Jimmy Carr and that joke

[Lambert09]

if a mate makes a joke about you being killed, are you that offended? Cmon man, he doesnt actually mean what he says. Crazy that people are so shocked by this. 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Unless they decide to hound and harass and protest outside Netflix offices of course... Wait, isn't that exactly what *some* have been doing? 

That's not power. That's just annoyance, especially when it could be stopped by simply getting the fuzz involved.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as people want to sell the idea of the big bad "cancellers" out to wreck lives and livelihoods and having the power to do so, I'm not buying. Unless their viewpoint becomes mainstream enough (if it isn't already) to apply sufficient market pressure to actually have a really tangible effect...which may be wrong in the eyes of many (and I can't say I like it either), but it wouldn't be undemocratic.

[Innovindil]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's not power. That's just annoyance, especially when it could be stopped by simply getting the fuzz involved.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as people want to sell the idea of the big bad "cancellers" out to wreck lives and livelihoods and having the power to do so, I'm not buying. Unless their viewpoint becomes mainstream enough (if it isn't already) to apply sufficient market pressure to actually have a really tangible effect...which may be wrong in the eyes of many (and I can't say I like it either), but it wouldn't be undemocratic.

Who the hell is saying it would be undemocratic? That's twice you've mentioned it when no one is saying it. 

 

It's just shit. Sorry if you disagree but it's just complete nonsense victim mentality from a group of people so desperate for something to cling to they'll hop on board practically anything. And imo, it's the wrong mentality long term because when something does pop up that actually needs attention, it can just fade into the rest of the white noise being muttered about every trivial thing. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Who the hell is saying it would be undemocratic? That's twice you've mentioned it when no one is saying it. 

 

It's just shit. Sorry if you disagree but it's just complete nonsense victim mentality from a group of people so desperate for something to cling to they'll hop on board practically anything. And imo, it's the wrong mentality long term because when something does pop up that actually needs attention, it can just fade into the rest of the white noise being muttered about every trivial thing. 

Well, the opinion that it is a "minority" viewpoint yet exerts disproportionate societal pressure carries the implication that it is undemocratic IMO, but of course that's open to interpretation.

 

I can't say that the point of view in the second paragraph here is invalid - clearly a lot of people think similarly. However, yeah, I don't agree, and as much as the last sentence is empirically true and it's a damn good point, at the end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf I blame the villagers as much as the boy for any bad consequences.

 

To rewind a bit, my original response on this was to someone asking the question "does anyone else hate cancel culture?" I wanted to call that response out because to my mind what we're seeing now is the Internet allowing people who didn't previously have much power at all a greater say, and some people clearly feel threatened by that (sometimes with good reason, see above) and want to see it not happen. If that is "cancel culture", then so be it - I can't say that I agree with it wholesale either, but in the interest of personal freedom I'd still broadly rather have these folks be able to make a noise that not, as they haven't been able to for a very long time.

 

I guess perhaps our division here might lie in where we think the power lies in this particular debate, because that will clearly affect who is a "victim" and who isn't. There's also a rather thorny balance between freedom of expression on both sides too, which also is affected by how much power each side has.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Didn't jk Rowling say only people with wombs can have kids and now has been totally shunned? No one dares to agree with a biological fact because they're worried it'll ruin their careers. That's cancel culture. It's bonkers. 

[Captain...]

49 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Didn't jk Rowling say only people with wombs can have kids and now has been totally shunned? No one dares to agree with a biological fact because they're worried it'll ruin their careers. That's cancel culture. It's bonkers. 

She said a lot more than that, and has been shunned by certain people, but the Harry Potter franchise is still growing and making her millions so she's probably ok.

[ealingfox]

51 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Didn't jk Rowling say only people with wombs can have kids and now has been totally shunned? No one dares to agree with a biological fact because they're worried it'll ruin their careers. That's cancel culture. It's bonkers. 

 

Well even leaving ones beliefs on trans aside isn't that still an incredibly dumb and vicious comment which would exclude all adopters?

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

She was talking scientifically as far as I'm aware. Only know the cliffnotes of the whole sorry saga. 

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

She was talking scientifically as far as I'm aware. Only know the cliffnotes of the whole sorry saga. 

Her exact comment, I believe, on this matter was pretty much "people who menstruate are women", replying to a headline regarding "Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate".

 

This is not only exclusionary of trans folks, but also scientifically inaccurate in pretty much every definition - because even someone isn't prepared to entertain gender science it leaves out women who have had hysterectomies and older women too. So if she wanted to talk scientifically she might perhaps have wanted to stop and think about it for a moment.

