|
|
Post by Deep Space on Feb 7, 2022 13:37:07 GMT
Public opinion is important but it's part of a wider picture. As I've said many times, it's a bit like 2 wolves & a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There still has to be some, appropriate, protection for those who might unreasonably fall foul of public opinion.
It's not well-known but after Jews, the race (as defined by the Nazis) that suffered most during the Holocausty was Roma & some associated traveller groups...universally referred to by Hitler as Gypsies. In 1933, Germany passed a law, known as 'A Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases', which expressly ruled that all Gypsies had to be sterilised. Over time, they were moved to special camps & ultimately concentration camps. It has been described as a 'hidden holocaust'. The Nazis had Final Solution documents for gypsies which closely mirrored that for Jews.
So, if were Roma I'd not be putting my faith in a show of hands to decide if it was reasonable to take the piss out of the (estimated) 1 million of my people who were murdered.
But he isn't taking the piss out of them. The 'joke' is in the outrageous comment..the fact you are saying something so blatantly offensive. Its the shock factor.. thats the joke. Its what Jimmy Carr does. Its his act, same as Frankie Boyle, so anyone who chooses to watch a Jimmy Carr or Boyle gig must know that it will involve a lot of that type of humour. If youre going to be offended by it, then you'd be a fool to watch Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle. Thats the protection on offer.. you have a choice not to watch them. We used to have laws based on blasphemy.. where a person could find themselves in all kinds trouble ( literally burned at the stake ) for saying things that were deemed 'offensive' and outrageous. We seem to be heading back to a similar level of intolerance. I think we probably share some middle ground here in that I absolutely believe that we should push boundaries of free speech wherever possible. And to be clear, I aren't directly or indirectly offended by what he said. I just believe that there has to be boundaries in society if we want to live in a society where there are broad, underlying levels of respect. To me, cracking jokes in the traditional way (say about women drivers) isn't really bad taste. You know that it isn't really true but like a lot of good jokes, there's a kind of underlying truth at times that can make it funny. I certainly wouln't be calling for career-ending boycotts because someone made a joke about women drivers. I've seen a few Jimmy Carr videos & if people want to be paid to be abused by a pompous twat like him, then good for them. Most of what I've seen has been carefully crafted in fact to get close to my own personal view of what amounts to bad taste without necessarily crossing it. I wouldn't pay to see it myself, but I can see the funny side of it.
Extreme free speech is actually harmful to society as it permits a framework whereby a majority group can be as abusive as they like to any minority group they choose. Or for that matter, vice versa. Hence we have laws on decency, libel, slander, etc. And on this occasion, I just think he's gone a step too far. I don't want him 'cancelled' nor do I agree with a witch-burning approach, but nonetheless he ought to realise that sometimes, some things are best not said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilsonwilson on Feb 7, 2022 14:15:12 GMT
"Sexism is fine, but if you dare to crack a joke about a group famed for being thieving scum, who don't pay taxes, leech off society and create a mobile crime wave and litter dump wherever they go, then you're an unfunny, pompous twat..." Left wing politics to a tee.  |
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Feb 7, 2022 14:59:33 GMT
But he isn't taking the piss out of them. The 'joke' is in the outrageous comment..the fact you are saying something so blatantly offensive. Its the shock factor.. thats the joke. Its what Jimmy Carr does. Its his act, same as Frankie Boyle, so anyone who chooses to watch a Jimmy Carr or Boyle gig must know that it will involve a lot of that type of humour. If youre going to be offended by it, then you'd be a fool to watch Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle. Thats the protection on offer.. you have a choice not to watch them. We used to have laws based on blasphemy.. where a person could find themselves in all kinds trouble ( literally burned at the stake ) for saying things that were deemed 'offensive' and outrageous. We seem to be heading back to a similar level of intolerance. I think we probably share some middle ground here in that I absolutely believe that we should push boundaries of free speech wherever possible. And to be clear, I aren't directly or indirectly offended by what he said. I just believe that there has to be boundaries in society if we want to live in a society where there are broad, underlying levels of respect. To me, cracking jokes in the traditional way (say about women drivers) isn't really bad taste. You know that it isn't really true but like a lot of good jokes, there's a kind of underlying truth at times that can make it funny. I certainly wouln't be calling for career-ending boycotts because someone made a joke about women drivers. I've seen a few Jimmy Carr videos & if people want to be paid to be abused by a pompous twat like him, then good for them. Most of what I've seen has been carefully crafted in fact to get close to my own personal view of what amounts to bad taste without necessarily crossing it. I wouldn't pay to see it myself, but I can see the funny side of it.
Extreme free speech is actually harmful to society as it permits a framework whereby a majority group can be as abusive as they like to any minority group they choose. Or for that matter, vice versa. Hence we have laws on decency, libel, slander, etc. And on this occasion, I just think he's gone a step too far. I don't want him 'cancelled' nor do I agree with a witch-burning approach, but nonetheless he ought to realise that sometimes, some things are best not said.
