I find humour to be entirely subjective and individual.

Very few people would find humour in a grandparent dying. I found out recently that my Grandad has prostate cancer (it's not my intention to seek sympathy, so there's no need to post ). My Grandad has always been a can short of a 6pack (I guess it runs in the family ) and mainly to relieve the atmosphere in the house I joked that if he had ever understood he was sick, he'd probably already have forgotten.
As it appears, he'd known he was ill since January, had forgotten by the time he got home from the Dr's and could therefore not tell anyone. My nan found out accidentally when someone from the Health Centre called to see how he was doing and why he'd missed scheduled appointments. He now has no idea that there's anything wrong with him and everytime its explained he forgets again within an hour. He even thinks his various pills are vitamins.
The whole situation is very upsetting and distressing, but I can't help but find humour in the way things have happened. Its sorta like a plot line in a bad 60's comedy and I made Teresa laugh so hard about it that she ended up in pain, while simultaneously feeling guilty and sorry for laughing.

The point - yes there is one - is that I can raise a smile over a sensitive subject or laugh at blonde jokes, just as my friend Lynn can laugh at funny racist jokes and come up with a few Pro-Black ones herself.

There is a back button on your browser, an off button on your radio and one on your TV. If you don't find it funny or you think its offensive - stop giving it your attention. If you don't like the jokes, make your point and move on Especially as in the specific incident this thread has arisen from was meant as a little harmless humour which most people seem to have enjoyed.

***Disclaimer - no offence meant to any individual ***

(Edited by Yvonne 08/05/2002 18:24)

---

by Jayjay
To accuse jokes of being against the obvious target is no different than accusing Chris Morris of being pro-Taliban and pro-Paedophile. In short, it misses the point.

---

Can't help thinking that that is a little simplistic. There is a world of difference between the repetitious forwarding of a string of sexist jokes and the complicated framing of humour practised by Chris Morris.

This joke was used in Angel earlier this year:

'What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
Nothing. You've already told her twice.'

The internal logic of this joke is inherently misogynistic. The teller is implicitly male, the audience is implicitly male, the target is female. Within the episode, the teller is criticised, but it needs framing in that manner to subvert it.

When Al Murray expresses xenophobic views, he does so through the persona of the pub landlord again providing a framing mechanism to comment on the teller of the joke.

I agree with you Jayjay that it is *possible* to subvert the natural logic of the joke. When Chris Rock tells jokes about black men the teller is also the target confusing the relationship between the two. Woody Allen is similarly deprecating about jews.

However, the tedious string of 'battle of the sexes' emails don't subvert it. The teller is anonymous (since they are only forwarded, not told), there is no reframing or context.

---

by Yvonne
There is a back button on your browser, an off button on your radio and one on your TV. If you don't find it funny or you think its offensive - stop giving it your attention.

---

Stan Boardman told this joke last week:

'Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer left a nightclub last night. One said to the other I could murder an Indian.'

I think it is offensive. It bothers me he that he told it. I am relieved that the audience didn't laugh, but some audiences do. Humour is a rhetorical device, language carries meaning and it interacts with the people who use it. A single joke may be harmless, but the repetition of jokes over time influences perception.

Feminists have argued for changes in common language usage ... 'chairman' is gender specific for example, 'chair' is not. They have argued for it because they understand that language and thoughts interact (think 1984).

It is not enough to shrug your shoulders and switch over in the face of prejudice however it is expressed.

Humour is not entirely subjective, it is culturally mediated (Benny Hill is no longer shown on television in the UK) as any product of language must inherently be. It is both a product of and a creator of our perceptions of the world and as such is worthy of attention.

Inc, I see your point, but how far does one take it? Can we never laugh at a joke again on the off chance that somebody somewhere finds it offensive?

I know asian people that laugh at some racist jokes (as Yvonne said). I know some gay people that laugh at jokes considered by some to be homophobic. How do you distinguish a possibly offensive joke from a 'safe' one?

---

by Incandenza

When Al Murray expresses xenophobic views, he does so through the persona of the pub landlord again providing a framing mechanism to comment on the teller of the joke.

---

---

by Hicks

It's a bug hunt.

---

Ooooooops xenophobe not xenomorph

How do you distinguish a possibly offensive joke from a 'safe' one?

To quote Chris Rock - "WE can say it. YOU can't."

(Edited by Tannhauser 09/05/2002 10:43)

---

by Yvonne
and I made Teresa laugh so hard about it that she ended up in pain, while simultaneously feeling guilty and sorry for laughing.

---

Now people are gonna think I'm an insensative person You forgot to add the bit where I was laughing so much I cried and begged for you to stop

Firstly, Inc, I have to disagree with you on forwarded email. The original teller is irrelevant. Once you forward the email you become the teller and the context. Anyone who has spent time on this board is familiar with the names in the Battle of the Sexes thread, and this supplies the context.

