Star Man,
I don't understand what good you thought you were doing by posting hate speech against women on Wacco. Especially if, as you say, you don't agree with the sentiments. Believe me, women do not need another reminder that there are men in our society who hate us and want to put us down. If the butt of those jokes were Black or Jewish, would you have repeated them publicly?
Please think again before you spread hurtful words to the community at large, whether or not they originated from your mind.
I wouldn't call a man BRAVE that repeats those jokes, I'm sure my adjective would be much less flattering.
Dear Readers of this post,
As the one who posted this, I want to comment on why I posted it.
I thought it was tasteless. I disagree with the sentiments. I couldn't tell if it was funny or pathetic. I thought it spoke volumes about American men and the attitudes of our society toward women. Those were my thoughts as I posted it. Tthe section is uncensored. I would never have posted it anywhere else.
podfish
02-21-2011, 09:13 AM
really? I kinda liked the one about the laundromat.
"Hate speech" is a pretty strong way to refer to those. Actually, I read those as hillbilly jokes, not simply anti-female ones.
And as far as the rhetorical question about 'what if those were about blacks or Jews' it's true, I'm kinda uncomfortable with black jokes in county where there aren't many. My connections with Jews and women are a lot better, so I guess I have more context to enjoy those. That doesn't explain why I do like dead baby and elephant jokes too, though. Humor's odd like that.
I'm actually not unsympathetic to those who can't see any humor in jokes based on oppression or violence, but sadly for them they're probably a minority. (Thus a target for humor!! sorry...)
This -is- 'Censored' as well as 'un-Censored', and there are certainly some things that must be excised. I don't envy Barry.
"Mad" Miles
02-21-2011, 03:36 PM
The thread starter, Starman, deleted the first post in the thread, the "jokes", which deleted the thread. When I first read the jokes, at least the first ten or so and the last five, I was offended. Not only were the jokes misogynistic and extremely mean spirited, they were also insulting to men.
The theme of the whole set of jokes was that average men have such extreme contempt for women. They weren't "funny" they were otiose and stupid. And the idea that it took some kind of courage, bravery, for men to tell them, is absurd. What it takes is extreme callousness and an oblivious attitude towards a general audience.
Yes, the poster had the right to publish them in the Censored & UnCensored category. Perhaps leaving them there, and engendering a discussion about appropriate and inappropriate humor would have been some kind of public service. But I still maintain there's a difference between making fun of sexism, or anti-sexism/feminism, and jokes which really are "hate" speech.
What I read showed a blistering contempt for women, and men. Not a single one caused me to laugh, and I like humor, with a preferance towards the risque. Of course my response alone isn't a definitive proof of whether they were funny or not. Perhaps a poll could have resolved that question. But there's always the minority position.
When a woman pointed out their hateful nature to the original poster, he chose to remove them, as is his right.
Barry
02-21-2011, 03:53 PM
Here are the "jokes" that were posted by Star Man. I'll have some comments about them at some point. It's a worthy discussion, as Miles pointed out, to question if they appropriate, inappropriate, hate speech, in poor taste, and do they speak more about women or men?
I'll also graft on the previous replies from the other thread here, so only star man's posts are removed.
1 How do you turn a fox into an elephant?
Marry It!
2 What is the difference between a battery and a woman?
A battery has a positive side.
3 What are the three fastest means of communication?
1) Television
2) Telephone
3) Tel-a-woman
4 How are fat girls and mopeds alike?
They're both fun to ride until your friends find out.
5 What should you give a woman who has everything?
A man to show her how to work it.
6 Why is the space between a woman's breasts and her hips called a waist?
Because you could easily fit another pair of tits in there.
7 How do you make 5 pounds of fat look good?
Put a nipple on it.
8 Why do women rub their eyes when they wake up?
Because they don't have balls to scratch.
9 Why did God create woman?
To carry semen from the bedroom to the toilet.
10 Why do women fake orgasms?
Because they think men care.
11 What do you say to a woman with 2 black eyes?
Nothing, she's been told twice already.
12 If your wife keeps coming out of the kitchen to nag at you, what have you done wrong?
Made her chain too long
13 How many men does it take to open a beer?
None. It should be opened when she brings it.
14 Why is a Laundromat a really bad place to pick up a woman?
Because a woman who can't even afford a washing machine will probably never be able to support you.