Extreme free speech has to be put into context though doesnt it. So for example, here we have a comedian, known for saying outrageous things, making a joke about Romani deaths at the hands of the nazis being a positive. The clear and obvious thing here is that he obviously doesnt actually think that.. and neither do any of the audience who are laughing.. the humour, if there is any, is in the obscenity and outrageousness of the comment. That is a very different scenario to , for example, a political speaker saying the exact same thing, but this time as something he does actually think,, and to an audience he is attempting to get to think the same. Where this censorship and cancelling is wrong , is that it doesnt seem capable of differentiating between the two. Of seeing the obvious difference in intent and context. It just sees 'hate speech'. Surely we are more advanced than that? We can see what Jimmy Carr says for what it is and how it was meant, just as we can the political speaker saying the same thing? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 15:51:37 GMT
Back at the end of WW2, who could have foreseen that, in just over two generations, the UK would end up with the largest Roma population in W Europe. Or that virtually all of Ireland's Travellers would have travelled to England......
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilsonwilson on Feb 7, 2022 16:04:05 GMT
Back at the end of WW2, who could have foreseen that, in just over two generations, the UK would end up with the largest Roma population in W Europe. Or that virtually all of Ireland's Travellers would have travelled to England...... I should imagine that it's basically that the EU allowed them to travel here unhindered and claim benefits, which they could then apply to retain on leaving the EU. Also isn't part of the reason that trespass is a criminal offence in Ireland, but only civil in England? Most of them have houses in Ireland but prefer to steal off the English during the summer mobile thieving raids. |
|
|
|
Post by chedtippington on Feb 7, 2022 16:23:39 GMT
Back at the end of WW2, who could have foreseen that, in just over two generations, the UK would end up with the largest Roma population in W Europe. Or that virtually all of Ireland's Travellers would have travelled to England...... I should imagine that it's basically that the EU allowed them to travel here unhindered and claim benefits, which they could then apply to retain on leaving the EU. Also isn't part of the reason that trespass is a criminal offence in Ireland, but only civil in England? Most of them have houses in Ireland but prefer to steal off the English during the summer mobile thieving raids. Do you have evidence for that ? |
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Feb 7, 2022 17:19:11 GMT
I think the Romani gypsy community would be somewhat pissed off to be lumped in with todays travellers like theyre the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 19:27:25 GMT
It seems a bit ironic that, in view of this population of gypsies, we have farmers crying out for more (temporary) EU immigrants to help pick crops.....just the kind of work which was traditionally carried out by itinerant gypsies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 19:41:01 GMT
I should imagine that it's basically that the EU allowed them to travel here unhindered and claim benefits, which they could then apply to retain on leaving the EU. Also isn't part of the reason that trespass is a criminal offence in Ireland, but only civil in England? Most of them have houses in Ireland but prefer to steal off the English during the summer mobile thieving raids. The Irish government did make life difficult for the travelling ones, no doubt in the hope that they'd decamp overseas....which many did (here). But as you note, a lot own property in Ireland. Rathkeale is apparently their 'spiritual home'....some 80%+ of the properties there are owned by Travellers, and many of them are quite ostentatious. A lot of our Travellers apparently return there every year....then come back here. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Feb 7, 2022 20:50:46 GMT
"I like them, and I'm afraid of them."
"There's a thin line between racism and having the craic..."
|
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Feb 7, 2022 21:54:33 GMT
With the calls for Netflix to pull his show, if you haven't watched it yet & want to, you should probably get on it pretty quickly.
IMO the reason it's funny is because the butt of the joke is the audience. It holds a mirror up to their own prejudice. You feel uncomfortable because you've been shown that your certainty about your moral superiority over the citizens of Germany in the 1930s has been questioned.
Humour is subjective. I found it funny, others don't. I find John Bishop's "comedy" intolerable.... so I don't watch his stuff. Simple. Perhaps those who seek to cancel comedians they're not keen on might reflect on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Feb 8, 2022 0:06:15 GMT
With the calls for Netflix to pull his show, if you haven't watched it yet & want to, you should probably get on it pretty quickly. IMO the reason it's funny is because the butt of the joke is the audience. It holds a mirror up to their own prejudice. You feel uncomfortable because you've been shown that your certainty about your moral superiority over the citizens of Germany in the 1930s has been questioned.
