New joke thread (trigger alert, may offend if you want it to)

[DarkFruitsRam7]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

I saw it - the least funny "stand up comedy" show I've ever seen

None of the jokes were actually intended to be funny - they were just intended to annoy people for effect

Nice work if you can get it I suppose, but I preferred him when he was a comedian and not just a provocateur

Haven't seen the full show but seen the bit about trans people. Seemed like he was just picking an easy target with very little cleverness or originality, simply because he knows it will get attention.

Love The Office but feel like Gervais is a bit of a caricature now.

[maxjam]

3 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Haven't seen the full show but seen the bit about trans people. Seemed like he was just picking an easy target with very little cleverness or originality, simply because he knows it will get attention.

Love The Office but feel like Gervais is a bit of a caricature now.

I'm the opposite, I've seen The Office but never really got into it - for me  the pacing is to slow and a lot of the jokes are just cringy.  I enjoy his stand up though, although I thought I'd heard quite a bit of his new show before.

He does a lot of good work for animal charities as well which gets a big thumbs up from me ?

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

38 minutes ago, maxjam said:

He does a lot of good work for animal charities as well which gets a big thumbs up from me ?

Yeah - respect him for that. A shame that his fans won't have much self-awareness around the quip he makes in that tweet

Imagine passionately sticking up for something you believe in, and having people pile on to you by making the issue about something else - must be awful

 

[seths-cap]

 Any suggestions  @Stive Pesley

[Alph]

6 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Haven't seen the full show but seen the bit about trans people. Seemed like he was just picking an easy target with very little cleverness or originality, simply because he knows it will get attention.

Love The Office but feel like Gervais is a bit of a caricature now.

Exactly this. I love a good dark joke or something pushing the boundaries or making people uncomfortable. I think there's a lot funny about awkwardness. 

But I find he actually plays it quite safe. An obvious trope/cliche. Obvious jokes from an obvious character. 

Jimmy Carr is similar. I do like both of them but not so much their stand up. 

[Bob The Badger]

On 21/06/2022 at 10:46, Stive Pesley said:

I saw it - the least funny "stand up comedy" show I've ever seen

None of the jokes were actually intended to be funny - they were just intended to annoy people for effect

Nice work if you can get it I suppose, but I preferred him when he was a comedian and not just a provocateur

I thought it was outstanding and laughed a lot. 

[BaaLocks]

I thought the "career enders" in the last Jimmy Carr special were sincerely regrettable. I consider myself a pretty liberal minded guy but when someone is making jokes about gypsies dying in the Holocaust as an unexpected benefit is beyond what anyone should consider funny. I remember Chubby Brown with stories about him going on at Bradford and saying "you had a fire and you didn't invite me" or going on in Middlesborough (at the height of the child abuse scandal) and suggesting he thought people would be at home "cuddling" their kids. 

I don't know where my line is, but it's way before these sort of statements. And I do think there has to be a line in society, freedom of speech simply does not mean you have the right to say whatever you want.

[BaaLocks]

On 21/06/2022 at 15:53, maxjam said:

I'm the opposite, I've seen The Office but never really got into it - for me  the pacing is to slow and a lot of the jokes are just cringy.  I enjoy his stand up though, although I thought I'd heard quite a bit of his new show before.

Same, in reverse, with me wrt Peter Kay. Phoenix Nights is as funny as it gets, but for his stand up I couldn't care less if his biscuit fell in his brew.

[ramit]

12 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

freedom of speech simply does not mean you have the right to say whatever you want.

It literally does mean that.

By definition: the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

[Bob The Badger]

6 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

I thought the "career enders" in the last Jimmy Carr special were sincerely regrettable.

I saw him do that live last November and thought it was brilliant.

I also thought it was funny that it took 6 weeks for mainstream righteous indignation to erupt after it went live on Christmas Day.

If you know anything about Carr and how he writes you'll know he was using humour to highlight a dreadful part of human history that frequently gets ignored, swept under the carpet or is unknown about because of an even worse part of human history.

That's really good comedy writing (to me) because great comedy can inform whilst making you laugh.

I'm sure a few people laughed because they thought the joke was anti-Gypsy.It clearly wasn't.

I have no problem anybody finding something unfunny because comedy is 100% subjective.

But I have a problem when people start deciding where the line should be drawn on what constitutes humour based on their personal sensibilities.

[Rev]

7 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Same, in reverse, with me wrt Peter Kay. Phoenix Nights is as funny as it gets, but for his stand up I couldn't care less if his biscuit fell in his brew.

I love Phoenix nights, and even Max and Paddy had its moments. 

I had the misfortune a few years back to have free hospitality tickets for Paddy McGuiness live, I've never seen a worse stand up. It was so bad, I gave up the free bar before the interval and went to the pub instead.

[1of4]

5 hours ago, ramit said:

It literally does mean that.

By definition: the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

While many countries claim they allow their citizens the right of free speech. I can't think of one country that doesn't put some restrictions on what can be said. 

[ramit]

8 hours ago, 1of4 said:

While many countries claim they allow their citizens the right of free speech. I can't think of one country that doesn't put some restrictions on what can be said. 

i can express my opinions freely in conversations, but may get in trouble for stating in writing my opinions as facts.

Oh, sure i get people who say you cannot say that, or you mustn't say that and they are as free to express that opinion as i am to carry on regardless, which i do as a matter of principle, or perhaps just because i am a bit wicked.