15 Why do women have smaller feet than men?
It's one of those 'evolutionary things' that allows them to stand closer to the kitchen sink.
16 How do you know when a woman is about to say something smart?
When she starts a sentence with 'A man once told me...'
17 How do you fix a woman's watch?
You don't. There is a clock on the oven.
18 Why do men pass gas more than women?
Because women can't shut up long enough to build up the required pressure.
19 If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the front door, who do you let in first?
The dog, of course. He'll shut up once you let him in.
20 What's worse than a Male Chauvinist Pig?
A woman who won't do what she's told
21 I married a Miss Right.
I just didn't know her first name was Always.
22 Scientists have discovered a food that diminishes a woman's sex drive by 90%.
It's called a Wedding Cake.
23 Why do men die before their wives?
They want to.
24 When will women be equal to men?
When they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy.
Hotspring 44
02-21-2011, 04:08 PM
Star Man's removing of the "jokes" (Riddles or whatever you choose to call them); in my view was chiken-shit. Nothing brave about that.
podfish
02-21-2011, 04:49 PM
The thread starter, Starman, deleted the first post in the thread, the "jokes", which deleted the thread. When I first read the jokes, at least the first ten or so and the last five, I was offended. Not only were the jokes misogynistic and extremely mean spirited, they were also insulting to men. ...The theme of the whole set of jokes was that average men have such extreme contempt for women. They weren't "funny" .... And the idea that it took some kind of courage, bravery, for men to tell them, is absurd.
What I read showed a blistering contempt for women, and men. Not a single one caused me to laugh,
Given that I poked the thread alive again, I guess I should comment a bit. I have to qualify it by saying that I find meta-analysis of humor to be of pretty debatable value. So against my better judgment (which is shaky at best anyway) -- these are such broad-based stereotypes that I don't see them as blistering attacks. Of course they're belittling to both men and women, but it's a common (if low) form of humor to state impolitic thoughts out loud. I've seen this kind of humor justified by pointing out it forces prejudices into the open and makes them absurd. But man, it feels absurd to even start this kind of analysis... they're just dumb jokes, they're admittedly painful to people who think their victimization is being minimized and depressing to those who have higher hopes for mankind. Nothing brave about telling them, either - I guess that meant the OP knew he'd get some arrows in his back for telling them and told them anyway.
It's a worthy discussion, as Miles pointed out, to question if they appropriate, inappropriate, hate speech, in poor taste, and do they speak more about women or men?.
I agree that those Jokes were derogatory.
also there have been other somewhat insipid (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insipid) jokes”. Now they all are a worthy discussion/debate to have.
Hopefully the discussion will be here on Censored & Un-Censored.
Maybe the whole concept of any persona per-se being the “Butt” of any [I]joke could be considered as “hate speech”. That would be a subjectively decided decision on what the limitations are for the community and board moderator/s I suppose.
There is a difference between a derogatory statement and out-right hate speech.
The “jokes” that Star Man posted in my mind are more derogatory than hate; and they were not focused on any specifically named individual. But I can and do get the point that they were focused on a large and ever present sector of the population. So in that sense the jokes were for many “in poor taste”. But just what is “inappropriate” for “Censored & Un-Censored” anyway?
do they speak more about women or men? They speak volumes about attitudes that some men hang on to.
There are stereotypes (BTW, I am not saying all men or all women have this "attitude") of both men’s and women’s (attitudes) in some way that reflect the persona’s of the Rodney Dangerfield’s for men and the Roseanne’s for women (other “comedians” may be a better example but I don’t have any at this moment) that are derogatory in one way or another as a shtick (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shtick).
In some weird way some of the jokes were (to me) “funny” just (only/mostly) because of the predictable reactions (some imagined & some not) that the subject/s of a particular joke would have if they caught their spouse telling it... ...LOL!... ...”If I were a fly on the wall!... ...LOL!... ...What a story I would have!... ...I wonder who cussed the most; the “joke” teller or the spouse!?... ...LOL!... ...Anyway, it is a 2 way street isn’t it?
Don’t kid yourself; women do tell equally as derogatory jokes as the ones that Star Man posted about men too... ...And I may just have the same reaction I did with “derogatory jokes” about men as I did with some of the ones that Star Man posted about woman.
Maybe Star Man would have been the wiser to have posted an equally derogatory set of jokes about men in that first post:thinking:.