Humour is subjective. I found it funny, others don't. I find John Bishop's "comedy" intolerable.... so I don't watch his stuff. Simple. Perhaps those who seek to cancel comedians they're not keen on might reflect on that. Think thats absolutely bang on. In this instance, id feel pretty confident saying the vast majority of people can't stand gypsies...or travellers as they really are and we know them. And with good reason IMO. Theyre parasites who seem to operate above the law, they thieve, intimidate and move about the country trespassing and leaving an enormous mess wherever they go that the local council tax payers have to pay to have cleaned up. theyre a scourge that people are understandably sick of. So a joke about them dying en mass is outrageous.. but at the same time it picks out that prejudice and hatred most people have. The laugh it receives is tinged with a bit of guilt and self-awareness maybe? The audience are being encouraged to laugh at themselves, as you say. All that flies way over the heads of those that simply squeal 'hate crime' and demand he be cancelled. |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Feb 8, 2022 8:06:58 GMT
Extreme free speech has to be put into context though doesnt it. So for example, here we have a comedian, known for saying outrageous things, making a joke about Romani deaths at the hands of the nazis being a positive. The clear and obvious thing here is that he obviously doesnt actually think that.. and neither do any of the audience who are laughing.. the humour, if there is any, is in the obscenity and outrageousness of the comment. That is a very different scenario to , for example, a political speaker saying the exact same thing, but this time as something he does actually think,, and to an audience he is attempting to get to think the same. Where this censorship and cancelling is wrong , is that it doesnt seem capable of differentiating between the two. Of seeing the obvious difference in intent and context. It just sees 'hate speech'. Surely we are more advanced than that? We can see what Jimmy Carr says for what it is and how it was meant, just as we can the political speaker saying the same thing? I certainly agree that we should give comedians more of a licence to kill than politicians for obvious reasons, but do you think that, let's call it extreme free speech, should be legitimised in some or any contexts? Does being on stage give you a free pass about all issues anytime or do you have your personal boundaries that you think shouldn't be crossed? |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Feb 8, 2022 10:53:05 GMT
Extreme free speech has to be put into context though doesnt it. So for example, here we have a comedian, known for saying outrageous things, making a joke about Romani deaths at the hands of the nazis being a positive. The clear and obvious thing here is that he obviously doesnt actually think that.. and neither do any of the audience who are laughing.. the humour, if there is any, is in the obscenity and outrageousness of the comment. That is a very different scenario to , for example, a political speaker saying the exact same thing, but this time as something he does actually think,, and to an audience he is attempting to get to think the same. Where this censorship and cancelling is wrong , is that it doesnt seem capable of differentiating between the two. Of seeing the obvious difference in intent and context. It just sees 'hate speech'. Surely we are more advanced than that? We can see what Jimmy Carr says for what it is and how it was meant, just as we can the political speaker saying the same thing? I certainly agree that we should give comedians more of a licence to kill than politicians for obvious reasons, but do you think that, let's call it extreme free speech, should be legitimised in some or any contexts? Does being on stage give you a free pass about all issues anytime or do you have your personal boundaries that you think shouldn't be crossed? I think a lot of the big names like Carr thought they were immune from cancel culture. Perhaps they now regret not speaking out sooner when Mark Meechan of Nazi pug fame was dragged through the courts. Ricki Gervais was one of the few who did. The Woke mob are now emboldened and hungry for new targets. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Feb 8, 2022 19:31:42 GMT
With the calls for Netflix to pull his show, if you haven't watched it yet & want to, you should probably get on it pretty quickly. IMO the reason it's funny is because the butt of the joke is the audience. It holds a mirror up to their own prejudice. You feel uncomfortable because you've been shown that your certainty about your moral superiority over the citizens of Germany in the 1930s has been questioned.
Humour is subjective. I found it funny, others don't. I find John Bishop's "comedy" intolerable.... so I don't watch his stuff. Simple. Perhaps those who seek to cancel comedians they're not keen on might reflect on that. Think thats absolutely bang on. In this instance, id feel pretty confident saying the vast majority of people can't stand gypsies...or travellers as they really are and we know them. And with good reason IMO. Theyre parasites who seem to operate above the law, they thieve, intimidate and move about the country trespassing and leaving an enormous mess wherever they go that the local council tax payers have to pay to have cleaned up. theyre a scourge that people are understandably sick of. So a joke about them dying en mass is outrageous.. but at the same time it picks out that prejudice and hatred most people have. The laugh it receives is tinged with a bit of guilt and self-awareness maybe? The audience are being encouraged to laugh at themselves, as you say. All that flies way over the heads of those that simply squeal 'hate crime' and demand he be cancelled. Just as an aside, we had travellers stopping at the park across the road from my house last year. TBF to them they never bothered anyone as far as I know. As somebody with 5 dogs I don't mind admitting that I was concerned that they would cause problems for me but they never even tried to intimidate me. Not once. They left far less litter than the locals do as well! Nonetheless, they were evicted & bollards put up to ensure they didn't return. I must admit I had a fair bit of sympathy for them. They've been let down by the behaviour of other sections of the travelling community, and let down badly (in the ways that you describe). Either way, whatever your views about them - I think it's good that those uncomfortable questions are asked and humour is an effective way to do it. This should have been an invitation for people to self-reflect & explore their own prejudices & have those uncomfortable - but useful - discussions. Instead, nope. No effort made to improve. I think the knives being out for Jimmy Carr had a lot less to do with sympathy for gypsies, and a lot more about making a lot of virtue signallers feel uncomfortable. Jimmy Carr did a good thing. |
|
