Are Racist and Sexist jokes ok if they are used purely in a joking manner?

[The Night Shade]

I'm sorry i couldn't resist

<youtube=rlluWyTT9Gw>

It pretty much sums it up,some people are offended by it other people not, other people are just trying to be fun take your pick.

 

[JasonKaotic]

As long as it's not said with the intention of offending people, it's fine. But if anyone gets offended (which, to be honest, they shouldn't), the joker should apologise.
People get too sensitive about this stuff. Most people actually don't care if you make jokes about their race/sex as long as you don't have any intention of offending them. I usually find white jokes pretty funny, never really offensive at all unless it's hate speech. Same with man jokes (except I usually don't really get them).
Like, I'm quite fond of Hitler jokes, and some people take it way too goddamn seriously. They assume people who like those jokes are some kind of Jew-racist. For one thing we're not even making jokes about the Jews, and again, it's said purely for the joke, no intention to offend.
(Unless the person saying the joke is a jew-racist, then they're just a dick.)

 

[Labyrinth]

That would be unfortunate. It doesn't change the fact that I think that the person who told the joke is well within their rights to do so. You can't predict how people are going to react to anything you say, someone could also have had a bad experience involving a tuba and an chimpanzee, but that doesn't meant that jokes about them shouldn't be made. Obviously, if you know someone will react badly to a joke about rape (or about anything for that matter) then it would be cruel to make the joke in front of them, but otherwise I'm still OK with it.

If someone can make others laugh with a joke about anything, including rape, then good for them as they have brought a little happiness into other's lives.

Problem with those kind of jokes is you just don't know whether people you're telling it to are sensitive to that. I'm a fan of self-aware censorship with derogatory slurs against minority groups, the same for jokes like that. Is it really worth the kind of emotional upset it can cause for a cheap laugh?

 

[Johanthemonster666]

One thing that annoys me about the web community (and indeed my generation) is that the Carlos Mencias,Daniel Toshes and other untalented comedians/trolls of the world have convinced a whole bunch of people that being politically incorrect and "shocking" just for their own sake equals humor and that people who find it inappropriate lack a sense of humor. There's a difference between Mel Brooks politically incorrect humor (which is purposeful and usually makes fun of the bigotry itself) and some of this stuff I see on here which just amounts to "we're laughing at your expense...you mad bro?... oh get a life dude, this is funny 'cause it's controversial!" -_-

Unfortunately, masking racist, sexists and homophobic jokes as gestures of some underlying tolerance or healthy sense of humor is not always an indication of either.

I've heard far more people spit out inappropriate race and sex jokes verbatim (from a comedian or show) without understanding the context or the negative connotations either. Take my one female friend for example: She's an airhead and makes a fool of herself when she tells Jewish jokes (in front of her Jewish friends)gives Nazi salutes to a friend of mine who's of Swedish-Nordic decent calling her "The Aryan", calling me and my BF f**ots in public (she's bisexual herself) and using rather old, outdated slurs to describe the people (while assuring everyone she's not a bigot and is just trying to be funny).

True she may be an idiot: not meaning to be offensive or a bigot at all.... it just makes her sound like a complete moron when she tells politically incorrect jokes out one side of her mouth, and then getting upset when the media or friends make jokes about obese people (which she also is).

This is how I feel about things like "No Homo" or calling people "f*gs" on 4Chan. It's pointless,and makes you sound like a Westboro church member and would definitely not fly if other terms were substituted so casually. To me it's passive aggressive bigotry for people who don't want to be considered bigots to say and laugh at.

And no, changing a slur into an everyday word to describe people you don't like (without supposedly holding any prejudice toward the people who were originally "assigned" that word by society as an insult) does not "empower" victims to laugh alongside everyone else, or change the word's original meaning at all. One black man calling another "ni**er" does not fly when a white or Hispanic person says it, nor does that word's meaning change because it is being used in a "friendly" or "humorous" way or if it is ever turned into an Internet meme.

You can say whatever you want in the end I guess. Be politically incorrect if you must, and say fa*ot or ni**er around me, because I sure won't be the one to punch you in the face.

Just don't expect other people to take it so lightly. ;-/

 

[DEAD34345]

That would be unfortunate. It doesn't change the fact that I think that the person who told the joke is well within their rights to do so. You can't predict how people are going to react to anything you say, someone could also have had a bad experience involving a tuba and an chimpanzee, but that doesn't meant that jokes about them shouldn't be made. Obviously, if you know someone will react badly to a joke about rape (or about anything for that matter) then it would be cruel to make the joke in front of them, but otherwise I'm still OK with it.

