Offensive Joke Discussion

[Djigit]

Why are they so taboo? Are you condoning Nazism by doing so?
Is there a hierarchy for victims? In other terms, does your life matter more when you are a victim of Nazism rather than a victim of any other oppressive regime?

I hope the Gestapo mods don't lock this one.

[spoiler=DISCLAIMER]The Gestapo analogy is for a humorous purpose only. The persons and events in this joke are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons or events is unintentional.[/spoiler]

[Gendarme]

The fact that they are taboo is why I find it so important to keep it on. At the very least it provokes a discussion, however long it may take, and eventually people stop being so sensitive to it when they actually grasp that it is a harmless joke. @Ashvin might want to share his experience in evolving from being easily triggered to finally finding peace in accepting jokes for what they are—jokes.

[Googol]

It's all Greek to me.

[fightinfrenchman]

At what point is it not a joke and you just start parroting Nazi propaganda?

[XeeleeFlower]

A more important question, to me, is why do some people find them funny, while others find them offensive? Does it relate with empathy? How about coping?

[Googol]

A more important question, to me, is why do some people find them funny, while others find them offensive? Does it relate with empathy? How about coping?

From my point of view I can tolerate them to some extend until it becomes too dark.

[fightinfrenchman]

A more important question, to me, is why do some people find them funny, while others find them offensive? Does it relate with empathy? How about coping?

It's all about the intent behind them. Dark jokes can be funny, but often what are called "jokes" is actually just peoole showing their true beliefs of anti-Semitism and bigotry.

[Gendarme]

@fightinfrenchman It is not necessarily merely a joke in any instance. Almost always it is an act of resistance against the stigma/taboo/censorship in the form of humor and sarcasm, either directly by sharing it with the general public, or indirectly by sharing it among ourselves. The more communication the better, and memes are much more effortlessly shared and received than actual discussions. For me, it is virtually always an active fight—almost never just for fun, especially now as the jokes are being very repetitive and boring (@BrookG can chumfirm that).

[fightinfrenchman]

@fightinfrenchman It is not necessarily merely a joke in any instance. Almost always it is an act of resistance against the stigma/taboo/censorship in the form of humor and sarcasm, either directly by sharing it with the general public, or indirectly by sharing it among ourselves. The more communication the better, and memes are much more effortlessly shared and received than actual discussions. For me, it is virtually always an active fight—almost never just for fun, especially now as the jokes are being very repetitive and boring (@BrookG can chumfirm that).

Without any jokes, can you tell me how you feel about Muslim refugees, and also about Jewish people in the media?

[Gendarme]

A more important question, to me, is why do some people find them funny, while others find them offensive? Does it relate with empathy? How about coping?

Something can be funny and offensive simultaneously. Humor seems to be quite complex; I think if it was figured out already we would have much greater comedians than we currently do.

You find something offensive either instinctively (nature), or because you have learned (not necessarily consciously) to take offense from it (nurture). Taking offense from a non-hostile statememt, especially when explained that it is not intended to be hostile, and refusing to even temporarily consider the point of view of the other party is clearly a consciously learned mental behavior, and it is one I intend to combat wherever I encounter it, regardless of whether the topic is about French build orders or nazism.

As far as I can see empathy is relatively irrelevant in this matter.

[Goodspeed]

@Gendarme
Empathy is relevant in that one might refrain from joking about things if they know others will be hurt by it, or consider a joke offensive not because it hurts them personally but is assumed to be hurtful to others.
I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think there are subjects you can't joke about, but whether the joke is offensive very much depends on who makes it, the context, and the joke itself.

You for example should probably not make nazi jokes, since you believe in the Russian propaganda piece from 1903 detailing a worldwide Jew conspiracy which probably had a big role in setting Hitler on his path.

[Djigit]

A more important question, to me, is why do some people find them funny, while others find them offensive? Does it relate with empathy? How about coping?

Actually my questions were not intended to be focused on the victims. I mentioned the victims simply to understand if Nazi jokes were taboo, because the victims of Nazism have a higher status compared to other victims.
Communism and Ultranationalism are to me evil too; why would it be okay to make Gulag jokes or Remove Kebab jokes and not those related to Nazism?
I have equal empathy whether the victims are from Auschwitz or Srebrenica. But this double standard debate is absolutely secondary to me; I honestly couldn't care less.

What matters is that people understand that the videos below are funny, although perhaps extremely childish. They ridicule Nazism more than they approve it.
Because it's related to this regime doesn't mean you're making fun of the victims.

[spoiler=spoiler]-
https://youtu.be/TkaIdhUjkxg?t=47s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eof7gacss90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqMSCQBevyM[/spoiler]

[Gendarme]

@Goodspeed Knowing that others are hurt by something is not empathy. Empathy is when you feel for people, which is not necessary to do in order to refrain from hurting them. In almost all cases people refrain from such things due to basic social understanding. Being empathetic is an emotional state, and a rather exhausting one as I am sure you know. If we were empathetic at all times we would quickly get wrecked of mental overload.

