Skip to main content
Topic: General Discussions (Read 109065 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1395

Have you watched Anthony Jeselnik?
I had to look him up as i didn't recognise the name. He looks somewhat familiar but i can't recall what i've seen of him.

I started watching some Jim Jeffries a year or so ago after avoiding him for so long.
He is 'the gun control guy' who nailed that better than anyone before or since him. Doesn't mind going hard at 'supposedly sacred' factions.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1396
Thryleon, nice way to suggest we’re talking about violence here. We’re not. Or should I say the only violence mentioned was that of Muslims in retribution for jokes about Mohammad (yep, cancellation perpetrated by the religious). Was that what you meant by reprisals?

And just to clarify, are you saying there can be reprisals against those exercising free speech but there shouldn’t be reprisals to those reprisals? I’d have to say you haven’t made your position clear.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1397
I think the ratings tell you something about "the project" as a non quality show......they did a piece on ISIS brides wanting back to Aus at the end of last year that made me switch off for good.

Its utter puss EB, don't watch it. Just read about the story and found it all very interesting.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1398
It’s funny when the anti-PC and anti-Woke crowd get their knickers in a knot over “free speech”. The irony is that the right wingers have always been about suppressing free speech and yet they say that they are its protectors.

“Decency” and “respect” only limit attacks on their own sacrosanct concerns: the flag, the national anthem, our “betters”, our police, our military, capitalism (ooh, watch out for them Socialists!) and Christian values (and here we need to note that supposedly religious freedom is heat they’re on about except that only Christian religions are really worthy of respect). And whatever you do, don’t have a go at the military saluting the flag while the national anthem is playing!

I would have thought that decency and respect would mean we shouldn’t bully minorities. And yet the crucible of right-wing thought, the USA, is currently awash with legislation intended to harass minorities and ensure they aren’t treated as equals. There are “Don’t Say Gay” laws, laws banning gender affirming medical treatment, laws banning abortions, laws banning schools from teaching about the history of slavery, book banning where the books include non-CIS gendered characters.

The funny thing is right wingers supposedly want to keep government out of their lives. The smaller government is, the better. And yet they are the ones using government to regulate how others live their lives, even to the extent of prying into bedrooms to do it. So, don’t take our guns but make sure you take their rights. Nice one.
So I am right wing and have my knickers in a knot, ok then.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1399
I’m happy to accept your assurances you aren’t, if that’s what you’re saying.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1400
Thryleon, nice way to suggest we’re talking about violence here. We’re not. Or should I say the only violence mentioned was that of Muslims in retribution for jokes about Mohammad (yep, cancellation perpetrated by the religious). Was that what you meant by reprisals?

And just to clarify, are you saying there can be reprisals against those exercising free speech but there shouldn’t be reprisals to those reprisals? I’d have to say you haven’t made your position clear.
You've assumed poorly.


you seem to think that perpetuating the same ethical errors are ok, because the context is different.

Eye for an eye means that it's not ok to bag out others because it had been done historically.


The person who stated the joke about Jesus being nailed has rightly or wrongly set themselves up for a back lash and its warranted.  Poking fun at someone being crucified is a bit of kicking a man whilst he's down and in poor taste if nothing else.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1401
I’m happy to accept your assurances you aren’t, if that’s what you’re saying.
Mav here's where I'm coming from, make of it what you will. Sometimes I think my wording and how I articulate my point fails me miserably.
- I can't tolerate general stupidity, as a society I think we are generally dumber these days (e.g. see my post about the level crossing removal).
- I care about sustainability, the land, the environment and the people that rely on all three (e.g First Nations peoples, our famers etc). I'm convinced that all the governments/political parties in this country are incapable of caring and properly managing any of those items.
- I like to use the outdoors ie 4wd, camp, hunt and fish. I do this following all the rules and sustainably. I'm convinced all governments/political parties in this country are incapable of managing these activities properly (there's pattern forming).
- I can't tolerate double standards, treat everyone equally and fairly and the world will be a better and more peaceful place.
For example, I can't stand the use of the N word, ever under any circumstances, it's abhorrent. But I also can't stand it when African Americans use it jokingly or as part of their vernacular. Educate, lead and set the example, if you don't want people to use that word, dont you use it, ever. I remember a lesson my father taught when I used the word "wog" once  as part of my vernicular. He absolutely roasted me and said "son, if you dont like being called a wog, dont use the word ever, set the example and call it out when its used". Similarly, First Nations peoples often use the word "black fella". I was always taught its a derogatory term and should never be used. So I say to our First Nations peoples, educate by setting the example, dont use the term and call it out when it is. If not, its hypocritical in my book.
What I found interesting about the comments on The Project was along similar lines as above. The LBGTI community is fighting the good fight for equality. So again I say stay classy, educate, be consistent in your messaging  and the fight will be won (the right way). Don't fuel the fire by making the divide between groups bigger, its unnecessary and unproductive.

