The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: on Tuesday
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Andrew Jun 13.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Andrew May 8.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 19.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Sep 29, 2016.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Sep 28, 2016.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Aug 27, 2016.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 20, 2016.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 22, 2016.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Apr 9, 2016.
Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Mar 30, 2016.
I get that it was a holocaust joke. I'm not trying to show that it was funny. Other people's reaction whether light or serious doesn't change the facts or improve their position. There are lots of very serious priests and lots of very humorous oncologists.
I'm sure that a muslim feels very justified in their real offence; it would be wrong though to think that you or I have a monopoly on what 'justifies' offence; people can choose to take offence at whatever they like. Holocaust 'humour' is tasteless, I agree, and the extermination of people, whether wasteful or not is clearly horrific. However the point is that why should people care that something offends you? You haven't actually been damaged by it, have you? Presumably you can tell the difference between killing people and joking about it can't you?
I'm certainly not telling holocaust jokes and the only thing I'm taking lightly is vicarious offence; I think it's as ridiculous as vicarious responsibility.
My worry would be that some idiot brings in laws to avoid offence, like the old blasphemy laws we had here.
Hi Sentient, I didn't actually see what caused such offence, but you've hit the nail on the head. When Muslims see pictures of Mo, they don't like it because it 'trivializes' what's going on in their heads and they expect us to all treat the same things the same. This is a similar hair trigger thing I think.
It's the people who take vicarious offence; on behalf of others, who expect the same treatment as those actually affected that are trivializing them. It's like John Prescott (a Labour Peer) getting all offended that his work phone was hacked expecting the same level of sympathy that Milly Dowler's (Murdered school girl whose phone was hacked) family received. It smacks of not being able to tell the difference and expecting to be indulged.
I think that a lot of the offendees claiming to be offended to the point where they think people are interested, often have no more been affected by the subject of the 'joke' than the teller. It might be horrifically bad taste to draw pictures of prophets or whatever, but I'm not sure one can even equate the trivialized memories of an 'offended' 30 year old with the actual suffering of those who went through actual horror. If we gayers pandered to the 'offence' taken by others or took serious offence at all the slights against us, maybe we'd be called Dours!
Although maybe I was out when we all agreed on the list of things we're not allowed to joke about.
But then I worry that (apparently) a lack of empathy is a sign of a sociopath...
Humor is subjective, but I often enjoy racist, sexist etc humor. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm none of those things. I'm laughing at a stereotype. I am also smart enough, not to tell these types of jokes around people who do not know me well. I do not want them to think that I believe in the premise of the joke or that I want to spread hate.
In my view, the recent controversy over Tracey Morgan's comments, saying that he would stab his son if he was gay, just wasn't funny, at least to me. He could have portrayed himself as a homophobe and I could find humor in that, but the violence turned me off. I guess we all have our limits.
Here is an example of a joke that left me laughing and uncomfortable, at the same time. Many times, we deal with tragic situations with humor, but it in no way trivializes the severity of the situation or the need for society to take positive actions to make life better for all.
"A child molester and a little girl were walking into the woods at dusk. The little girl looked up at the child molester and stated that she was scared. The child molseter commented, "How do you think I feel, I have to walk back alone in the dark."
Maybe the difference between this and Tracey Morgan, is that although the actions of the child molester are shocking, they are not out of the ordinary for the character. The humor lies in the fact that we switch our attention away from the violence and onto the unexpected emotion of the molester.
The actions of Tracey Morgan, as a homophobic dad, were not in line with the situation. It could have been funny if he said something such as, he was going to force his son to read muscle magazines until he became straight, as an example.
But again, I guess it is all subjective. It helps to know the mindset and intent of the person telling or posting the jokes.
I taught handicapped kids for years and I love handicap jokes. But let someone make fun of one of my kids while we were out in public, and I would want to tear them a new one.
I've just seen a post from some woman on here where she was having a go at another member for telling an 'offensive' joke on the Atheist humour page. This sort of thing is so irritating and depressing. As Stephen Fry asked, so fucking what if you find something offensive? Who cares? Being offended isn't some horrific injury or reasonable position, it's just whinging isn't it? Just a whine.
It's an emotional response to someone when you feel some line in your head has been crossed; as though there are some sacred things you're not supposed to joke about, which is often what we have a go at 'Believers' for.
I think it's often just another way for we apes to get one up on each other, as though being more serious about something improves your argument, or makes you look more mature, which is very important apparently.
That's not to say that nothing offends me, just that I'd feel sanctimonious (and now very hypocritical) moaning about it!
Birds, including geese, absolutely mourn their dead mates. They often do pair up with new mates, after a period of time. The bonds are very strong and hunting would certainly destroy the natural order of things, being that there would be a high number of losses, as compared to an occassional loss.
I have had all types of pets throughout my life and I have a mini sanctuary at my home. Gayness runs throughout the animal kingdom, and I am not talking about one animal mounting another animal, because of dominance.
Doesn't it depend on the type of bird though? I have heard that if a goose's mate dies, it will also die in grief. It was in the local paper in an article on wild life management to keep hunters from killing a lot of geese willy nilly.
An interesting note, I had two gay male cats who were very devoted to each other, when one died, the other went totally out of his mind. He was already heading down the path of cat Alzhemier's, but that sent him way over the edge. Cats are not known for their faithfulness, but these two obviously couldn't live without each other.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Update Your Membership :
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2017 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.