idahoblues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 20,357
You c##tI'm with you there, the use of asterisks clearly recognises that the words are not acceptable in general use, but seeking to ban words is f*cking weird.
You c##tI'm with you there, the use of asterisks clearly recognises that the words are not acceptable in general use, but seeking to ban words is f*cking weird.
Oh look…you GOT the joke, but then completely missed the THRUST of the joke! Shocked! Shocked, I say!I think this is the thing for me, i'm not offended, i'm not a traveller, but it is offensive and to add unnecessarily targets a minority group who still suffer significant racism with little societal support.
Both Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are considered specific racial groups and are probably the only racial group that it is still considered ok to essentially persecute. They are still seen as "fair game".
Faux outrage posters on Bluemoon?!What’s left to joke about?
Aye, right after we successfully ban sarcasm.
Oh look…you GOT the joke, but then completely missed the THRUST of the joke! Shocked! Shocked, I say!
Let me try again…
Killing Jews…BAD
SUBSTITUTING for Gypsies…Funny.
WHY?
He is holding a mirror up to his audience, and society.
Why is the extermination of one group considered so deplorable (because we are conditioned to KNOW the extermination of 6 million Jews may be the most heinous genocide in history, and it’s a current open wound with many who lived through it), yet switch it to a group that is CURRENTLY not generally considered as “protected” and are still quite openly negatively identified, and it’s funny and you can quite openly laugh out loud in your “safe mob”?
The joke is switch the “protected class” and we can laugh openly, because WE deem it so.
Is that right?
Is it wrong?
Do you laugh now and feel bad later?
Do you laugh now and never even THINK it’s something you shouldn’t find funny?
If you can’t see that, there’s nothing I can do. But, if you continue to be the tip of the spear on this issue, expect to meet resistance when you reach your target.
I wasn’t addressing your feelings about the issue, only that they are words that you identified as so jarring the poster felt the need to put an asterisk in them!Is it self-censored, or censored at all? Or just offensive words shoehorned into an arguement that can just as easily be made without them. Agree, the context is clear enough, yet, they still seem jarring.
Don't mean to labour the point. It was a suggestion, and not really for my benefit. I don't have an issue with it and I'll leave it at that, happy to be cancelled on this one.
The worst part is, this is an often used “trick” to make you laugh, but even supposedly sophisticated adults can’t see through their red mist faux outrage to see THEY are part of the joke….just the other side of it!Think part of the issue is how obvious do you subsequently make that though (or how much credit do you give the audience). There is always the risk that the majority aren’t viewing it in that way, Alf Garnett being a similar case in point, it can be easy to hide behind satire if it’s just left there.
Naturally assuming it was meant with that intention, I thought it was a brilliant joke.
The worst part is, this is an often used “trick” to make you laugh, but even supposedly sophisticated adults can’t see through their red mist faux outrage to see THEY are part of the joke….just the other side of it!
And, that’s another “trick”…take the audience to 90, push them to 105, then bring them back to 95 and they barely even notice where they are now!I actually think if you watch it, the cheap gag is more the Jehovah’s Witnesses one that he follows it up with.