My interests and ideals are wide ranging and diverse (sometime they appear conflicting), but generally, I live a really simple, peaceful life and I think the key to it is being respectful towards people, property, land, country and environment at all times. It's not that hard, or is it?
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1402
The person who stated the joke about Jesus being nailed has rightly or wrongly set themselves up for a back lash and it’s warranted.  Poking fun at someone being crucified is a bit of kicking a man whilst he's down and in poor taste if nothing else.
A comedian might ask, “2000 years … too soon?”

Re: General Discussion

Reply #1403
I generally agree with you, GIC. I probably wouldn’t have gone where that comedian did but then again I’m not much of a comedian. I think the joke wasn’t an attack on Christianity but witty wordplay around “nailed”. It didn’t imply anything homoerotic regarding Jesus or even doubt his existence (and Jimmy Carr’s jokes about religion do suggest there’s no God). I don’t think it crossed any line although it was easy to foresee the outrage machine cranking up.

The funny thing is that the comedian wouldn’t be worried by the backlash as I doubt devout Christians would attend his shows other than to protest. The joke he told was in response to the observation that he was getting hate from Christians anyway. As for The Project, I wouldn’t care a fig if it’s taken off air immediately.

Have a look at a debate on YouTube involving John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and an Anglican Bishop over The Life of Brian. The latter 2 were convinced it was blasphemous and on top of that the Bishop used his finely-honed comedic sensibilities to point out that the film just wasn’t funny.

In the past, blasphemy laws criminalised anything that might offend the staunchly religious. Thankfully, that is now a thing of the past and irreligious comments or humour are allowed. When Ghandi was filmed, Richard Attenborough was told by Hindus that he should only depict Ghandi as a moving point of light and having Ben Kingsley play him was an outrage. And of course the Charlie Hebdo killings show how far religious fundamentalists can go. In my opinion, allowing the religious to claim a special immunity from outrage is a dangerous precedent.

I am more open than you to minorities co-opting slurs as that helps to neutralise them. Nick Giannopoulos worked such a slur in the title of all his shows and it could be argued he helped take the sting out of it. But I’d never use it myself. The same thing applies to the N word. I have no sympathy for racists in the US arguing that this co-opting gives them the right to use it as a racial taunt or somehow encourages them to do so.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1404
A comedian might ask, “2000 years … too soon?”

Maybe.

It depends.  Would you respond in kind to similar jokes?

Personally, I dont think it right to make fun of the crucifixion.

There was a piece of art called the pi55 christ.  To me it spoke to me on an artistic level and summarised the view society has on religion in general.  Made me feel sad.  There is this facet of humanity that irritates me the most, its how people feel the need to rain on others parade or put them down in order to feel better about themselves. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1405
I'm guessing, like a lot of things, that 'outrage' is something that manifests itself to various degrees and we have to be careful with generalisations.
A lot of the arguments are based around the 'extreme'...right wing nut jobs, religious terrorists.
They're not really the masses.

I'm pretty sure that there would be many christian folk who would probably have regarded the joke as unfunny (I know a few who probably would have had a chuckle)...but that would be the extent of their outrage.
At the extreme end of the scale there would be some that would be incensed.

