The Student Room Group

"If you don't like the humour, don't watch it/don't listen to it"

A common phrase that gets thrown out during discussions about controversial 'comedians' and 'joke posts' is that "if you don't like the jokes, don't watch it" [[Or something along those lines]]. Other defensive quotes are:

"Humour is down to personal taste"
"There's always something somebody will be offended by"
"Any idiot would know no harm was meant"

I'm sure a lot of things come to mind reading this, recent news, comedians with tongue-in-cheek jokes. We laugh at some jokes because they're funny, we also laugh out of nervousness, or astonishment, because we can't believe someone actually said something that would otherwise cause a load of trouble if said by anyone else.

So are offensive jokes actually funny? Are the people who get offended by the jokes 'boring'? 'Spoilsports'? Or does finding these jokes funny mean you have a pretty terrible sense of humour?

Are jokes still funny if they're belittling or harming others?

Scroll to see replies

If people didn't find these jokes funny, I doubt the comedians who thrive off them would be so popular. Part if it might be the shock value but I really don't think that accounts for all of them, a lot of people think that they genuinely are funny. The issue here is that you seem to be treating funniness as something objective and collective. The fact that I might find things amusing that others would find shocking or offensive doesn't necessarily mean that my sense of humour is intrinsically worse, it just means it's different (and perhaps slightly socially unacceptable).

You can debate about the difference between fair-game comedy and harassment but ultimately, we've got freedom of speech and I don't think we should be trying to ban people making jokes that some might be upset by because that's the start of an extremely slippery slope towards censorship. I definitely do not think all comedy is fair but I'd rather have the status quo than a situation where amusement is regulated by some government body (although to be fair, it pretty much already is - if a mainstream comedian gets too edgy, they're putting their career on the line). It's a difficult situation because there definitely are things that I find funny that I know I really shouldn't be finding funny, but there's not really a massive amount that I can do about that.
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
A common phrase that gets thrown out during discussions about controversial 'comedians' and 'joke posts' is that "if you don't like the jokes, don't watch it" [[Or something along those lines]]. Other defensive quotes are:

"Humour is down to personal taste"
"There's always something somebody will be offended by"
"Any idiot would know no harm was meant"

I'm sure a lot of things come to mind reading this, recent news, comedians with tongue-in-cheek jokes. We laugh at some jokes because they're funny, we also laugh out of nervousness, or astonishment, because we can't believe someone actually said something that would otherwise cause a load of trouble if said by anyone else.

So are offensive jokes actually funny? Are the people who get offended by the jokes 'boring'? 'Spoilsports'? Or does finding these jokes funny mean you have a pretty terrible sense of humour?

Are jokes still funny if they're belittling or harming others?
Yes and No, depends on the context and intent of the joke.

Offence is caused when someone feels they are unfairly targeted or victimised - they are being neutered and hence may feel anger and frustration - trivialising extreme violence which they may have experienced first hand for instance and there is a danger of it becoming tacitly acceptable over time. It can also propagate negative stereotypes which has a tendency to increased bigotry.

For instance, joking about rape may be laughed at by a certain type of person, but not if you were a victim of rape which that person lives with throughout their lives. That is not so difficult to understand.

The problem is that some comedians have always looked for more extreme ways to shock an audience. That is not original in and of itself, but the boundary between satire/parody/irony is lost to many who revel in it as a way of legally venting and spreading hatred.

And there is the problem: the general public judges where the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable lay. But when something becomes ingrained in culture because it has ceased to have a shock affect and is then ignored or even condoned, then morality and human rights lose currency and innocent people are the victims.

Ultimately, it is up to society to decide what is and what is not acceptable. But when freedom of expression is broadcast on a national scale, then it is only right that those doing the broadcasting take on their shoulders the responsibility of judgement and accountability if they get it wrong.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by uberteknik
Yes and No, depends on the context and intent of the joke.

Offence is caused when someone feels they are unfairly targeted or victimised - they are being neutered and hence may feel anger and frustration - trivialising extreme violence which they may have experienced first hand for instance and there is a danger of it becoming tacitly acceptable over time. It can also propagate negative stereotypes which has a tendency to increased bigotry.