 

She also expressed consternation at the sacking of a lady who took issue with a trans person at her workplace and was dismissed for discrimination, IIRC. And I'll repeat what I said at the time as it still holds true now:

 

"Rowling and others are using the considerable platform they have to denigrate and further marginalise an already massively marginalised community that suffers from discrimination and often outright violence (hell, the "gay panic" defence is still a way to actually get away with murdering a trans person in some parts of the US) and if someone think their copping flak for that (though no one deserves death threats) is a bigger problem than what that community has to go through then it's safe to say we have pretty different priorities about which people need helping."

 

Anti-trans prejudice seems to be one of the few remaining fashionable prejudices in the UK.

Edited 10 February 2022 by leicsmac

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

I took her to mean only women can menstrate, as in men and people who have transitioned to women biologically can't? If that's not what she meant then fair enough but that's what I took it to mean. 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

I took her to mean only women can menstrate, as in men and people who have transitioned to women biologically can't? If that's not what she meant then fair enough but that's what I took it to mean. 

As a writer well accustomed to the power of words, perhaps she should have been more thoughtful in terms of her wording.

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As a writer well accustomed to the power of words, perhaps she should have been more thoughtful in terms of her wording.

As regular consumers of words and opinions, maybe we should all lighten up a bit and not allow words to hold such power.

[LiberalFox]

I think there's a difference between someone telling offensive jokes as part of a routine and someone just sharing the opinions publicly. I've never found Jimmy Carr particularly funny but some people do. 

[Zear0]

He feels like the last standing relic of the shock humour that was popular during what I can best describe as the "Frankie Boyle Mock the Week" era. Given that's his style, all he has to stay relevant is to edge it up a bit. Unfortunately for him, the market for people who enjoy that sort of humour is diminishing which accelerates his decline into comedic irrelevance. Comedy has moved on, but not sure he has. All comics will have a core following, but when you lose the demographic who follow the current trend, you're left in a bubble with people of an increasingly isolated sense of humour. 

 

Reading this thread, I've not seen any "cancel culture" calls. I just think people find what he said unfunny. Definitely don't think he should be censored, but those jokes are no different to someone making a joke at the expense of a dead parent/child (which he did to Pete Davidson incidentally). The joke isn't somehow less offensive when made at the expense of a group rather than the individual. He's just today's Manning/Chubby Brown in my eyes. Had his moment when that style was in and stuck with it and got left behind when society moved forward. I actually find him very sharp, witty and intelligent and hope he can move on from these jokes but I doubt it. 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Strokes said:

As regular consumers of words and opinions, maybe we should all lighten up a bit and not allow words to hold such power.

I actually agree with you.

 

Unfortunately people who set laws and craft policy around the world do not, and they use words as a means to control and belittle those people they consider "lesser". To them, words hold power, and as they have power in the first place, their point of view means more. Even leaving what those powerful people out of such fields - like Ms Rowling - say, that remains true.

 

I'd like to see that change (well, the controlling and belittling anyway) so the power of words is lessened, but I've no idea how.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I actually agree with you.

 

Unfortunately people who set laws and craft policy around the world do not, and they use words as a means to control and belittle those people they consider "lesser". To them, words hold power, and as they have power in the first place, their point of view means more. Even leaving what those powerful people out of such fields - like Ms Rowling - say, that remains true.

 

I'd like to see that change (well, the controlling and belittling anyway) so the power of words is lessened, but I've no idea how.

We can only control our own domain I guess, but I try not to take much seriously. It may or may not come across on my persona here. 

Edited 11 February 2022 by Strokes

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We can only control our own domain I guess, but I try not to take much seriously. It may or may not come across on my persona here. 

I sometimes wish I could adopt that mindset more too, but I just don't think I have it in me.

 

Gift and curse at the same time.

[The Horse's Mouth]

I can't believe people are defending the outrage, and I bet it's the exact same people who complain about the quality of entertainment in the modern age. If this kind of joke is getting flack, then entertainment is just done full stop. Enjoy your centrist corporatist bollocks that has absolutely plagued modern media and will continue to.

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

I'm sorry but if you think JK Rowling is a problem you are a ****ing idiot. likewise if you think Adele saying she loves being a woman and is proud of female artists is a problem.  Incredible women we should be proud to say are British and represent our country and women brilliantly.

[bovril]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm sorry but if you think JK Rowling is a problem you are a ****ing idiot. 

She foisted Harry Potter on the world. 

[SpacedX]

7 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I can't believe people are defending the outrage,

Irony being that that's precisely what is was designed to create. 

 

Who precisely is defending the "outrage"? - must have missed that. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm not wading into this debate other than to say that I got to see the comedy I need live and in the flesh last night, which was Stewart Lee spending what felt like ten minute, or perhaps longer, doing an impression of Ricky Gervais saying the unsayable