joke doesn't offend vegans (because it was aimed at another group). Bit like going shooting, accidentally shooting a walker and saying "chin up mate, it was aimed at the ducks - don't get hurt".
Post edited at 19:50
2
In reply to Andy Morley:
Any joke is likely to offend someone, somewhere. If it hasn't, then it's probably not much cop as humour.
Yes, but vegans seem to be particularly sensitive, so perhaps best to walk on eggshells when referring to them...
Any joke is likely to offend someone, somewhere. If it hasn't, then it's probably not much cop as humour.
Yes, but vegans seem to be particularly sensitive, so perhaps best to walk on eggshells when referring to them...
2
3
In reply to SenzuBean:
Maybe it might offend some vegans but not others? Maybe it's kind of self selecting and only the ones that need to get offended actually do?
> - but just wanted to point out that the OP can't claim that the joke doesn't offend vegans (because it was aimed at another group). Bit like going shooting, accidentally shooting a walker and saying "chin up mate, it was aimed at the ducks - don't get hurt".
Maybe it might offend some vegans but not others? Maybe it's kind of self selecting and only the ones that need to get offended actually do?
2
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Many on this thread still seem to be conflating being offended by a joke and finding a joke tiresome. Skog was the first to point this out but everyone seems too preoccupied with either being offensive or being offended to realise this.
And as funny (imho) as my 'fanny' joke on the other thread was (in an unreconstructed 90s lad mag post-pub kind of way), it's also a perfect example of the sort of tedious jibe that anyone who slightly deviates from what boring narrow minded people consider normal has to put up with over and over.
> Yes, but vegans seem to be particularly sensitive, so perhaps best to walk on eggshells when referring to them...
Many on this thread still seem to be conflating being offended by a joke and finding a joke tiresome. Skog was the first to point this out but everyone seems too preoccupied with either being offensive or being offended to realise this.
And as funny (imho) as my 'fanny' joke on the other thread was (in an unreconstructed 90s lad mag post-pub kind of way), it's also a perfect example of the sort of tedious jibe that anyone who slightly deviates from what boring narrow minded people consider normal has to put up with over and over.
Post edited at 23:29
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
>even if he "got" the joke it doesn't mean it's not offensive.
So, in your opinion, was it?
>even if he "got" the joke it doesn't mean it's not offensive.
So, in your opinion, was it?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...