Poll: Which Group of People You Should Never Make Fun Of?

[visiblenoise]

Terrorists. It'll only blow up in your face.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I really don't need to link the thread.

Yes, heaven forbid if you actually attempt to prove what you said when directly confronted. Nor prove that it has any fucking bearing on me calling you out on your hypocritical garbage.

You know the satire of this post? This is the garbage you try to call out constantly ...

You just confirmed what I said about you.

What? That I use English as per its intended use? What other word would I use in place of 'discrimination' when talking about evaluating sources for academic consideration of searching for an answer?

You disagree with me about not discriminating against people on the basis of their race.

Which does nothing but muddy the search for answers. If I wanted to ask what life is like in Sierra Leone, I'd go to Sierra Leone. I wouldn't ask my nextdoor neighbour, unless they were a migrant from Sierra Leone... though the possibility of that is small, and I'm not going to knock on their door to ask because there is a limitation on time.

Also, you had just confirmed, once again, only black people are affected by the justice system in the U.S.

Which I didn't say. If you linked the thread in question (if it matters so much to you) then people could see that.

Nice try, leaving the part about the justice system out of this post. So, you can have some wiggle room to avoid accountability of what you are saying.

Which has nothing to do with this issue and your ridiculous derailing.

Do you actually read you own posts?

Usually, did you even read mine before you called me racist and derailing?

Now, do you feel like answering the goddamn question?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

What obfuscates the issue is people's desire to see the world in absolutes and single qualities, and it's never that simple. Let's say for example that we have a cancer patient. Not usually considered cool to make fun of them, right? Well let's add that he's also an old, white rich man. By those qualities he should be free to make fun of. However, let's also add that he's disabled from the waist down. Not cool to make fun of. But he was a douchebag Bieber-esque popstar in his youth! Completely free! And so on.

As far as I've seen, no one in this thread has done that. Also, nobody has justified doing that. I'm not going to personally meet with a douchebag on their deathbed to mock them. Because I value my time more than just trying to be a **** to others. Moreover, I'm not going to pretend that I'm sad for their passing, either. No, death itself is not a tragedy .. it's an inevitable thing. I don't need to pretend to be sad about someone who repeatedly said being trans is a sin is dying, nor do I have to meet them on their deathbed to call them a **** and make fun of their cancer.

I can operate on this nuanced train of thought that suggests cunts who are cunts, are cunts. That doesn't mean I should visit them in the hospital and make their last moments as noisome as possibl. Even if they would suggest someone doing the same to me in all my waking moments.

 

[Satinavian]

Just because you were beaten up and mocked in highschool and make demands on teachers pretending the can cut through all that noise, then turning around and pretending you can equivocate that people should be mocked in the workplace or streets and workplace and it's censorshop for people calling you out on it ... is hypocrisy. Yes... I'm calling out the OP, Zontar, and any other anonymous edgelords of the internet who pretend that the state can, and then cannot, police the speech of others based on whatever bullshit reasons. If open mockery is bullying in the schoolyard and should be stopped ... what makes it less so in the workplace or directed at individuals in the street?

I live in a country where people still can be sued and even criminally prosecuted for insultshttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-23/news/1994143033_1_creative-insults-berlin-wimp
A law that was introduced to get the people to stop duelling over insults.
So i never would say the state can't police this. I still say that no group should be except on principle and that insults have there place

There's no metric to these things. Are you making fun of someone because of what they do or say? Probably ok. If you're mocking someone solely for what they are. It's not okay. If you keep mocking someone, or persist in deriding someone to the exclusion of all others or those others solely because of a characteristic of being... you're probably a nasty **** that deserves a good thumping for running their mouth.

I agree. But that means it is a case by case thing and there is no individual should never be mocked or insulted under any circumstances.

Arseholes hiding behind 'comedy' are still arseholes. And no... it's not 'censorship'. If an employee of mine finally snapped and punched another employee because they were constantly running their mouth and won't shut up, a part of me is going to find it reasonable.

And if someone of my coworkers makes a nasty joke that someone never does his work properly after the same person caused a serious error for the n-th time, a part of me is finding that reasonable too. And that won't change if this someone is gay or transgender or any other special group. No one should on principle be above ridicule.

Clearly... if you kept making fun of, say, trans people, don't then pretend the possibility of someone with a trans kid sticking a finger in your chest and giving you a face-ripping is somehow unjustified. Particularly when you know for a fact that their kid receives similar abuse in school or the workplace. And no, it's not a case of simply being 'sensitive'... it's a case of people having limits to their patience and standing up to bullies. Particularly when people hide behind 'comedy' as a means of simply undermining them publicly.