Being offensive is not necessarily bad. Very rarely can one make an action that only has one result. Offending people is just one—and perhaps inevitable—consequence of fighting taboos. Offending someone merely for the sake of upsetting them is very different to what is being discussed here.

[fightinfrenchman]

Offending someone merely for the sake of upsetting them is very different to what is being discussed here.

How does referring to human beings as "rapefugees" fit into this?

[deleted_user]

So to me interactions are embedded in context. In the context of familiar acquaintances or good friends a joke is a joke (but it can also be a joke with bad intentions, but more on that later. I mean what even is a joke, how do we define it, and it's different for everyone.). In the context of being around unfamiliar people, words can take on a variety of meanings.

Naturally words carry different weight to different people. All words carry something. I caution calling words harmless if reciprocally words can never be good.

So the obvious case is when a person reacts to something mild what a very large majority of people would call unnecessary and unprovoked. And flip wise a legitimately non-malicious meaning person can call someone a slur and really not mean to harm them. I'd call these outliers either way, and when we creep inwards to the more mutually grey line it's more complicated.

And so I find a general rule of thumb to be helpful. It is: I want to be considerate of peoples' feelings. And what's important, really important to note is that that doesn't mean I am or have to be considerate of everyones' feelings all the time. It just comes from a place and understanding that I have no idea what it's like to be a part of a marginalized sub-society and so my context in given interactions is different than theirs. You know, someone can call me a slur, but I wasn't beat up for being called that slur in school, or my sister wasn't, or etc. And by using it, well it kind of demotes the thing in terms of gravity. But flip side (again), one can be joking and give off an air of demoting gravity but really be using it as a tool of irony, or to cope. Or one can come from a more marginalized, more difficult background and become, inversely, less sensitive and more callous, desensitized, but are they right? So, these conversations are really ambiguous.

Please note societal intolerance is not just an inherently bad thing. Fighting taboos is not just an inherently good thing. It's a very good thing to have a society become intolerant of a variety of practices, ideas, etc. Some language is present in that, yes. WHERE to draw that line is, again, difficult. And to the individualist, the consideration of others' feelings doesn't diminish your own independence or sense of self, it doesn't.

And so it really comes down to, for me, putting value on people other than yourself in reasonable circumstances, being open to discourse and cause-and-effect, and knowing that doing as much is not going to cause a systemic (what is it you think will happen without offensive jokes?) of the human race, and that there is truly some evil language, evil philosophy out there with no positive utility. Because what has society lost when it can't call people slurs?

[deleted_user]

While it's difficult to define what a joke is, it can be determined what a joke is not. A joke is not serious discussion. It cannot be stated that intolerance to offensive jokes is intolerance to discussion of taboo topics.

To me, the scope of this thread is whether or not to say potentially offensive remarks to people you do not know. I personally (ideally) do not (even though I say things in twitch chat). The omission of such I don't see as an intellectual or moral loss, and so gain comes cost free, there is no loss to weigh against the prevention of pain, it's an easy choice.

[gamevideo113]

I definitely agree with Callen. Fighting taboos just for the sake of it is imo not necessary. Death, for example, is a topic most people don't like to joke about, and i don't see how fighting this specific taboo in general can spark a fruitful discussion. Is there anything we still need to acknowledge about death that we haven't yet? If you put it into context maybe there can be a point in joking on it (charlie hebdo on earthquake in italy/bridge fall in genova), it becomes a way to criticize a situation, but you still need to tread carefully, since i don't think anyone can really find a joke offensive and funny at the same time. As a matter of fact sometimes the people at charlie hebdo took it too far and there were consequences that they could have seen coming.

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed Knowing that others are hurt by something is not empathy. Empathy is when you feel for people, which is not necessary to do in order to refrain from hurting them. In almost all cases people refrain from such things due to basic social understanding. Being empathetic is an emotional state, and a rather exhausting one as I am sure you know. If we were empathetic at all times we would quickly get wrecked of mental overload.

Being offensive is not necessarily bad. Very rare can one make an action that only has one result. Offending people is just one—and perhaps inevitable—consequence of fighting taboos. Offending someone merely for the sake of upsetting them is very different to what is being discussed here.

Empathy is the ability to understand another's feelings. That includes understanding that they are hurt by a joke and why. Without it you will invariably end up saying things that hurt people, because in the vast majority of cases there is no written or unwritten rule "forbidding" you from saying it. These "rules" only exist for very specific words and in specific contexts. Lacking empathy, no amount of basic social understanding will prevent you from saying hurtful shit.