And while I may agree that the humour of Chris Morris is a little more developed than the humour of that thread, that doesn't detract from my point - that the target is not always the verbally expressed one in the joke. When Chris Morris talked about Paedophiles, the point of the joke wasn't Paedophilia but the media, as was most of his humour throughout Brass Eye. Equally an apparently sexist joke can make fun of sexism - context is everything.

And Desire, the answer to your question is also dependent on context. When you tell a joke amongst friends you have a rough idea of how they will react, and that they will know the context within which you mean it. The problem can occur on public sites like this, where everyone does not know you. End of the day, if you tell a joke that has a content that, if taken literally, is offensive, then you have to ask if there is anyway you can tell this joke while making your context clear. If not, then you should think twice about saying it. However, I would always recommend that someone who is white shouldnÂ’t even think of telling a racist joke, and the same goes for straights and homophobic jokes.

---

by Jayjay
Firstly, Inc, I have to disagree with you on forwarded email. The original teller is irrelevant. Once you forward the email you become the teller and the context. Anyone who has spent time on this board is familiar with the names in the Battle of the Sexes thread, and this supplies the context.

---

I disagree. The forwarder was initially the audience for the joke and the forward is framed by an implicit 'I found this funny and so might you'. Whilst the very fact of finding it funny implies some alignment between the originator and the forwarder, it is not nearly as cut and dried as you suggest.

I agree that the Battle of the Sexes title and the names of the people involved provide context for the jokes in question.

---

And while I may agree that the humour of Chris Morris is a little more developed than the humour of that thread, that doesn't detract from my point - that the target is not always the verbally expressed one in the joke. When Chris Morris talked about Paedophiles, the point of the joke wasn't Paedophilia but the media, as was most of his humour throughout Brass Eye. Equally an apparently sexist joke can make fun of sexism - context is everything.

---

The comparison is not a valid one ... there is a difference between the topic or subject and the target ... when Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci covered the New York attack, it was the topic but not the target of their jokes.

However in the joke 'Never let your man's mind wander - it's too little to be out alone.' the subject and target are the same.

Does anyone remember the Channel 4 (sorry, a British point) programm Brass Eye, which made jokes about Paedophilia (spelling:upset. Now I never saw it, so I can't be a judge, but most slammed it as worst than racism and homobia and a digust on TV. Yet comedian Billy Connelly (Mrs Brown) defended the programm, saying some-one would make a joke about it adventurly.

Does that make it right? Who knows.

Jokes are something which vary, no one joke will entertain all, each culture has a different sense of humor. British humour mostly involves others ridicule, but Americans (most) don't get those jokes and take offence.

People should be aware jokes can offend, but others should be aware jokes are meant to create laughter, a pleasant feeling. Why is the class clown always popular? Because he creates a good feeling inside others.

If we all over-anaylse jokes we'll never be able to tell any jokes again, comedians resorting to "why did the chicken..." until the Anti-Chicken Jokes League comes along

Kieran, when I mentioned Chris Morris and pro-paedophile in the opening post, it was the episode of Brass Eye I was referring to. The common mistake by everyone who lambasted the program (most of whom had not seen the program) was to assume the joke was about paedophilia. It wasn't. That's why I mentioned it. The joke was about the way the media handles this (and many other) subjects, and the mob mentality that afflicts a large part of the populace. Why look into something when you can have a knee-jerk reaction and form a lynch mob?

As I have said elsewhere, sometimes a joke isn't just a joke. Humour is one of the oldest political tools, and often a joke has an agenda, or a political philosophy behind it. Or rather the teller has, and this infuses the joke. When a joke is racist, sexist, or homophobic it ceases to just be just a joke. Given, the context and teller will change the meaning of the joke, but I for one think that the likes of Bernard Manning, Stan Boardman and people who tell the 'ten-a-penny' joke, are rightly attacked for doing so.

Yes, it is possible to over-analyse a joke, but it doesn't take a lot of analysis to see the racism in the above examples. And I don't intend to tolerate racism.

Inc, we'll just have to disagree on the forwarding issue. I see no difference between someone forwarding an email, and someone saying, 'ooh, I heard this joke - wanna hear it?' In both cases the teller is the person you hear it from, not the original teller of the joke.

As for Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci, you make the point I was trying to. They clearly were not making fun of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, yet if taken literally they could appear so. That was my point - that the object of a joke is not always the stated one.

Well i suppose it's time i added my 2 penneth.

I laugh at any joke if it's funny. it can be racist, sexist (yes, i laugh at jokes about women), homophobic or what ever. The key here is funny.

I have gay friends who laugh at jokes pokink fun at them. these are usually the jokes with a ring of truth. As with sexist jokes, the funny ones are the truest.

Jokes can be used for political ends too. I remmeber the Irish jokes from my childhood. I dont usually find these types of joked funny. Why? becaus they arent based in reality. the irish arent studid (well some are but thats the same in any culture ) hence these jokes were never funny.

thats just my opinion tho.