Going from words to physical violence is very rarely justified in my opinion. But maybe that is because i live in a country with far less physical violence and tolerance of it and the ability to sue people becuase of insults. Which also means that there is always a proper alternative that you should have used instead of your fists.

Don't pretend that fighting words don't exist.

No, they don't anymore. Remember that stuff about stopping duels ? Society did decide that fighting words or words justifying physical violence indeed don't exist. Yes, words can hurt. That is accepted. But they can't hurt that much that injuring someone becomes a proper defense action.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I live in a country where people still can be sued and even criminally prosecuted for insultshttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-23/news/1994143033_1_creative-insults-berlin-wimp
A law that was introduced to get the people to stop duelling over insults.
So i never would say the state can't police this. I still say that no group should be except on principle and that insults have there place

Insults do have their place. Well, kind of? The question of why should be seen first and centre.

I agree. But that means it is a case by case thing and there is no individual should never be mocked or insulted under any circumstances.

The very first sentence tries to make that clear. "There is no metric for these things" makes it patently clear that if you were to make a metric for these things, arseholes would still be arseholes. The only difference is whether we could make a metric for these or not, that we then should have the rectitude to not blame someone as 'PC police' or similarly retarded buzzwords for people standing up to them.

And if someone of my coworkers makes a nasty joke that someone never does his work properly after the same person caused a serious error for the n-th time, a part of me is finding that reasonable too. And that won't change if this someone is gay or transgender or any other special group. No one should on principle be above ridicule.

Which, once again, isn't an argument I made. Hence a part of me is going to see why the conflict happened. Where did I, at all, ask for a 'principle'? If I get angry at someone breaking their 6th glass that night, I'm angry that they broke the glass ... if I constantly hound how they break glasses even when they don't, I own part of the responsibility for a conflict. Verbal or otherwise.

A part of my brain should tell me this is irresponsible and unfair behaviour and I should probably stop. If I ignore it, I abdicate what I should have responsibly done. I own it like I do all my other actions.

Going from words to physical violence is very rarely justified in my opinion. But maybe that is because i live in a country with far less physical violence and tolerance of it and the ability to sue people becuase of insults. Which also means that there is always a proper alternative that you should have used instead of your fists.

People shouldn't be tying up taxpayer money in courts just because someone runs their mouth. If nobody does anything about people running their mouth, then it's a matter of litigation ... but for any singular incidence, no matter how much someone runs their mouth (unless they go on to incite violence/damaging of property/etc in others) ... having to go through the justice system of any country on this planet is ridiculous. But at the same time you cannot divorce words from actions taken so completely as to excuse all violation of basic ideas of common civility and expect someone not to take umbrage.

You cannot take the human out of civil society, and even the law recognizes this because there are many iterations of the fighting words clause. If someone punches a person in the face with little provocation, they should be fined and if no other causal factors can be reasonably deduced, maybe even be required to check anger management counselling in the locality. But if the person provokes repeatedly, beyond what anybody could reasonably deduce is 'a single incident, or one for which a party cannot reasonably be oblivious to what stressors may be apparent to cause conflict' (if we want to get specific), then people should be like; "Yeah, punching you was wrong ... but you were kind of asking for it."

That person is not a danger to themselves or the public ... not like that person who simply flies off the handle, and nor is the person who constantly runs their mouth blameless. By pretending that nobody should be above ridicule 'on principle', all without a "but...", you are making something beyond a metric into a metric ... which is no less ridiculous a notion.

People have patience, people have limits, push them so far and without any reasonable meansto avoid and they will lash out ... pretending like this is 'wrong' is like pretending how you should smack the dog when you continually try to stick your hand into its feeding bowl while it's trying to eat. It's not the dog's problem for biting your hand. It's you being an arsehole and tormenting it without end. And no, that is not an appeal to nature ... it's an analogy. As the person, or dog in this case, so infinitely reserved as to make no growl or bite is not suddenly this angel of free speech and its preservation ... it's because they are just exponentially more patient with obvious shitheads who probably deserved a good spanking as a child and never got it.

No, they don't anymore. Remember that stuff about stopping duels ? Society did decide that fighting words or words justifying physical violence indeed don't exist. Yes, words can hurt. That is accepted. But they can't hurt that much that injuring someone becomes a proper defense action.

One outlier does not a world view make. Australia? Fighting words. US? Fighting words. Britain? Depends where you are. Ireland? Depends where you are ... but in general, fighting words.

I will say, in Australia few states go into explicit detail about fighting words (provocation (which relates only to homicide)/actions under duress/intoxication), but having run a bar the police do take into account individual eye witnesses to determine who's really at fault. IF a person can show continual provocation, and there's intoxication involve, they do tend to crack the whip less ... not so much after the string of king hits and NSW started to really crack down on street level violence.