If someone can make others laugh with a joke about anything, including rape, then good for them as they have brought a little happiness into other's lives.

Problem with those kind of jokes is you just don't know whether people you're telling it to are sensitive to that. I'm a fan of self-aware censorship with derogatory slurs against minority groups, the same for jokes like that. Is it really worth the kind of emotional upset it can cause for a cheap laugh?

In my opinion, yes. Anything can cause emotional upset, and if you worry about things like that you would end up not saying anything for fear of someone reacting badly. If you have a funny joke, and you think the people around you won't be offended, go for it. If someone reacts badly you can shrug, and tell them you didn't mean to offend them. If they hate you forever for telling a joke, then chances are you don't want be around them anyway, at least I wouldn't.

To be honest though this is all kind of irrelevant, because offensive jokes are almost never funny in the first place.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

It's ok as long as people can understand that it's a joke. Of course, there are always going to be people who are offended by the silliest of things so that's not necessarily a good way to gauge anything. I would just say that in general it's fine to make jokes about pretty much anthing as long as it's not mean spirited and only said for a laugh.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

"There is nothing in this world that should be taken seriously, because nothing really deserves to."(Bert Brecht)
There is no topic a good joke is forbidden to use.But you have to know the difference between a joke and a pure insult.
As long as you know that sexual or racial stereotypes are artificial concepts far from reality, joke about them as much as you want.
Humorcripples that get offended about everything are just boring simple people that cant cope with jokes on their costs. If you cant laugh about yourself you miss the best joke of your life.

 

[Griffolion]

A few weeks back I was in Social Studies with my friend and I see this vocabulary word. The word was Equal Rights Admenment. (The one for women). I then go "Hey wanna see a good joke." And then I point at the word. Is this okay that I did this. I don't think there is anything wrong with equal rights with women. I just thought it was funny. So opinions?

It's one of those fine line issues where many things play into it. Who is the person saying it, what's the context it's being said in, how seriously racist or sexist is the joke etc.

One person could say something and get away with it, while someone else saying the same thing could get lynched for it. It's contextual.

I guess the best example is African American people calling each other the N word. It's a racist derogatory term spanning back to the slave trade which their ancestors were subjected to, but saying it to each other suddenly becomes okay.

 

[Rhymenoceros]

It's ok if it's purely joking.
If someone gets offended then you should stop

 

[Retronana]

It's okay when it's fun stuff like when a teammate of mine caught a short kickoff in football (He was in the wedge) ran 10 yards then dropped a shoulder into a tackler (who was a huge black guy), but the guy flattened him and you could hear the impact from the stands. When he came of the field he just said "Damn it! I hate black guys!" whilst standing in between our black fullback and tackle.

Ah that was funny at the time.

 

[Lionsfan]

One thing that annoys me about the web community (and indeed my generation) is that the Carlos Mencias,Daniel Toshes and other untalented comedians/trolls of the world have convinced a whole bunch of people that being politically incorrect and "shocking" just for their own sake equals humor and that people who find it inappropriate lack a sense of humor. There's a difference between Mel Brooks politically incorrect humor (which is purposeful and usually makes fun of the bigotry itself) and some of this stuff I see on here which just amounts to "we're laughing at your expense...you mad bro?... oh get a life dude, this is funny 'cause it's controversial!" -_-

\

The problem is that most of that stuff sells really easily. Take Daniel Tosh for example. His earlier material (like his bit on Comedy Central Presents or his stand up Completely Serious) didn't really rely on controversial materials attacking various groups as the punchline. But now that he's done a couple seasons on a successful show using that type of material (shock) he's gonna keep it up to keep making money, because that's what 20 somethings like, the "ability" to say offensive things in the name of comedy

 

[nbamaniac]

As long as the joke has no real malice behind it, then sure.

 

[funguy2121]

Yes, its fine.


As a comment though, the legal system is already biased in Favor of Women, so it isnt as funny as it may have been about two decades ago.

Where do you live? In Pakistan where a rape victim goes to prison for adultery because she can't furnish 7 witnesses, or in America where 15 out of 16 rapists never spend a single day in jail?

The dating system favors women. Some female-dominated fields dominate women. That's about it.

Source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics

Edit: This should say "favor."

Australia.

Both here, and in the USA, ive attented Family Courts as an observer, and i can guarantee that anyone who does the same in either of the two will draw the same conclusion.

