Outrage as Harriet Harman makes Anti-Semitic joke on air

Scroll to see replies

That context determines its newsworthiness, but not its offensiveness. It should be obvious that sincerely making a racist joke expecting it to be found funny is more offensive than merely repeating one to use as an example of what is unacceptable.

The Harvard applicants had nobody to offend, because nobody else could see their chat.

Reply 21

AngeryPenguin

Original post by 999tigger

People with more than one account on the same thread are very sad.

I'm sad because I can't remember my password on my phone?

Reply 22

username878267

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Disgusting. I think the least we can expect from our politicians is that they would be able to deliver a punchline better than that.

Seriously, the modern left has lost it. Turning on one of its own for giving an example of something in the course of condemning it. Reminds me of that Life of Brian scene with everyone saying 'Jehovah'.

It's the right rather than the left who are offended by this.

It reminds me of when Diane Abbot went on 'this morning' and read out some of the racist comments directed at her and she was criticised by right wing posters on here for using the 'n word' in the context of describing it as being used against her.

Reply 23

anarchism101

Original post by AngeryPenguin

The Harvard applicants had nobody to offend, because nobody else could see their chat.

Evidently someone did, or we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Also, offensiveness can be a matter of both intent and content as well as reception.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 24

username2324315

Wait a minute... she's saying that these jokes are hurtful and not funny, she's not saying it because she agrees with it. Am I missing something out here?

Reply 25

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Bornblue

Seems to be both. It's ridiculous either way.

Reply 26

999tigger

Original post by Rex Onocrotalus

Wait a minute... she's saying that these jokes are hurtful and not funny, she's not saying it because she agrees with it. Am I missing something out here?

Nope you are correct. The penguin poster cant see the difference in making a joke because you find it amusing or referring to one in a factual way because you consider it deplorable and report it for prosecution. They are unable to deal with the concept of context or what is required to make a joke.

Reply 27

username2324315

Original post by 999tigger

I'd completely understand if she said it because she thought it was amusing, but she's literally showing how awful antisemitism is?

Reply 28

999tigger

Original post by Rex Onocrotalus

I'd completely understand if she said it because she thought it was amusing, but she's literally showing how awful antisemitism is?

Yes. Forget the OP they are trying to pretend she made the joke as if she approved of it rather than made a factual description as an example.

It remains questionable whether she needed to repeat it in full or she needed to make the reference about Neil being likely to approve. It was a real life example from Imperials Rag magazine at the time, which she had referred to the DPP.

Reply 29

ChaoticButterfly

Err... she was showing what kind of jokes used to be used. People should have their faces rubbed in the unpleasantness of the past. Maybe then they would realise what things were like before political correctness. I do it whenever in conversation with a right winger that wants to go back the 80s. I just say the stuff than was acceptable then, which is usually extremely racist.

It was also fair to bring it up in the context imo. Neil and Portillo were making the usual claim that we are all to sensitive censorious when it comes to jokes. I'm surprised Neil is being such a snowflake. This is what they want surely? Then we we have Portillo using the separation of the art from the artists as to why we should not be going after sexual abuse by people like Kevin Spacey... the hypocrisy.

I watched that episode on air and didn't even notice anything. I did wonder why Neil just shut her down randomly, now it makes sense.

I would say she should apologise to anyone who found it hurtful and offensive... but then, no one has the right to not be offended huh?

Original post by Rex Onocrotalus

I'd completely understand if she said it because she thought it was amusing, but she's literally showing how awful antisemitism is?

She's also showing how political correctness has actually stopped these kind of jokes, that Andrew Niels finds so distasteful and offensive that they must never be uttered, even if only uttered to show how awful they are. Considering Andrew Niel is fine with holocaust deniers and anti-Semites writing for the Spectator, and is generally against political correct culture, the ball is in his court as to why she should have not have said this. It isn't like he is a social justice warrior and Hariet Harmon is a social justice warrior going round trying to shut those kinds of jokes down.

Original post by gjd800

Yes, I was surprised he didn't go off on one. Shouted her down a bit but pretty mild all considered.

That berk had David Irving (holocaust denier) translate Goebbels diaries and edited the Spectator which has been regularly publishing Golden Dawn supporters and anti-semites.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 30

username878267

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Seems to be both. It's ridiculous either way.

Of course it's ridiculous. Quite how some people don't understand the difference between making an anti Semitic joke and quoting it in the context of criticising it, I don't know.

Some people, whether on the right or the left are just looking to be offended by something.

I used to think it was more prominent on the left but nowadays if the BBC so much as sneezes, you have huge numbers of right wing posters alleging a Marxist conspiracy targeted against white men, or something.