(Edit)But most of the West as far as I can tell consider aggravation, and gross, continual insult of character (particularly in terms of groups considered marked targets of typical hatred) as mitigating circumstances to charges of criminal assault(at sentencing). This is particularly true if the person shows remorse for their actions and has sufficient evidence of continual aggravation. Which is a likely result of anybody who is simply provoked into violence and doesn't otherwise have a history of violence.

As it should be ... might I add. If it can be shown how, say, a boss ridicules an employee to breaking point, chances are that will provide not merely mitigating circumstances ... so even if a person gets charged with assault, their sentencing will be lighter ... it will also open up further means for said offender to seek compensatory action by airing the boss's dirty laundry in the public eye.

The ramifications of a bad boss pursuing for assault is if they're known to be a toxic employer, they may not even want to because it will cost them something. Arseholes shouldn't be given a free pass to be arseholes. If they want to cry tears as if a victim of their shit-stirring, their garbage should be publicly aired and all the people they've treated like crap able to come to the public forefront and denounce them in the public eye. There is a point where sympathy for that black eye is very little when you hear that racist spiel and the person shouting abuse in someone's face that lead to it.

Naturally, the correct course of action is simply to record them as they go through their transphobic 'jokes' and scream at you how you didn't bother to do unpaid hours of overtime, doing work outside your job description, and simply give them a copy of the SD card (I hate corporate politics, personally). But asking all people to be this prepared to deal with a shitty boss is asking a bit much.

 

[Strazdas]

Everyone should be made fun of once in a while to get them of their high horses and back down to earth and make them realize you shouldnt react to every insult as if it is the end of the world.

 

[Akjosch]

I can only dispense those well-meant advice from wise sage Terry Jones:

Never be rude to an Arab,
An Israeli, or Saudi, or Jew.
Never be rude to an Irishman,
No matter what you do.

Never poke fun at a ******,
A Spic, or a Wop, or a Kraut.
And never put ...

(The remainder was cut short on account of the singer exploding.)
-------------------
Seriously though: Life's too short and laughter is often the best immediate answer to its absurdities and tragedies. And that includes making fun of everyone. No exceptions. Especially not for myself.

 

[KissingSunlight]

You disagree with me about not discriminating against people on the basis of their race.

Which does nothing but muddy the search for answers. If I wanted to ask what life is like in Sierra Leone, I'd go to Sierra Leone. I wouldn't ask my nextdoor neighbour, unless they were a migrant from Sierra Leone... though the possibility of that is small, and I'm not going to knock on their door to ask because there is a limitation on time.

This says it all. You accuse me that I "muddy the search for answers". Then you talk about Sierra Leone for no reason at all.

I'm done. Obviously, you are not serious about being honest about your position. You just want to cast aspersions on people you disagree with. You are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Since you asked for it...

White male is not a slur. However, anybody who uses white and/or male as an excuse to dismiss an opinion, discriminate, or to be physically or verbally abusive to someone. They are bigots. No amount of academic buzzwords, historical context, or political correctness can justify such behaviors. What you see a lot online and in popular media are attempts to do just that.

Which nobody has done. What people have done is criticise that people speaking from traditional positions of privilege about issues that don't directly reflect in their living standards or mode of existence as being equal to those who are inflicted by various unjustified actions within society. For example ... we should totally dismiss those white people who talk about how crime should be greater punished, because we know for a fact that by being 'greater punished' typically reflects in far more black people spending far more time in jails for reasons which are morally reprehensible.

Say, the number of black people thrown into jails simply for being unable to pay fines. That maybe it's better to talk to those black people and reveal the stupidity of the system rather than that senator who received a how-do-you-do from a corporate prison lobbyist.

Not all opinions are equal on all issues. Only ego would suggest as such.

I bolded the words that you claim "I have never said." We should discriminate against white people, because their opinions about the justice system is invalid. Black people are more knowledgeable about the justice system than white people.

By using you own logic, I would say that people who don't live in the U.S. Their opinions about the U.S. justice system are invalid. We should disregard them. Where are you from again?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Which nobody has done. What people have done is criticise that people speaking from traditional positions of privilege about issues that don't directly reflect in their living standards or mode of existence as being equal to those who are inflicted by various unjustified actions within society. For example ... we should totally dismiss those white people who talk about how crime should be greater punished, because we know for a fact that by being 'greater punished' typically reflects in far more black people spending far more time in jails for reasons which are morally reprehensible.

Say, the number of black people thrown into jails simply for being unable to pay fines. That maybe it's better to talk to those black people and reveal the stupidity of the system rather than that senator who received a how-do-you-do from a corporate prison lobbyist.

Not all opinions are equal on all issues. Only ego would suggest as such.

I bolded the words that you claim "I have never said." We should discriminate against white people, because their opinions about the justice system is invalid. Black people are more knowledgeable about the justice system than white people.