Its more than the dating system, i assure you.
Also, im no sexist. But it remains factual, that here, if a woman applies for a job, and there are Three other Male candidates, she can attempt to charge the potential employer with discrimination, even if she is less qualified.
And before you try and say it, no, this does not happen in Family Courts. Only with many employers ive spoken to.


Now can we remain on topic, about jokes, rather than the impact of sexuality in modern Society?

No!

You're right, I forgot family court. The mother is favored far more often than the father and not just because there are more dead-beat dads but because of biases in the system.

Because of that same bias, the woman in the example you offered may get that job but be paid less for doing the exact same work and performing at exactly the same level. Also, a man could sue the potential employer, claiming discrimination, even if he were less qualified. Either way, not many people of either gender have been very successful with such frivolous lawsuits. Remember, a woman sued McDonalds for over a million dollars because they didn't warn her that her coffee was hot.

Our society still favors men over women when it comes to independence, the workplace, and positions of power. And since women are targeted far more often (outside of jail, at least) for rape and muggings, I think it's fair to say that overall they have a harder time. Now, if a woman wants to be a worthless lout and suck off a rich guy so she can dig her claws into him, she probably can. But if she wants a life of meaning things tend to be a bit more difficult for her.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

I still have never stated that Duke was satire of over-the top adolescent-pandering violence.

I quoted you saying it, then saying that you didn't say it. I bolded it in both places. Look again. It's there.

As for the rest of your comments, I don't think of Duke Nukem as a deconstructionist. I don't think that Derrida would have much use for him. I explained how the Wayans brothers movies were analogous. I think you give Duke far too much credit for being sophisticated than it has warranted. A great many hacks have created material that was offensive for controversy's sake (a sure sign that one is not a member of the "art" club), then said later in its defense that it was satire. When intelligent satire is created, its author never has to say so, because others will point it out. I can run through my workplace high as a kite (mods: I don't indulge in illicit substances) playing grab-ass, and then claim that it's satire. That's a cop-out.

Also, how does aping the Ash lines from the Evil Dead movies (and not paying them for it or crediting the author) fit in with your idea that it is satire?

Just looked back and uh, nope I never said it. You quoted me saying that Duke Nukem was NOT satire of over-the-top adolescent-pandering violence, but never that it WAS.

Also, never said he was a deconstructionIST, I said he was a deconstruction. I also never said it was sophisticated. Just because something is satirical does not make it sophisticated. You are putting A LOT of words in my mouth, sir. And yes, you explained how the Wayan's movies were analogous in a completely nonsensical and irrelevant way that completely failed to explain how they were analogous by simply having no basis in reality or actual explanation. All you've said are "they're both bad satirists." Then I went on to explain how they're different. Again, I'm just repeating myself, but: "The Wayan's movies satire by making crappy, pointless references that you're supposed to laugh at because it's a reference. Duke deconstructs and makes fun of one specific character archetype." I never said "sophistacted" and never said "deconstructionist." I said "deconstruct", as in, destroys and rebuilds (to ridiculous proportions) the trope. Pointless references and trope deconstruction are 2 completely different things. Pointless references is when some random famous icon appears on Family Guy or a scene is copied from some movie and you're supposed to laugh because it's a direct reference to something. Duke Nukem is more analogous to Archer or pretty much any Mel Brooks movie. The humor lies in the fact that it is a humorous caricature of a certain genre or archetype, not from a cheap laugh because Harry Potter just walked on frame. Again, I'm not saying Duke Nukem is great or sophisticated or anything, but comparing it to Wayan's movies is unfair, insulting, and shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about vis-a-vis the purpose of Duke Nukem, and honestly, on account of your closed mind in this situation, the loss is yours.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

What do you mean by "Ok"?

If you are at a suit and tie wine tasting event, none under any circumstance, but in general, if you made the joke for the sake of being funny, it's Ok. Period. Obviously there are exceptions, i.e. you wouldn't tell a black joke to a black guy, but unless there is actual malicious intent, anything goes.

And besides, just remember this:

 

[Hawk eye1466]

It's fine as long as everyone knows its only done in good fun and you don't mean to offend

 

[funguy2121]

I still have never stated that Duke was satire of over-the top adolescent-pandering violence.

I quoted you saying it, then saying that you didn't say it. I bolded it in both places. Look again. It's there.

As for the rest of your comments, I don't think of Duke Nukem as a deconstructionist. I don't think that Derrida would have much use for him. I explained how the Wayans brothers movies were analogous. I think you give Duke far too much credit for being sophisticated than it has warranted. A great many hacks have created material that was offensive for controversy's sake (a sure sign that one is not a member of the "art" club), then said later in its defense that it was satire. When intelligent satire is created, its author never has to say so, because others will point it out. I can run through my workplace high as a kite (mods: I don't indulge in illicit substances) playing grab-ass, and then claim that it's satire. That's a cop-out.