Here's the dilemma...
At the basis of a lot of comedy is the exaggeration and stereotyping of individuals, groups and situations.
We can make the argument that many groups  have been the target of 'poor' jokes in the past.
Why shouldn't they get the opportunity to hit back, in a similar fashion, at what they might regard as strange, even absurd beliefs?
The thing is that those old racial and sexual barbs had a sting.
They were often hurtful to the targets.
Now what might seem to be a pretty inoffensive religious quip to us might carry a bit of extra sting to someone who regards their faith as important.
The degree of hurt may vary considerably from individual to individual....from mild dismissal to rage.

Which leaves us with a couple of ethical questions.
Is it OK that a comedic attack on a belief or way of life is justified because the followers of that belief have previously enjoyed humour at the expense of another's beliefs or way of life?
The pandora's box that flows from that is...where do you draw the line with comedy and is that line constantly moving?
Who decides which groups have to 'grin and bear it.'?
How does comedy survive the constant need to change and reinvent itself, or do we just sanitise the lot?



Re: General Discussions

Reply #1406
Have a look at the debate I mentioned above. That took place in about 1979. And here we are 44 years later considering the same claim that the crucifixion should be beyond jokes and such jokes can’t be funny. I thought that had been pretty clearly disproved 44 years ago. Sadly for Malcolm Muggeridge, the film is regarded as one of the best comedy films of all time.

Strangely enough, this recent joke did not mock any aspect of Christianity or Christian beliefs whereas The Life of Brian was banned by several local councils in the UK and countries such as Norway and Italy on the grounds it did so.

The Producers was released in 1967, written and directed by Mel Brooks and the leads were Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. All Jews. And they were in a film with a song called Springtime for Hitler (“Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party”). And that just over 2 decades after the Holocaust. Daring humour, but funny. Let’s not forget Jerry Seinfeld’s scandal over pashing a girl during Schindler’s List.

Yeah, I’m thinking that taking offence at humour that alludes to a crucifixion 2000 years ago but actually goes sideways from there is a bit OTT. And that applies to the humour of Monty Python and also the gay comedian.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1407
Our level of outrage is probably determined by our beliefs and values.
If you don't have a lot of time for religion and specifically the Christian faith you would probably consider outrage at the project joke is over the top.
I had a look at it and it made me smile...that was the extent of my reaction.
Mild amusement.
But if I was more invested in the faith my reaction would probably have been very different.
It's not one size fits all and it's complicated and enhanced by individuals like 'shock jocks' who use the outrage to push their own agendas.

As I've mentioned previously at the heart of a lot of comedy is taking real life situations or individuals and making subtle changes or complete exaggerations to create a comedic scenario or alternative reality.

I like the 'Life of Brian'...the "Biggus Dickus" scenes are some of the funniest bits I've ever seen.
But Brian isn't Jesus.
If the movie had been the "Life of Jesus" how would it have gone down.

"The Producers" doesn't glorify the Nazi Party it mocks it.
It was a way Brooks and his mates could fight back, albeit years later, and ridicule that regime and its ideology.
The only ones who would have been truly offended by singing, dancing Nazi's in a chorus line would have been... a Nazi.
But it was an edgy, risky idea...that just happened to come off.
That's what comedy is.
Push the boundaries.
You'll please some folks and find an audience but you will understandably upset others.







 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1408
Apparently, the initial reaction to The Producers was hardly uniform hilarity. But it grew on people. I’d have to admit when I saw it the first time, on TV, I was so disgusted I switched it off. Oddly enough, though, it was the first scene that did me in where Zero Mostel is busy seducing a string of rich 90 year old women who were very much up for it. Someone must have told me to take a second look and I’m glad I did.

I wonder if a staunch Christian had the ability to ban 1 joke, would it be the one on The Project or this one from Jimmy Carr:
Quote
When I was a kid, I had an imaginary friend and I used to think that he went everywhere with me, that I could talk to him and he'd hear me and grant me wishes and stuff. And then I grew up - and I stopped going to church.
Which one actually mocks Christianity?

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1409
Which one actually mocks Christianity?
No mention of Christianity in that joke.
Plenty of different 'churches' around.
Maybe it was a dig at scientology?