By using you own logic, I would say that people who don't live in the U.S. Their opinions about the U.S. justice system are invalid. We should disregard them. Where are you from again?

Here, bolded (and underlined) the parts you didn't bother to read.

Even if you simply extract all the parts I did bold... what part of that deserves the term 'racist' thrown in someone's face? How does it qualify? Secondly I am not an authoritative source on American politics. In any academic assessment YOU SHOULD TOTALLY IGNORE ME. The difference is if I decided to research the topic in an academic fashion I should totally assess the conflict of interest that senator might have when their campaign is funded by people who profit from excessive loss of liberty. I should show critical opposition as to its espoused validity. Do you believe advertisements on tv? No. Why does this change when it's politicians and not market advertisers?

It would be dishonest not to examine how this might affect the quality of someone's argument.

Let's say I was given huge sums of money by the tobacco industry and I publish a paper on how smoking isn't a primary factor in lung cancer .... would you ignore that fact I'm paid by the tobacco industry (through generous employment contracts, etc) and that I have a conflict of interest?

 

[CaitSeith]

there is a very simple rule of stand up comedy that should apply to general life as well.. always punch up not down.

feel free to make fun of those stronger, in power, more privileged than you personally but you are just a scum sucking bully if you pick on people weaker than you

Oh, but what happens when they have weaker egos? I think we all know the answer...

 

[CaitSeith]

Know your audience. The group you should never make fun of, is the one they find disgusting to make fun of (otherwise, be ready to face the backlash)

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

In general, I don't think it matters who you make fun of so much of what you make fun of them over, and how you do it. There's tasteful ways to joke about just about everything. All subjects are fine, all punchlines and audiences are not.

Also, regardless of how hilarious you think you are, if you're making fun of someone and it's bothering them, you should lay off. If you're really that hilarious, I'm sure you can come up with something funny that isn't hurting someone else's feelings.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

From a moral perspective, I would say nobody is above being made fun of. But from a practical standpoint, I would say dont make fun of Muslims or African Americans. Most of the time you only need to worry about offending people with bad humor. But some people will outright kill you for it.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Bugs bunny, you could start a war!

 

[Chairman Miaow]

If you say so. I don't keep up with the rules of what makes you an SJW any more. I figured I had earned my lifetime membership by wanting more and better female characters in video games.

If you ever get a pamphlet on the updated rules, will you send me a copy please?

I need to see if I'm still one based on my playing of State of Decay.

Wait, I played State of Decay. Good Game. Am I an SJW now? If so, why?

 

[Parasondox]

Those who despise the two names that shall not be named. Well, you can make fun out of them its just that if you do, they wont shut the fuck up about it and you will face a losing battle.

Hopeless, I tell you!!

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

If you say so. I don't keep up with the rules of what makes you an SJW any more. I figured I had earned my lifetime membership by wanting more and better female characters in video games.

If you ever get a pamphlet on the updated rules, will you send me a copy please?

I need to see if I'm still one based on my playing of State of Decay.

Wait, I played State of Decay. Good Game. Am I an SJW now? If so, why?

I think it's because there's too many...what's /pol/'s word for females again...oh yea, cumdumpsters and..what's their word for blacks...yea, dindunuffins as playable characters and not enough pure aryan hetero white men.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

If you say so. I don't keep up with the rules of what makes you an SJW any more. I figured I had earned my lifetime membership by wanting more and better female characters in video games.

If you ever get a pamphlet on the updated rules, will you send me a copy please?

I need to see if I'm still one based on my playing of State of Decay.

Wait, I played State of Decay. Good Game. Am I an SJW now? If so, why?

I think it's because there's too many...what's /pol/'s word for females again...oh yea, cumdumpsters and..what's their word for blacks...yea, dindunuffins as playable characters and not enough pure aryan hetero white men.

I'm being serious, was there actually any kind of controversy about State of Decay?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

If you say so. I don't keep up with the rules of what makes you an SJW any more. I figured I had earned my lifetime membership by wanting more and better female characters in video games.

If you ever get a pamphlet on the updated rules, will you send me a copy please?

I need to see if I'm still one based on my playing of State of Decay.

Wait, I played State of Decay. Good Game. Am I an SJW now? If so, why?

I think it's because there's too many...what's /pol/'s word for females again...oh yea, cumdumpsters and..what's their word for blacks...yea, dindunuffins as playable characters and not enough pure aryan hetero white men.

I'm being serious, was there actually any kind of controversy about State of Decay?

/Pol/, /gamergateHQ/ and a few comment sections took snipes at it for it's "SJW Pandering" because it gave women roughly the same abilities as the male characters and had "evil rednecks" as a faction (never minding that you got a powerful benefit if you completed their quests).