Also, how does aping the Ash lines from the Evil Dead movies (and not paying them for it or crediting the author) fit in with your idea that it is satire?

Just looked back and uh, nope I never said it. (1)You quoted me saying that Duke Nukem was NOT satire of over-the-top adolescent-pandering violence, but never that it WAS.

(2)Also, never said he was a deconstructionIST, I said he was a deconstruction. (3)I also never said it was sophisticated. Just because something is satirical does not make it sophisticated. (4)You are putting A LOT of words in my mouth, sir. (5)And yes, you explained how the Wayan's movies were analogous in a completely nonsensical and irrelevant way that completely failed to explain how they were analogous by simply having no basis in reality or actual explanation. All you've said are "they're both bad satirists." Then I went on to explain how they're different. Again, I'm just repeating myself, but: "The Wayan's movies satire by making crappy, pointless references that you're supposed to laugh at because it's a reference. Duke deconstructs and makes fun of one specific character archetype." I never said "sophistacted" and never said "deconstructionist." (6)I said "deconstruct", as in, destroys and rebuilds (to ridiculous proportions) the trope. (7)Pointless references and trope deconstruction are 2 completely different things. (8)Pointless references is when some random famous icon appears on Family Guy or a scene is copied from some movie and you're supposed to laugh because it's a direct reference to something. (9)Duke Nukem is more analogous to Archer or pretty much any Mel Brooks movie. The humor lies in the fact that it is a humorous caricature of a certain genre or archetype, not from a cheap laugh because Harry Potter just walked on frame. (10)Again, I'm not saying Duke Nukem is great or sophisticated or anything, but comparing it to Wayan's movies is unfair, insulting, and shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about (11)vis-a-vis the purpose of Duke Nukem, and honestly, on account of your closed mind in this situation, the loss is yours.

This sort of willful disregard for rational thought could only possibly be t-rolling.

(1) I bolded both. You know this because you removed the first bolded part. But you can't edit my post, and it's still there (page 5, I believe?).
(2) It's clear you don't understand the distinction. Is he an accidental deconstruction? Also, how is he broken down?
(3) No, you didn't. Every statement I make is not a "you said this" statement. It's clear from your post that you think it's sophisticated, like all good, true satire is.
(4) I feel so sorry for you.
(5) "That doesn't make sense! You're insane!" ...is not an argument.
(6) There's a rule in comedy that's so well known that stand ups use it in their routines. If you deconstruct a joke, you ruin it. It's no longer funny. Comedians are not post-modernists. Now I wonder if you know what "destroy" and "rebuild" mean. Duke doesn't "rebuild" anything. Again, you're giving it far too much credit for being sophisticated. It's just pandering, kind of like a Wayans movie.
(7) Yes, I know.
(8) Oh, my god, are you really going to define "deconstruction" (wrongly) again? And now I get to hear the definition of "pointless reference?" Now that's a failed analogy. So duke tickling an orifice and saying "coochie coo" is a clever reference? How is it a reference at all?
(9) While we're talking to each other like the kid from Jerry MacGuire, an analogy is a comparison of relationships, and requires 4 subjects.
(10) And yet you compared it to Archer.
(11) Vis-a-vis? Really? Wow, you must have gone to school

 

[Mr Pantomime]

As long as no one gets offended

Problem is, you dont know if its offensive until you offend someone. Really, your only option is tact.

OT: I think its fine, as long as theres no real anomosity behind it. Pro tip, look at what youre saying and think how it would feel if someone said it to you. By that point the moment will have passed, and you will never say anything again, ergo nothing offensive.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. So long as you makes jokes that use racism or sexism as there base you perpetuate those prejudices. It doesn't mater whether you believe in them or not, making jokes reinforces them.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

I still have never stated that Duke was satire of over-the top adolescent-pandering violence.

I quoted you saying it, then saying that you didn't say it. I bolded it in both places. Look again. It's there.

As for the rest of your comments, I don't think of Duke Nukem as a deconstructionist. I don't think that Derrida would have much use for him. I explained how the Wayans brothers movies were analogous. I think you give Duke far too much credit for being sophisticated than it has warranted. A great many hacks have created material that was offensive for controversy's sake (a sure sign that one is not a member of the "art" club), then said later in its defense that it was satire. When intelligent satire is created, its author never has to say so, because others will point it out. I can run through my workplace high as a kite (mods: I don't indulge in illicit substances) playing grab-ass, and then claim that it's satire. That's a cop-out.