[BaaLocks]

12 hours ago, ramit said:

It literally does mean that.

By definition: the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

Not sure what the legal definition is in Iceland but it absolutely is not the case in the UK.

Article 10 of the UK Humans Rights Act states public authorities can restrict the right to free speech if:

• They are worried about national security or public safety
• They want to prevent disorder or crime
• They feel it will protect health or morals
• They want to protect the rights and reputations of others
• They are protecting confidential information
• They need to maintain the authority and impartiality of judges

Not quite the sort of post I think many want to see on the joke thread. I also get that doesn't quite extend to Jimmy Carr making a joke about gypsies, I'm just trying to make the point that you can't just say what you want.

 

[BaaLocks]

10 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

I'm sure a few people laughed because they thought the joke was anti-Gypsy.It clearly wasn't.

I have no problem anybody finding something unfunny because comedy is 100% subjective.

But I have a problem when people start deciding where the line should be drawn on what constitutes humour based on their personal sensibilities.

I get all your points and I don't necessarily disagree with them. But when you tell a joke that suggests it was a 'unforessen bonus' that Gypsies died in the Holocaust there is a pretty slim chance you're going to convince me that is not anti-Gypsy. I also get that irony is a fine line, Jonathan Swift - he the author of Gulliver's Travels - was lambasted for suggesting the Irish eat babies during the famine. It's not a new problem. I've also laughed at more than my share of jokes about many things that are unsavoury - again, one person's tragedy is another person's comedy.

But there is a line, in the same way there is a line that it's not right for men to hit women, that you can't just drive down the wrong side of the road, that you can't walk into Sainsburys naked, that you can't fart (loudly at least!) in public. It's the foundation of societies (and they vary by culture) that some things are not acceptable.

Comedy - and this is where I agree with you - is a very difficult one to draw a line for and while I don't know where the line is and (probably most important) it's not for me to say where the line is, for me Jimmy Carr making jokes about gypsies dying in the holocaust is the other side of wherever it is. And I do'nt really think criticising such jokes in any way qualifies as "mainstream righteous indignation".

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

But when you tell a joke that suggests it was a 'unforessen bonus' that Gypsies died in the Holocaust there is a pretty slim chance you're going to convince me that is not anti-Gypsy.

A LOT of people are now aware of what happened to the Gypsies on the back of that joke.

And it was the brutal punchline that had lead to the awareness.

If Carr were anti-Gypsy, or trying to find a way of humiliating/offending the Gypsies then the joke wouldn't have worked. It only worked because it's so absurd.

Similarly, if it was genuinely anti-Gypsy he'd have lost the friendship of many comedians. And whereas a few friends like David Baddiel didn't like it, none came out and said they didn't like it because it exposed Jimmy Carr as a racist.

[ramit]

9 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Not sure what the legal definition is in Iceland but it absolutely is not the case in the UK.

Article 10 of the UK Humans Rights Act states public authorities can restrict the right to free speech if:

• They are worried about national security or public safety
• They want to prevent disorder or crime
• They feel it will protect health or morals
• They want to protect the rights and reputations of others
• They are protecting confidential information
• They need to maintain the authority and impartiality of judges

Not quite the sort of post I think many want to see on the joke thread. I also get that doesn't quite extend to Jimmy Carr making a joke about gypsies, I'm just trying to make the point that you can't just say what you want.

 

There can only be one definition of free speech, as soon as exceptions are placed on it, it is no longer free.

Those examples you list are all highly subjective and wide open to interpretation by your authorities. 

i find that Article 10 appalling.

 

On the subject of comedy, if comedians are gagged, that is IMO the end of that profession then.

 

[ramit]

i agree with Rowan and surprisingly with Obama too.

 

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

A LOT of people are now aware of what happened to the Gypsies on the back of that joke.

And it was the brutal punchline that had lead to the awareness.

If Carr were anti-Gypsy, or trying to find a way of humiliating/offending the Gypsies then the joke wouldn't have worked. It only worked because it's so absurd.

Similarly, if it was genuinely anti-Gypsy he'd have lost the friendship of many comedians. And whereas a few friends like David Baddiel didn't like it, none came out and said they didn't like it because it exposed Jimmy Carr as a racist.

I agree, nobody is saying it exposes Jimmy Carr as a racist. Substitute gypsies for other groups targeted in the Holocaust - freemasons, homosexuals, Catholics, Marxists, prostitutes, disabled - and the joke doesn't rub in the same way. Which is the point, and probably the one that Jimmy Carr was trying to rub against. But that doesn't make it funny, to me.

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, ramit said:

There can only be one definition of free speech, as soon as exceptions are placed on it, it is no longer free.

Those examples you list are all highly subjective and wide open to interpretation by your authorities. 

i find that Article 10 appalling.

On the subject of comedy, if comedians are gagged, that is IMO the end of that profession then.

Ah, so your definition is the right one and I am not allowed to voice mine? I think you would call that kaldhæðnislegt

I'm certainly not suggesting to gag comics, I am saying that the smart ones will 'read the room' to understand where the boundaries should sit in their own societies. I'll be interested to see if Jimmy Carr tries to push it so far in his next 'special'.

Take the Charlie Hebdo drawings, I thought they were tasteless and hugely imflammatory to Muslims - intentionally provocative. But, to paraphrase Voltaire, just because I don't agree with what you say doesn't mean I won't defend your right to say it.