Being offensive is not necessarily bad. Very rare can one make an action that only has one result. Offending people is just one—and perhaps inevitable—consequence of fighting taboos. Offending someone merely for the sake of upsetting them is very different to what is being discussed here.

Fighting taboos is important but it needs to be done in the right context by the right people. And you may not agree but some taboos are taboos for good reason.

[XeeleeFlower]

I meant a couple of different things with regards to empathy. One being what others have already discussed - knowing and understanding that things can deeply hurt people and that certain things can even cause old traumas to reappear in the form of flashbacks, depression, etc. There's no need for me to rehash what others have said since their words are better than mine.

The second way is empathizing with humanity as a whole. It doesn't matter if those people are alive today. What matters is the individual who is making the jokes may appear to not fully understand the gravity of situation(s) and is making light of it and/or those who were hurt by it. Do note that I'm not saying that comedians lack empathy. Many comedians suffer from depression, perhaps due to their empathy and full awareness of situations (I am not saying this is a reason, but could be part of the reason), but use comedy as a way of coping, but I'll get to that later. What I am saying is that making light of traumas can give the appearance of detachment from the realities of the world and a disconnect from humanity as a whole. If there weren't fucked up shit still happening, then perhaps making jokes of things that happened in the past would be appropriate. As it is now, there are still people who are racist, sexist, extremists, rapists, murders, etc. By making jokes about these things, it normalizes them and diminishes the experiences of those who are/were/will be affected by it. I hope that makes sense.

There's an argument that is basically, "well, by normalizing it, it actually helps people because they just become desensitized to it." Humans just don't work this way. The majority don't anyway. Things just become internalized and there's more internal pain because what someone went through apparently doesn't matter. Their experiences are invalidated and guilt appears. Most people just want to be understood. Making light of things isn't understanding, it's shaming - you should feel this way, not the way you currently feel.

What I meant by coping is that people have different ways of coping with situations, thus respond in different ways to them. Some people cope by avoiding, others by facing things head on, others by focusing on solutions, others by humor, etc. How one copes with things, along with their experiences, affects how they respond to a possibly offensive joke. While one person may have been a victim of some trauma and they are able to laugh at something, this doesn't mean that another individual who had a similar trauma will. Person A may cope with things differently than person B.

I feel that there's a time and place for these types of jokes, such as when you're with a group of friends who all understand one another and intentions. An online forum for AoE3 where people from all over the world and with all different varying experiences in life corresponding/lurking with varying degrees of anonymity isn't the place for it. While we're a small community, we aren't small enough to truly know everyone and their thoughts, feelings, and intentions. There are also many lurkers. There are other online places to share such jokes. Of course, for some people, sharing the "jokes" are simply a desire to evoke some sort of strong reaction. Why? I have a couple ideas as to why, but this post is already long enough.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I did change the title of the thread with Djigit's consent.

[fightinfrenchman]

If there weren't fucked up shit still happening, then perhaps making jokes of things that happened in the past would be appropriate. As it is now, there are still people who are racist, sexist, extremists, rapists, murders, etc. By making jokes about these things, it normalizes them and diminishes the experiences of those who are/were/will be affected by it.

It's almost like the people making and defending these "jokes" want to normalize them because they are reflective of their actual beliefs.

[deleted_user0]

@fightinfrenchman It is not necessarily merely a joke in any instance. Almost always it is an act of resistance against the stigma/taboo/censorship in the form of humor and sarcasm, either directly by sharing it with the general public, or indirectly by sharing it among ourselves. The more communication the better, and memes are much more effortlessly shared and received than actual discussions. For me, it is virtually always an active fight—almost never just for fun, especially now as the jokes are being very repetitive and boring (@BrookG can chumfirm that).

Maybe for you that is. But I'm pretty sure for most people it isn't. In many cases it's ignorance/indifference, they never even pause to consider how a joke might affect other people. And to be honest, I'm not convinced they should. You can't know what other people find offensive, and it's honestly impossible and unnecessary to guess. If you are offended by something, then it's on you to make that clear. And on the people you made this clear to, it's on them how to respond to that. If it's the other way around, the whole process is tedious and imperfect, we can't ever really fathom what another person thinks/feels etc.

I personally don't see why you would intentionally insult people without cause, so if I make a joke that people say they don't find funny, then I'll either change my repertoire or look for a different audience. But that's in private relationships of course.

In public situations, or at work etc, things get more complicated. And then indeed it becomes a question, when does your gay joke stop being funny, or an act of resistance and start making the work floor an unpleasant place for gay people? There is this narrative that it's always the victim, the bullied person, the insulted, the discriminated who has to deal with the consequences of other people's actions by sucking it up. This is obviously delusional, and unfair to boot. Where does sucking it up end and being bullied into silent submission start? The burden shouldn't be placed on a single party's shoulder, it takes two to tango, so the responsibility should be distributed evenly.