Also, how does aping the Ash lines from the Evil Dead movies (and not paying them for it or crediting the author) fit in with your idea that it is satire?

Just looked back and uh, nope I never said it. (1)You quoted me saying that Duke Nukem was NOT satire of over-the-top adolescent-pandering violence, but never that it WAS.

(2)Also, never said he was a deconstructionIST, I said he was a deconstruction. (3)I also never said it was sophisticated. Just because something is satirical does not make it sophisticated. (4)You are putting A LOT of words in my mouth, sir. (5)And yes, you explained how the Wayan's movies were analogous in a completely nonsensical and irrelevant way that completely failed to explain how they were analogous by simply having no basis in reality or actual explanation. All you've said are "they're both bad satirists." Then I went on to explain how they're different. Again, I'm just repeating myself, but: "The Wayan's movies satire by making crappy, pointless references that you're supposed to laugh at because it's a reference. Duke deconstructs and makes fun of one specific character archetype." I never said "sophistacted" and never said "deconstructionist." (6)I said "deconstruct", as in, destroys and rebuilds (to ridiculous proportions) the trope. (7)Pointless references and trope deconstruction are 2 completely different things. (8)Pointless references is when some random famous icon appears on Family Guy or a scene is copied from some movie and you're supposed to laugh because it's a direct reference to something. (9)Duke Nukem is more analogous to Archer or pretty much any Mel Brooks movie. The humor lies in the fact that it is a humorous caricature of a certain genre or archetype, not from a cheap laugh because Harry Potter just walked on frame. (10)Again, I'm not saying Duke Nukem is great or sophisticated or anything, but comparing it to Wayan's movies is unfair, insulting, and shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about (11)vis-a-vis the purpose of Duke Nukem, and honestly, on account of your closed mind in this situation, the loss is yours.

This sort of willful disregard for rational thought could only possibly be t-rolling.

(1) I bolded both. You know this because you removed the first bolded part. But you can't edit my post, and it's still there (page 5, I believe?).
(2) It's clear you don't understand the distinction. Is he an accidental deconstruction? Also, how is he broken down?
(3) No, you didn't. Every statement I make is not a "you said this" statement. It's clear from your post that you think it's sophisticated, like all good, true satire is.
(4) I feel so sorry for you.
(5) "That doesn't make sense! You're insane!" ...is not an argument.
(6) There's a rule in comedy that's so well known that stand ups use it in their routines. If you deconstruct a joke, you ruin it. It's no longer funny. Comedians are not post-modernists. Now I wonder if you know what "destroy" and "rebuild" mean. Duke doesn't "rebuild" anything. Again, you're giving it far too much credit for being sophisticated. It's just pandering, kind of like a Wayans movie.
(7) Yes, I know.
(8) Oh, my god, are you really going to define "deconstruction" (wrongly) again? And now I get to hear the definition of "pointless reference?" Now that's a failed analogy. So duke tickling an orifice and saying "coochie coo" is a clever reference? How is it a reference at all?
(9) While we're talking to each other like the kid from Jerry MacGuire, an analogy is a comparison of relationships, and requires 4 subjects.
(10) And yet you compared it to Archer.
(11) Vis-a-vis? Really? Wow, you must have gone to school

(1) Nope. Keep going back, and you did no such thing. You bolded me saying that it WASN'T, but never that it was.
(2) Why does that even matter?
(3) I never even implied sophistication. "Satire" does not imply "sophistication" by any means. The Simpsons is satire, but I would never call it sophisticated.
(4) You feel sorry for me because I point out facts? REAL mature.
(5) Except I never implied you didn't make sense, or that you were insane.
Again, FOR THE THIRD TIME!
"The Wayan's movies satire by making crappy, pointless references that you're supposed to laugh at because it's a reference. Duke deconstructs and makes fun of one specific character archetype."
THAT is the argument. NOTHING in there says that your argument did not make sense or was insane, it simply points out that you clearly didn't read what I said before.
(6) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Deconstruction
(7) Well, you keep saying they're the same by claiming that Duke Nukem and the Wayan's films are similar, so you clearly don't.
(8) I never said that was a "clever" reference or a reference at all.
(9) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
(10) Again with you and things that are completely irrelevant... what do my statement and your corresponding one have to do with each other in any capacity?
(11) Making fun of my grammar. REAL mature. Next you're gonna compare to me to the nazis or some other 5-year-old crap like that.