I know there is always someone that will be offended in some way or otherwise feel motivated for some reason or another and complain about it.:Yinyangv: Isn't that part of what the discussion board is supposed to be about anyway; having discussions with people having different perspectives?
Star Man
02-22-2011, 10:57 AM
As the original poster of the jokes in question, I am fascinated by the variety of responses. I am an emotionally sensitive person, and I felt hurt by being accused of hate speech. I also felt hurt by being called "chiken (sic) shit." Barry backchanneled me to say he was surprised I posted the jokes. After that I posted a comment that the jokes were tasteless to me personally and that I do not agree with the sentiments. I thought I'd put a stop to the dissension by taking down the jokes. I felt confused and annoyed when Barry put them back up. Confused, because if he was "surprised" I posted them in the first place and knew that at least one Wacco reader characterized them as "hate speech," what would have motivated him to repost them? Annoyed, because I was trying to defuse the situation and now find that it is started up all over again and now I'm called "chiken (sic) shit."
I think the purpose of humor is to provide some detachment from our human condition so we can see it better. I am personally offended by jokes about gays, lesbians, blacks, muslims, etc. I also can laugh at these jokes, because I can see my own and others' humanity in them. As a species we have many character defects. Through laughing at them (as opposed to laughing with them), we come to see ourselves better.
As the original poster, I felt censored, and as a result I decided not to post a hilarious set of photos from TV under the heading "Why God sends rain to Mexico and not to the Middle East." I felt certain SOMEONE would feel that was hate speech or that I was "chiken (sic) shit" for anonymously forwarding them.
My take-home lesson from all of this relates to seeing our human condition all the better. As several people have noted, someone will always be offended by any joke. I do not have a stash of jokes, and so I did not have any tasteless jokes about men to post as a a bookend to the jokes about women. If you want to see tasteless jokes about men in animation form, I suggest you look at Sunday's "The Simpsons" where Homer opens a bottle of beer with his butt cheeks and then drinks the beer through his rectum (I will not use the word "asshole" because somebody might be offended.
Barry
02-22-2011, 01:56 PM
...I felt confused and annoyed when Barry put them back up. Confused, because if he was "surprised" I posted them in the first place and knew that at least one Wacco reader characterized them as "hate speech," what would have motivated him to repost them? Annoyed, because I was trying to defuse the situation and now find that it is started up all over again and now I'm called "chiken (sic) shit."
I restored the "jokes" because they are now the subject of this discussion.
Star Man
02-22-2011, 02:24 PM
And I took the "jokes" off because I wanted to terminate the discussion. Oh, Well! It's ultimately your Discussion Group and you get to moderate it as you see fit.
podfish
02-22-2011, 02:39 PM
And I took the "jokes" off because I wanted to terminate the discussion.. sayeth Pandora. This is the interweb. Once it's out there.....
As the original poster of the jokes in question, I am fascinated by the variety of responses. I am an emotionally sensitive person, and I felt hurt by being accused of hate speech. I also felt hurt by being called "chiken (sic) shit." Judging by the title of the original post, I thought you knew that there would/could be a mixed set of responses, particularly some of the women that would feel put-down and express hurt feelings.
You may want to consider that when saying anything to anyone that conditionally “warns” to a “targeted” group that the contents has what may be focused on them that psychologically, members of that group will be curious and sometimes more likely to go there than if otherwise stated without the “warning”.
I thought I'd put a stop to the dissension by taking down the jokes. The horse was already out of the barn on this one. Oh well, that’s the internet.
I felt confused and annoyed when Barry put them back up. I think you may have unintentionally sparked a valuable discussion here.
...I felt Confused, because if he was "surprised" I posted them in the first place and knew that at least one Wacco reader characterized them as "hate speech," what would have motivated him to repost them? only Barry can answer that.
One does not speak for all. There are different viewpoints on what “hate speech” is and what is not actually “hate speech”.
Annoyed, because I was trying to defuse the situation and now find that it is started up all over again and now I'm called "chiken (sic) shit." :sorry:Sorry Star Man, I only meant that removing the post was C/S. I meant in no way to call you personally that... :sorry:...Please accept my apology for hurting your feelings.
I did not mean that as a personal attack on you.:sorry:
I think the purpose of humor is to provide some detachment from our human condition so we can see it better. As do I.