In your eyes people are more sensitive, but from a different perspective, they are becoming more assertive. It's everyone's responsibility to respect the rights of others, but when this doesn't happen, which frequently is the case, then it's first and foremost your own responsibility to stand up for yourself, to make clear that you won't be fucked with.

[deleted_user0]

A more important question, to me, is why do some people find them funny, while others find them offensive? Does it relate with empathy? How about coping?

Taking offense from a non-hostile statememt, especially when explained that it is not intended to be hostile, and refusing to even temporarily consider the point of view of the other party is clearly a consciously learned mental behavior, and it is one I intend to combat wherever I encounter it, regardless of whether the topic is about French build orders or nazism.

As far as I can see empathy is relatively irrelevant in this matter.

But who gets to decide what is non-hostile? And even if, like you say, your intentions are not hostile, just saying so doesn't necessarily make you convincing. If you're standing in a doorway with a knife, blocking the way, then just saying that you don't have hostile intentions isn't sufficient. You have to get out of the way, and pocket the knife for you to be believable.

Just because you perceive something as not hostile, doesn't mean that the other person experiences the situation in the same way. It doesn't mean you are a bad person, or at fault in any way, but it does require, as you say, a moment of temporary consideration of someone elses POV. You seem to ask this for yourself, but in your posts I rarely find proof that you do the same.

Generally speaking now:
Non-hostility, frivolity, lightheartedness and humour have often been used as an excuse (or even get out of jail free cards) for excessive behaviour. A boss slaps a co-workers ass, and in his mind it's frivolous, nothing to it, in her mind, it's an unwelcome encounter. You can't just say that she has to brighten up and get a sense of humour. Perhaps it's even understandable that the man does what he does. He slaps his buddies on the butt all the time after all. But the way they experience and move around in the public space might not, in fact most likely isn't, the same way that she experiences it. If you insist only on your right to your actions and the purity of your intentions, and require other people to see that, without pausing to think why they might not see it in the same way, then you are at least as guilty of the "misunderstanding" that's bound to follow. But I think it's important here to look at the balance of power, it's too easy to just assign responsibility and/or blame in even pieces. It's often not the joke that makes people uneasy, it's the uneven distribution of power and privilege that makes people uneasy. The joke is merely a reminder/confirmation thereof. (This is basically also the distinction between good satire and an insult masquerading as a tasteless joke. Good satire, while it might be offensive, challenges the status quo of power, and while it calls their behaviour to account by ridiculing it, ridicule is a means, not the end. Bad satire is merely offensive, only confirms the status quo and doesn't do more than just ridicule people, most often those who are already the least fortunate in other aspects. That doesn't mean you can't joke about someones misfortune, but it definitely matters whether the intention of your joke is to solve or call attention to the misfortune, or whether it's merely your intention to kick someone who's already down on the ground. In my opinion you are free to do either, but the latter most definitely makes you a flaccid prick of gigantic proportions.)

Man and woman is an obvious example of this. As a man, you can say that you should have a right to say hello, and you are gorgeous to anyone you damn well please. And in a way, that's true. But if you don't pause to see the situation from the woman's point of view, that she's not really offended by what you say, but rather tired of having to endure this situation daily, over and over, and that she doesn't feel comfortable to respond in a way that she might want to respond because the person on the other end of the conversation might be unhinged, and if he is, then the playing field isn't level, and she fears for her safety. Many women fear for their safety all the time in a way that I'm sure most men have never considered and couldn't even comprehend if they did. (For me it surely was an eye opener that while for me the discussion about catcalling was about an abstract right of insult/being insulted/freedom of speech etc, while for the women I was talking to it was much more about "I don't feel safe in such a situation") You might think that's exaggerated, that they should just toughen up, but it's their experience. And if you don't stop to wonder why that is, and if and if so, how, you play a role in this, then you are part of the problem. Whether you have good intentions, or not. But if you do stop to wonder, and help equalize the playing field, you'll find many people to be quite good sports about most things.

[deleted_user]

- Men are a lot more intellectual than women.
They are a lot more interested in mathematics and science. They are a lot more interested in politics; it is very common for men (even strangers) to discuss politics - especially with whiskey in their hands. They are a lot more interested business, technology, education, philosophy, and drugs (the list can go on forever) than women.

Now, having character means having non-physical characteristics that makes one unique. Men have a lot more character than women because they are more intellectual and become forged in their own way over the years. Hence, women have less character because they are less involved in intellectual affairs. This is not a bad thing or a good thing; this is simply illustrating that men and women are different despite what your favorite book on gender studies tells you.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Gendarme Hey i think you missed my questions, can you catch up on those?

[Googol]

Gendarme died, stop it.