For instance, joking about rape may be laughed at by a certain type of person, but not if you were a victim of rape which that person lives with throughout their lives. That is not so difficult to understand.

The problem is that some comedians have always looked for more extreme ways to shock an audience. That is not original and the boundary between satire/parody/irony is lost to many who revel it as a way of legally venting hatred.

And there is the problem: the general public judges where the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable lay. But when something becomes ingrained in culture because it has ceased to have a shock affect and is then ignored or even condoned, then morality and human rights lose currency and innocent people are the victims.

Ultimately, it is up to society to decide what is and what is not acceptable. But when freedom of expression is broadcast on a national scale, then it is only right that those doing the broadcasting take on their shoulders the responsibility of judgement and accountability if they get it wrong.


When something is aired towards millions of people, regardless of what you joke about....there will be a number of people who have been personally affected by what is being joked about. So the option is to constrict freedom of speech heavily or watch comedy with the right attitude. Comedy is the last bastion of freedom of speech so once we lose that, 1984 here we come.
Original post by Jebedee
When something is aired towards millions of people, regardless of what you joke about....there will be a number of people who have been personally affected by what is being joked about. So the option is to constrict freedom of speech heavily or watch comedy with the right attitude. Comedy is the last bastion of freedom of speech so once we lose that, 1984 here we come.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting blanket censorship for every thing that may cause offence. Far from it.

I am saying that there is a judgement to be made on certain things whether the general public has the maturity to view something and see it for what it is or whether it will cause widespread offence and may incite hatred to violence.

For instance, making a joke at the expense of a child who was the victim of a paedophile will not be acceptable to most. So why broadcast such a joke if it will cause offence to a majority and when the reaction will be to anger the general public - if there was not an agenda behind the action in the first place?
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by uberteknik
Don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting blanket censorship for every thing that may cause offence. Far from it.

I am saying that there is a judgement to be made on certain things whether the general public has the maturity to view something and see it for what it is or whether it will cause widespread offence and may incite hatred to violence.

For instance, making a joke at the expense of a child who was the victim of a paedophile will not be acceptable to most. So why broadcast such a joke if it will cause offence to a majority when the only reaction will be to anger the general public - if there was not an agenda behind the action in the first place?


I don't recall him making any jokes towards specific cases. But you might want to check out Frankie Boyle who has made numerous jokes about The Mccanns and Katie Price's disabled child.

The reason is that Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr etc are too popular to target while Dapper laughs is a relatively new face and a far easier target for a feminist witch hunt.

Posted from TSR Mobile
It annoys me when people say Dapper Laughs is sexist, when really he does all sorts of jokes on men as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBdWLQmgywU

Isn't this proof the sort of person he is? Oh what, he's crude? Well tough because we have so many crude things on TV that are allowed.

Recently the Mirror attacked him for making 'rape jokes' after they attacked him for being a rapist and he was mocking how stupid it would be if it was true.
Reply 7
I think jokes can be both offensive and funny. Even direct insults can be funny. Downright assault can be funny.

People seem to assume that by laughing at something they are consenting to it, or some such thing. I think that's a mistaken view to have. I watched a video on YouTube a couple of days ago that I found hilarious - a guy running into various venues and shouting "FIRE!" to see how many people he could evacuate. I found it hilarious, but that doesn't mean I think what he did was okay.

The whole thing reminds me of people raised to think sex is dirty so they are always feeling guilty about having sexual thoughts or shaming the attitudes of others. Just loosen up. Life doesn't have to be so serious, you know?
the problem with "dapper laughs" is not that he makes controversial jokes, the problem is that he directly advocates the use of sexual harassment and the use of sexually aggressive language and presents it to impressionable young men as serious lifestyle advice.

He's not a comedian, he's just a loudmouth misogynist ****ing prick.
I think it's fair to say that if you don't like the humour, just don't watch or listen to it. Jimmy Carr recently got a lot of criticism after making a crude joke about the Pistorius/Steenkamp situation, and yes, it was easy to take the wrong way, but it was quite amusing (in my opinion). It's all down to your perception and ability to take things with a pinch of salt. Rarely do these jokes have truly malice intent - they're just crude for the shock value. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The point is not to take these jokes too seriously.
Reply 10
Original post by Jebedee
When something is aired towards millions of people, regardless of what you joke about....there will be a number of people who have been personally affected by what is being joked about. So the option is to constrict freedom of speech heavily or watch comedy with the right attitude. Comedy is the last bastion of freedom of speech so once we lose that, 1984 here we come.