I am personally offended by jokes about gays, lesbians, blacks, muslims, etc. I also can laugh at these jokes, because I can see my own and others' humanity in them. As a species we have many character defects. Through laughing at them (as opposed to laughing with them), we come to see ourselves better. Yes I think as long as the jokes are within the societal group's tolerance level, that could assist us to get out of our stereotypical, one-way, obsolete, thinking, habits.
As the original poster, I felt censored, and as a result I decided not to post a hilarious set of photos from TV under the heading "Why God sends rain to Mexico and not to the Middle East." I felt certain SOMEONE would feel that was hate speech or that I was "chiken (sic) shit" for anonymously forwarding them. I did not know that someone could “anonymously” forward anything here.
When someone implies brevity about something that they themselves have done, knowing that it is/or-may-be “offensive" to someone or group, then; when they try to sweep it under the rug; that also has reactions.
If you did not realize it before, I am sure that you realize that now.
The internet is more permanent than we may believe or would like it to be.
...rectum (I will not use the word "asshole" because somebody might be offended. That's a good one!:rofl:
I hope you won't remove or edit your posting because it actually has the word ""asshole" in it.Big Smile
Dixon
02-24-2011, 10:25 PM
This is not the first time people on Wacco have taken offense at jokes. It appears to me that, in most cases, such people are unclear on the concept of a joke. Allow me to make a few points:
1. Making jokes that play on common stereotypes does NOT imply that the joker holds or endorses those stereotypes, any more than writing a murder mystery constitutes an endorsement of murder. People who don't get this basic fact are unclear on the very concept of a joke.
2. Anyway, most stereotypes have some basis in fact, so endorsing stereotypes may not in all cases be a sin anyway.
3. "Hate speech" is defined as "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group." But there is no reason to believe that whoever tells these jokes that play on stereotypes is asserting them as true descriptions of people, or intending them as attacks on people. So calling such jokes "hate speech" is an insulting attack on the joker based on a needlessly negative assumption about his attitudes and intentions--assumptions that are NOT really implied by the simple fact of his having told the jokes.
4. We may or may not like the jokes, but, to paraphrase a cliche: No one was harmed in the telling of these jokes.
5. Sometimes jokes seem mean-spirited to me. Instead of just playing on stereotypes, some jokes seem not to be funny except to those who are racist, sexist, etc. Some of the jokes that started this thread may arguably fall into that category. But even if we assume "hate speech", should we censor it? Do hate or bigotries go away if we censor expressions of them? Of course not; I suspect they get even stronger due to resentment at being censored and a self-righteous "forbidden fruit" mystique. If we allow and even encourage "hate speech" we then know more clearly where everybody stands, who the haters are, instead of it being covert, and we have the opportunity to engage them in discussion of the issues, and even to find out if some of what they say is right (remember, nearly everyone is considered a "hater" by someone). Free expression, including "hate speech", is more likely to bring progress than is repression of certain ideas so that they fester in darkness. Progress comes from more communication, not less.
6. Those who can't read some "politically incorrect" jokes without becoming upset should save themselves some needless and pointless distress by staying well away from anything labeled "Censored and Uncensored""--duh! If you choose to run around in the pasture, you don't get to complain when you step in shit.
Here are 2 of my favorite jokes that play on gender stereotypes:
Q: Why did God create women?
A: Because sheep can't type.
Q: How many men does it take to put down a toilet seat?
A: Nobody knows. It's never been done.
podfish
02-25-2011, 07:10 AM
3. ....there is no reason to believe that whoever tells these jokes ... is asserting them as true descriptions of people
4. We may or may not like the jokes, but, to paraphrase a cliche: No one was harmed in the telling of these jokes.
I can play both sides of this one. It's not at all hard for me to understand why people are offended or disgusted by this kind of joke, and don't see any humor in them at all. That's one reason I shy away from trying to analyze it - I suspect that, similar to game play, there's something about the mental processes triggered that cause a jolt of chemical action interpreted as a reward to some of us. Weird analogy: I find Miles Davis' music full of dissonant and unexpected notes that make me laugh. But the deep psychology involved here isn't really all that interesting to me. At least on the surface level, this category of jokes highlights differences of power, dehumanizes some people, or attempts to portray them badly. So sure, I can see why it's offensive. Obviously some people mean them on that level, too. Still, they're funny....