Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jough]

Maybe, but when was the last REALLY FUNNY joke about "baby rape" that YOU'VE heard?

[V-Adore]

Maybe, but when was the last REALLY FUNNY joke about "baby rape" that YOU'VE heard?

Three years ago last January.

(It was a Michael Jackson joke, and I was tired. Cut me some slack.)

[andalucia]

There's nothing wrong with jokes about cunt pills or rape as long as that shit's funny.

Tell me a rape joke that'd make me laugh and I'll believe you.

[Nabubrush]

There's nothing wrong with jokes about cunt pills or rape as long as that shit's funny.

Tell me a rape joke that'd make me laugh and I'll believe you.

Even if it wasn't funny to you, it could still fit with this theory, no? There's something wrong with the joke, cause it's not funny.

[V-Adore]

There's nothing wrong with jokes about cunt pills or rape as long as that shit's funny.

Tell me a rape joke that'd make me laugh and I'll believe you.

Even if it wasn't funny to you, it could still fit with this theory, no? There's something wrong with the joke, cause it's not funny.

See, I think you're approaching this on two different wavelengths. You're implying that unfunny rape jokes are always unfunny based on execution -- if it's not funny, it's because it was badly implemented. If I may put words in andalucia's mouth, she's saying that the implementation is probably a moot point, because the general concept of rape jokes is unfunny, at least to her. In other words, she's arguing that some things are intrinsically unfunny, even if the execution sparkles.

(I sort of agree with her, sort of don't. I waffle.)

[AugustWest]

Maybe, but when was the last REALLY FUNNY joke about "baby rape" that YOU'VE heard?

Had something to do with duct tape, I think.

[AlohaDawg]

There's nothing wrong with jokes about cunt pills or rape as long as that shit's funny.

Tell me a rape joke that'd make me laugh and I'll believe you.

Even if it wasn't funny to you, it could still fit with this theory, no? There's something wrong with the joke, cause it's not funny.

This is the nutshell: We all find different things funny. Someone out there can and will laugh at a rape joke. There is no topic in existence that can't be joked about to SOMEONE. This is why I don't work in a funeral home. I guarantee I would find some funny shit every day and the client, who just lost a family member, would not and maybe never appreciate the humor. If it makes someone laugh, it's funny even if the rest of us don't get it or appreciate it.  

The problem is that there are those who have been picked on historically, and often are also in a position to speak for a minority or underrepresented, or financially beset group and they feel that they have moral authority to tell the rest of us, in the majority, what should be funny.  Even if the joke turns not on the unpopular view but on the CHARACTER of the person expressing it.

And it's too damn bad because those people NEVER, EVER have a sense of humor.

It's about context and it is also the cognitive environment of the person hearing the words. August is right; policing of language in a vacuum is a slippery slope to outlawing expression in general and shouldn't happen.

[AugustWest]

August is right;

I wish more people understood the universal truth of this three word statement.  Could you perhaps e-mail this to my wife and my boss?

[andalucia]

Gah... I'm getting out of this thread before I have to go all gender-politics on this.  Cause that never ever ends well.

Friends?

[pierced lemur]

My opinion of it would probably be different if it weren't for Beef's reactions and reluctance.

That's exactly what I said. Roast Beef = the reader. He's responding to Todd saying that just the way it's intended the reader should.

[Nabubrush]

There's nothing wrong with jokes about cunt pills or rape as long as that shit's funny.

Tell me a rape joke that'd make me laugh and I'll believe you.

Even if it wasn't funny to you, it could still fit with this theory, no? There's something wrong with the joke, cause it's not funny.

See, I think you're approaching this on two different wavelengths. You're implying that unfunny rape jokes are always unfunny based on execution -- if it's not funny, it's because it was badly implemented. If I may put words in andalucia's mouth, she's saying that the implementation is probably a moot point, because the general concept of rape jokes is unfunny, at least to her. In other words, she's arguing that some things are intrinsically unfunny, even if the execution sparkles.

(I sort of agree with her, sort of don't. I waffle.)

I would like to point out here that I was trying to comment on the mechanics of this original statement and the response to it. Even if "A" thought the specific joke wasn't funny, "C" could still say "well, there are funny jokes out there about rape/the holocaust/eating babies/whatever, it's just that this particular joke is not funny". And I still stand by my original statement on the cunt pills joke - for me, part of the humor didn't have anything to do with Beef's reaction, even if that makes me a bad person. Todd saying those things struck me as funny.

Also, yes, Andalucia - friends.

[V-Adore]

Yeah, with all due respect, I think it's about time I stepped out of this thread too. Be excellent to each other.

[PinkStainlessTail]

I was thinking about "cunt pills" today, and it struck me that the only reason I didn't feel it was offensive is because Onstad wrote it. If one of the idiots here at work had just said it out loud, I would have come unglued.

Note: this is just my opinion.

See, I think the reason it's not directly offensive is because Todd is not being held up as a role model who speaks the truth. "I ain't wearin' no gunny sack. bitches gotta take their cunt pills!" is supposed to be a breathtakingly offensive sentiment expressed is a breathtakingly offensive way. Todd is not a sympathetic character. He's a dick.

Maybe if those bitches took their cunt pills they'd realize this.

[CortJstr]

For comparison: Most here have probably seen/heard Chris Rock's Bring the Pain. In it he has a joke about spousal/date abuse where he says something to the effect of, "I'd never hit a woman, but I'll shake the shit out of her." Chris Rock managed to pull it off in the context of a stand-up show.

Would it be in poor taste at work or a dinner party? Probably. Would it have been downright offensive if constructed by somebody without Rock's talent? Almost certainly. But all things considered is the bit funny as presented? Yes.

[AlohaDawg]

We got into this great discussion very early in the life of this message board about what makes funny things funny.

It was JUST like this discussion except it was not sparked by a statement that, out of contest of the achewood strip, is offensive to some/many people.

The problem is that language between two people can be a surgical instrument of precise intent and meaning (like, say, to an attorney like the inestimable Mr West) but that, as the audience grows, language becomes a blunter object because so many people interpret it in their own way. This is why humor intended for the masses is likely to offend some people: it turns on language, and although we share a common language, we don't share the most important aspects of how we process information - our values, our knowledge, and our experience. So some guffaw and some walk out of the room. And it's OK to be in either group as long as you acknowledge

1) a person's right to make potentially offensive statements,
2) the listener's right to react in an appropriate way to the statement and 3) the responsibility  of the person making the statement to understand both groups of people and, when necessary and/or appropriate, acknowledge a statement that should not have been made and make things right in whatever way is appropriate.

It would be neat if people took responsibility for things they say but they don't.