Well evidently that days coming with dapper laughs being pulled off of the tv


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
Well evidently that days coming with dapper laughs being pulled off of the tv


Posted from TSR Mobile


But that has nothing to do with him being funny or unfunny.

Are you claiming there is simply nothing that isn't suitable for showing on television?
Reply 12
Original post by cole-slaw
the problem with "dapper laughs" is not that he makes controversial jokes, the problem is that he directly advocates the use of sexual harassment and the use of sexually aggressive language and presents it to impressionable young men as serious lifestyle advice.

He's not a comedian, he's just a loudmouth misogynist ****ing prick.

Had seen a bunch of news articles written about him but had no idea who he was. The universally negative comments I'd read about him led me to believe it was a terrible show and he was as you suggest.

Well, I watched it, and turns out it was very entertaining.
Original post by miser
Had seen a bunch of news articles written about him but had no idea who he was. The universally negative comments I'd read about him led me to believe it was a terrible show and he was as you suggest.

Well, I watched it, and turns out it was very entertaining.


lol, I could have predicted YOU would like it Miser. You're into all that misogynistic PUA **** aren't you.
Original post by cole-slaw
lol, I could have predicted YOU would like it Miser. You're into all that misogynistic PUA **** aren't you.


Nothing wrong with liking getting laid, try it some time.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jebedee
Nothing wrong with liking getting laid, try it some time.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Except PUA doesn't get you laid. PUA is a method used by inadequate failures of men to take out their sexual frustration by humiliating women in public with hateful sexist or threatening comments and harassment under the guise of "trying to pull". lol. As if.

Hence the reason this misogynist piece of **** has been removed from tv. Good riddance.
Original post by cole-slaw
Except PUA doesn't get you laid. PUA is a method used by inadequate failures of men to take out their sexual frustration by humiliating women in public with hateful sexist or threatening comments and harassment under the guise of "trying to pull". lol. As if.

Hence the reason this misogynist piece of **** has been removed from tv. Good riddance.


It's like saying "learning to play the guitar won't make you a good guitarist". If you've tried it and failed then that's most likely down to you alone, if you haven't tried it then you've no business commenting on its success/failure.
Original post by Jebedee
It's like saying "learning to play the guitar won't make you a good guitarist". If you've tried it and failed then that's most likely down to you alone, if you haven't tried it then you've no business commenting on its success/failure.



Completely nonsensical analogy, because PUA does not teach you to pull women, it teaches you to harass and humiliate women. How to lie to them, to trick them, to dupe them.

Of course I haven't tried PUA, PUA is for sad pathetic woman hating losers who couldn't get their dicks wet if they fell off a boat. I'm happy to report I am not, and have never been, a sad pathetic woman hating loser.

Asking for advice on pulling from a PUA is like asking advice on driving from someone who has failed their test 100 times in a row.

I've read up on it quite a lot mind you, so I'm by no means ignorant about it. Know your enemy etc.
Reply 18
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman

So are offensive jokes actually funny? Are the people who get offended by the jokes 'boring'? 'Spoilsports'? Or does finding these jokes funny mean you have a pretty terrible sense of humour?


Depends whether the comdian is Jerry Sadowitz or not.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by cole-slaw
Completely nonsensical analogy, because PUA does not teach you to pull women, it teaches you to harass and humiliate women. How to lie to them, to trick them, to dupe them.

Of course I haven't tried PUA, PUA is for sad pathetic woman hating losers who couldn't get their dicks wet if they fell off a boat. I'm happy to report I am not, and have never been, a sad pathetic woman hating loser.

Asking for advice on pulling from a PUA is like asking advice on driving from someone who has failed their test 100 times in a row.

I've read up on it quite a lot mind you, so I'm by no means ignorant about it. Know your enemy etc.


I sense butt-hurt. If you believe it's a method of "duping" a girl, then you're admitting that it does get guys laid. Putting aside any ethical side-issues. A bit of a contradiction there.

Only seems fitting that such a white knight would be against Dapper laughs so badly.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending